[karajorma]

Damnit! I've already swapped at least once. You and Admiral Stones fight it out amongst yourselves and I'll use which ever one the pair of you can decide on.

Well. I think, as said before, capitol punishment should be used as a alternative to people who have to stay in jail for tens of years.

[G0atmaster]

Sheesh, spelling Nazi here.

Going by Christ's own words:

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

  FYI, "Raca" is an Aramaic term of contempt.

Based on that, He's basically saying if you're angry at someone, it's equivocal to murder.  Which means that murder and hatred go hand in hand.

And again, I don't agree with that interpretation. That passage is saying that you will answer and be hel accountable for every sin/crime, big or small. It doesn't say murder and insulting are equal.

How does that leave it open to interpretation?  The same punishment for murder is bestowed upon those that are angry with their neighbors.  Do you not see that there in the text?

  Recently?  Dude, the only places in any church literature or whatever that Purgatory has ever been mentioned, as far as I know, are in one of the Apocryphal books, Maccabees I think, it gets a very small mention, and in the Divine Comedy, neither of which had any standing of being Inspired works.  Ask your priest to show you any Scriptural evidence of Purgatory.  Anyway, if the official Church's stance on Purgatory and the Scriptural pieces regarding it has changed, why bring it up at all?  Unless you believe in it.  To which I'd ask, on what grounds? On what basis?

Is there a Purgatory? I have no clue. I don't belive in it myself, at least not in the context it's normally used.
IIRC, for some time the church claimed that dead babies go to purgatory, but that interpretation has been changed, and by JP II no less. IIRC.

Then why the HECK would you even bring it up?  Why would you use something you don't believe in to try and justify your argument?

That makes one of us.  Sorry if I sound a little heated.  I'm trying my best at staying gently rebuking, but complete and utter misrepresentations of Christianity and Christ by a professing Christian is something that really sets me off.  And I am, in fact, trying to correct that.  And when you say things like treating people nicely on Earth so they will be miserable in the afterlife, and debating with yourself whether or not killing them or letting them live in prison would get them the worst score in the afterlife shows me that you either don't know much about what you claim to believe, or that you aren't truly a follower of Christ.  And if THAT'S the case, I would want to bring that out, because I don't want your words which I mentioned representing my God to the non-Christians of this message board, because they certainly don't.

That's the problem with interpretations. People don't see eye to eye about everything, not even within a small unified group. And I do have quite a ...how should I put it..colorful way of expressing myself. Not to mention that my mind works in mysterious ways
Speaking of which, there are very few persons I would feel comfortable telling people about my religion too. Not purely for the content given, but the delivery also.

IDK, pretty much all eight Christians I've spoken to about sin being equal since this topic started pretty much agree with me. 

Ok, so what about defending your country across foreign borders?  E.G. if they're threatening to attack.

Still murder. Have they attacked you? Are they still in their country? Once they cross the border they are free game - otherwise? No.

You must not forget that soldiers on both sides are led to believe that the other side is "teh evil", that they will shoot on sight and that you MUST shoot them first. And let's not forget the whole "following your orders bit". Given a proper choice, I doubt any one of those soldier would actually want to kill.
That's why I detest war. 

I agree here.

So basically instead of answering the topic and stating what you believe on the subject, you're arguing multiple sides for the sake of continuing the debate?  Do I understand that correctly?

Correct. I like to look at things from various angles. Tends to give you a better picture. If nothing else it's fun, or at least a good mental excercise. There's nothing like trying to defend two completely different viewpoints at the same time 

Kara already took this one.

[neo_hermes]

firing squad...have a few million packs of cigarettes and start at Murder  1 then end when you actually finish.

[Admiral_Stones]

If the United Scroles of Antharkazam (whatever) ultimately want to keep up capitol punishment, they could atleast feature a honorable method of execution.
Like firing squad or cyanide.

[TrashMan]

How does that leave it open to interpretation?  The same punishment for murder is bestowed upon those that are angry with their neighbors.  Do you not see that there in the text?

I'll give an (bad) example.
You can't get into congress if you're found guilty of mass murder. You can't get into congress if you're found guilty on forgery.
Both will get you out of congress. Will you serve the same jail time for both?

The passage states that no one with sin will enter before God. Ergo, God will remove the sins of those that come before him. You steal a candy and die. I murder a baby and die. God removes your sins and you stand before him. God doesn't remove mine and I burn in hell.

Comprende, amigo?

IDK, pretty much all eight Christians I've spoken to about sin being equal since this topic started pretty much agree with me. 

And how many of them were actually priests who studied in Vatican (like my uncle)?

[karajorma]

Ah, the ever familiar appeal to (nebulous) authority. Ask him about whether he agrees with you on whether the Vatican's position on the death penalty is wrong while you're at it.

Since we can't voir dire your witness let's at least see if he's as big an iconoclast as you are before assuming he's any kind of authority worth listening to.

[TrashMan]

My uncle is as good a man you can find these days. He's a priests priest - you don't have many like him these days. In that regard I consider myself lucky.
Heck, the Pope and him are the only two people I feel I can really look up to.

Haven't seen him in the last few months tough. I can ask the local priest (also a very good man) since I'm going tomorrow on Choir rehearsals anyway.

[G0atmaster]

How does that leave it open to interpretation?  The same punishment for murder is bestowed upon those that are angry with their neighbors.  Do you not see that there in the text?

I'll give an (bad) example.
You can't get into congress if you're found guilty of mass murder. You can't get into congress if you're found guilty on forgery.
Both will get you out of congress. Will you serve the same jail time for both?

The passage states that no one with sin will enter before God. Ergo, God will remove the sins of those that come before him. You steal a candy and die. I murder a baby and die. God removes your sins and you stand before him. God doesn't remove mine and I burn in hell.

Comprende, amigo?

I understand.  However, that is absolutely wrong. 

"For whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved."  God removes murder just as much as he removes theft.  Dying immediately after the act has no bearing on this, because God sees all we have done, are doing, and will ever do, and died for us the same.  He forgives past, present and future. 

IDK, pretty much all eight Christians I've spoken to about sin being equal since this topic started pretty much agree with me. 

And how many of them were actually priests who studied in Vatican (like my uncle)?

Why does that matter?  They know the Bible.  In this day and age, we're rather literate.  We can read the Bible for ourselves.  Why do we need a priest to tell us what to believe?

Beyond that, if I remember, the whole point of a priest is to have an intercessor between us and God.  A go-between, if you will.  Why do we even need that anymore if God Himself came directly to US?  The veil that blocked the common people from the Holy of Holies was rent in half when Christ was crucified.  That symbolized that God was now open for business to the public.

My uncle is as good a man you can find these days. He's a priests priest - you don't have many like him these days. In that regard I consider myself lucky.
Heck, the Pope and him are the only two people I feel I can really look up to.

What about Christ Himself?  That's who I look up to and try to emulate..

[TrashMan]

I understand.  However, that is absolutely wrong. 

"For whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved."  God removes murder just as much as he removes theft.  Dying immediately after the act has no bearing on this, because God sees all we have done, are doing, and will ever do, and died for us the same.  He forgives past, present and future. 

And I don't agree. If God removes all sins immediately than what's the purpose of Hell? Who goes there according to you?
Now, do you go to Hell for some crimes, burn there for a while and THEN God removes your sins and you can enter Heaven? I have no clue. No one has.
The working of the afterlife are a mystery and all we have to go on are a couple of lines of text written by humans who can't even grasp the concept.
So don't go all "AAAck! Heretic!" on me just cause I don't interpret a passage the same way as you.
You don't see me jumping on you claiming you aren't Christian cause you don't agree with me, now do you?

Why does that matter?  They know the Bible.  In this day and age, we're rather literate.  We can read the Bible for ourselves.  Why do we need a priest to tell us what to believe?

Beyond that, if I remember, the whole point of a priest is to have an intercessor between us and God.  A go-between, if you will.  Why do we even need that anymore if God Himself came directly to US?  The veil that blocked the common people from the Holy of Holies was rent in half when Christ was crucified.  That symbolized that God was now open for business to the public.

Maybe because priests are learned theologists. Maybe because the Church has studies the Bible and it's interpretations for millenia. Maybe because they are best suited to interpret it.

What about Christ Himself?  That's who I look up to and try to emulate..

Keyword - PEOPLE I look up to. Christ is God (and is also a given rolemodel). I don't compare Him with humans. It's like comparing a abbacus with a planet-sized supercomputer.

[Mefustae]

I don't compare Him with humans. It's like comparing a abbacus with a planet-sized supercomputer.

Exactly, one's a tangible, real thing, and the other is purely the stuff of fiction.

Hey, I work with what you give me.

[TrashMan]

And you do really bad work to boot.

[Turambar]

My uncle is as good a man you can find these days. He's a priests priest - you don't have many like him these days. In that regard I consider myself lucky.
Heck, the Pope and him are the only two people I feel I can really look up to.

its really sad that with the way i see things now, even the best of priests are nothing more than good-natured con men

[Snail]

You an extreme puritan? Where's that Mary biach when ya need 'er?

[TrashMan]

 

[karajorma]

Why does that matter?  They know the Bible.  In this day and age, we're rather literate.  We can read the Bible for ourselves.  Why do we need a priest to tell us what to believe?

Beyond that, if I remember, the whole point of a priest is to have an intercessor between us and God.  A go-between, if you will.  Why do we even need that anymore if God Himself came directly to US?  The veil that blocked the common people from the Holy of Holies was rent in half when Christ was crucified.  That symbolized that God was now open for business to the public.

Maybe because priests are learned theologists. Maybe because the Church has studies the Bible and it's interpretations for millenia. Maybe because they are best suited to interpret it.

Says the man who was earlier insisting that he was right and the Vatican was wrong.

[G0atmaster]

I understand.  However, that is absolutely wrong. 

"For whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved."  God removes murder just as much as he removes theft.  Dying immediately after the act has no bearing on this, because God sees all we have done, are doing, and will ever do, and died for us the same.  He forgives past, present and future. 

And I don't agree. If God removes all sins immediately than what's the purpose of Hell? Who goes there according to you?
Now, do you go to Hell for some crimes, burn there for a while and THEN God removes your sins and you can enter Heaven? I have no clue. No one has.
The working of the afterlife are a mystery and all we have to go on are a couple of lines of text written by humans who can't even grasp the concept.
So don't go all "AAAck! Heretic!" on me just cause I don't interpret a passage the same way as you.
You don't see me jumping on you claiming you aren't Christian cause you don't agree with me, now do you?

Trashman.  That is a verse from the Bible.  It is also an absolute statement.  You cannot NOT agree with it. You cannot interpret it differently.  Romans 10:9-10:  That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Hell is no place intended for men.  Hell is intended for Satan and fallen angels.  man was made to stand in God's presence.  A person going to Hell is the ultimate tragedy imaginable.  Earlier, you yourself said Christ's blood absolved all sin.  Yet here you contradict yourself.  The Bible is as it is right now because God intended it to be that way for this time. 

To answer your question about who goes to Hell:  Any person who sins (everybody on Earth), that doesn't call on the name of the Lord and believe in all that He did.

Why does that matter?  They know the Bible.  In this day and age, we're rather literate.  We can read the Bible for ourselves.  Why do we need a priest to tell us what to believe?

Beyond that, if I remember, the whole point of a priest is to have an intercessor between us and God.  A go-between, if you will.  Why do we even need that anymore if God Himself came directly to US?  The veil that blocked the common people from the Holy of Holies was rent in half when Christ was crucified.  That symbolized that God was now open for business to the public.

Maybe because priests are learned theologists. Maybe because the Church has studies the Bible and it's interpretations for millenia. Maybe because they are best suited to interpret it.

  So are pastors.  And how many extra books has the Catholic Church claimed to be Inspired works that in reality contradict the Bible?  Many.  How often does the Catechism contradict the Bible?  Quite often.  By that alone your point is shattered. 

What about Christ Himself?  That's who I look up to and try to emulate..

Keyword - PEOPLE I look up to. Christ is God (and is also a given rolemodel). I don't compare Him with humans. It's like comparing a abbacus with a planet-sized supercomputer.

Christ was a person.  That's the whole point of God coming to Earth.  Christ is a God for everyone on Earth.  He came, He lived a poor life, was tempted and yet lived a sinless life, suffered excruciatingly, and was executed for a crime He did not commit.

Our God is the only one who can truly sympathize with the entirety of the  Human Race.

[jdjtcagle]

The nature of Christ, is off-topic... because that would only add 9 more pages to the conversation.  I quick rundown

The fundamental teaching in the Old Testament that God is one, the Jews always believed that God is numerically one and no-where did that change.  God took on humanity and existed as a human, felt, eat, slept, died and even had an relationship with God. 

1 Timothy 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

      God was manifested in the flesh,
      Justified in the Spirit,
      Seen by angels,
      Preached among the Gentiles,
      Believed on in the world,
      Received up in glory.

The term "God the Father" is biblical and refers to God Himself (Galatians 1:1-4). God is the Father; He is not merely Father of the Son, but the Father of all creation (Malachi 2:10; Hebrews 12:9). He is also our Father by reason of the new birth (Romans 8:14-16). The title Father indicates a relationship between God and man, particularly between God and His Son and between God and regenerated man. Jesus taught many times that God is our Father (Matthew 5:16, 45, 48). He taught us to pray, "Our Father which art in heaven" (Matthew 6:9). Of course, Jesus as a man had an additional relationship to God in a sense that no one else has ever had. He was the only begotten Son of the Father (John 3:16), the only One who was actually conceived by the Spirit of God and the only One who had the fulness of God without measure.

The Bible plainly states that there is only one Father (Malachi 2:10; Ephesians 4:6). It also clearly teaches that Jesus is the one Father incarnate (Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30). The Spirit that dwelt in the Son of God was none other than the Father.

The Holy Spirit is simply God. God is holy (Leviticus 11:44; I Peter 1:16). In fact, He alone is holy in Himself. God is also a Spirit (John 4:24), and there is only one Spirit of God (I Corinthians 12:11; Ephesians 4:4). Therefore, "Holy Spirit" is another term for the one God.

Hebrews 5:7
7  who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,

As a man he held to an separate consciences from God.  So as the son he was completely human had no power and lived as a man, even prayed as a man. (in His flesh)

I do NOT believe in the Trinity, I don't believe the apostles believed in the Trinity and that it is bad logic. It was developed 325 years after Christ by "church" councils.  The Holy Spirit didn't become deified until much later...

Definition of the Trinity - God is three separate and co-equal beings. (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate and co-equal beings)

God is not three but God is one - not a compound unity but a absolute unity (always has been).

"Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD" (Deuteronomy 6:4).

LORD in all caps was the word that adonai was used in the place of YHWH because of the fear of taking the name of God in vain, the stop saying it at all and replaced it with adonai meaning lord.

"2 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one." (Galatians 3:20).

"Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour" (Isaiah 43:10-11).

"I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:8).

"I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" (Isaiah 44:24).

"There is none beside me. I am the LORD and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:6).

"There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:21-22).

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isaiah 46:9).

"I will not give my glory unto another" (Isaiah 48:11; see also Isaiah 42:8).

"O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth" (Isaiah 37:16).

There is only one God, who is the Creator and Father of mankind (Malachi 2:10). In the time of the Millennial Reign, there shall be only one LORD with one name (Zechariah 14:9).

"Seeing it is one God which shall justify" (Romans 3:30).

"There is none other God but one" (I Corinthians 8:4).

"But to us there is but one God, the Father" (I Corinthians 8:6).

"But God is one" (Galatians 3:20).

"One God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:6).

"For there is one God" (I Timothy 2:5).

"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble" (James 2:19).

Again, the Bible calls God the Holy One (I John 2:20). There is one throne in heaven and One sits upon it (Revelation 4:2).

The Old Testament speaks of God in terms of being one. Many times the Bible calls God the Holy One (Psalm 71:22; 78:41; Isaiah 1:4; 5:19; 5:24), but never the "holy two, the holy three," or the "holy many."

[TrashMan]

Says the man who was earlier insisting that he was right and the Vatican was wrong.

When you're done spouting lies, maybe you can enlighten me when exactly did I say that?

[TrashMan]

Trashman.  That is a verse from the Bible.  It is also an absolute statement.  You cannot NOT agree with it. You cannot interpret it differently.

Well, obviously I can. If it was not possible, I couldn't have done it. Now please drop it. You're coming off as strong as the worst Jehovas Witnesses.

So are pastors.  And how many extra books has the Catholic Church claimed to be Inspired works that in reality contradict the Bible?  Many.  How often does the Catechism contradict the Bible?  Quite often.  By that alone your point is shattered. 

Eh?
Well, if you're free to interpret the Bible as you wish, how can you then attack me for interpreting it differently?

[karajorma]

Says the man who was earlier insisting that he was right and the Vatican was wrong.

When you're done spouting lies, maybe you can enlighten me when exactly did I say that?

The Vatican position on the death penalty is that it is wrong. You insist it's not wrong and in fact have called for it to punish crimes several times in the past.

Do I really need to put that any more simply?