What is the scientific creation model?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread

What is the scientific creation model?

Scientific creationism is the theory which proceeds from the claim that it is possible to employ the results of natural science to demonstrate that the universe and all life was created in a mature and fully functioning form; that the concept of intelligent design can be validated by the results of scientific investigation.

The model states that life on Earth originated as the result of one or more "creation events". A creation event may be identified as the instantaneous appearance of new matter out of nothing including but not limited to, fully functional, completely developed organisms. Creation events did not transform existing organisms, but produced entirely new creatures. These creation events included for example:

Creations of the first cells, those without a nucleus.

Creations of cells with a nucleus, the dominant kind today.

Creations of the first kinds of Multi-celled animals and plants

Creations of the first kinds of Vertebrates

Creations of the first kinds of Mammals

Creation of the unique kind: Homo Sapiens.

These creation events are no longer occurring. As such, they are not observable or repeatable. This may sound unusual for a scientific model, but it has all of the corresponding weaknesses (from a scientific standpoint) that evolution has. For example, macroevolution (transition between kinds) cannot be observed, and is not repeatable in a lab. Similarly, the first occurrence of life, or the emergence of life from non-life (abiogenesis) has not been observed or reproduced in a lab.

Essentially, the heart of the controversy comes down to the origin and condition of first life. The observance of microevolution does not extrapolate to macroevolution. Microevolution is an important part of the creation model, it is the mechanism by which created kinds have been able to fill the earth and adapt to all of its various ecological and climatological conditions.

What are "kinds" ?

According to the model, living creatures were not created individually, but in groups known as a "kind". Creatures in a kind were created with a set of characteristics and a potentiality for a limited range of variation. A species (the taxonomic term used by biologists and paleontologists) is NOT synonymous with a kind. Some kinds will include many species as well as higher order taxa, while other kinds (such as humankind) may only include one species.

After the creation, creatures of a kind bred either among themselves generally, or in segregated sub-kinds, species. Breeding causes the appearance of variant forms of the creatures, which is limited by the genetic variation built into the kind when it was created.

At the time of its creation, each kind was created with sufficient genetic potential, or gene pool, to give rise to nearly all the varieties within that kind that have existed in the past and those that are yet in existence today. Genetic mutations can cause variation in a kind, but they have the net effect of deterioration of that kind. Nevertheless, mutations are always horizontal rather than vertical microevolution, and can never produce a new kind or a more complex kind. They also cannot add to the genetic content of a kind, mutations merely distort already existing information.

This model denies macroevolution -- transformations of one kind into another kind.

Some examples of possible kinds (which would really have to be determined by an experienced taxonomist):

Horses

Cattle

Dogs, Wolves.

Cats, Tigers, Lions (many species in this kind)

Spiders (many species)

Flying insects -- many kinds.

Fish -- many kinds.

Dinosaurs -- many kinds.

Human Beings of all races (one species)

Some kinds, such as the Dinosaur kinds, have become extinct.

Where does a "kind" fit into the accepted taxonomic classification system?

It is often difficult for productive dialog to commence between individuals that hold distinctly contrasting worldviews. This is especially true in the area of anthropology. For example, the word hominid is used by the evolutionist community to mean humans and their evolutionary ancestors. It includes the genus Homo, the genus Australopithecus, and all creatures in the family Hominidae. As an evolutionist term it is meaningless in a creationist worldview. The creationist counterpart would be the term human, referring to all descendants of the first created man and woman.

It may be surprising to some to learn that there is no clear-cut, accepted scientific definition for any of the taxonomic categories, including Homo sapiens. While there is some consensus on these categories, there is enough uncertainty to cause quite a lot of confusion even among experienced taxonomists. Fossil finds are sometimes placed into one classification, only to be switched into another when the evolutionist finds that it does not fit well into evolutionary theory.

The scientist who set up the currently used classification system was a creationist. Carolus Linnaeus intended the species to be the same as a created kind. Species is the Latin word for kind.

The problem with the criterion is that it is difficult to carry out. Performing breeding experiments on organisms with long lifespans such as elephants is impractical or impossible. Biologists tended rather to base their extension of Linnaeus' ideas on external characteristics rather than genetics.

Hence, the dog, the wolf, and the coyote are classified as separate species because of their external physical characteristics. However, they can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Therefore, they should all be placed in the same species and the same kind.

Some feel that it may be possible to alter the system of taxonomy used by biologists and paleontologists to group species into kinds. As yet, no one has done this in a systematic fashion. Others feel that the current setup is so entrenched that it would be almost impossible to change all of the classified organisms based on genetics.

What observations does the creation model explain?

Kinds appear in the fossil record suddenly, with no evidence of pre-existing creatures showing the characteristics of the newly-created kind.

Even when two kinds are seen to share some characteristics, there is little evidence of "transitional forms" in the fossil record. Such forms would show a set of characteristics intermediate between the set belonging to one kind and the set belonging to another.

One of the most difficult problems in evolutionary paleontology has been the almost abrupt appearance of the major animal groups--classes and phyla--in full-fledged form, in the Cambrian and Ordovician periods. This would suggest a sudden acquisition of skeletons by the various groups, in itself a problem. Paleontologists are not certain whether the soft-bodied forms of the Precambrian Ediacaran fauna are in fact ancestral to modern groups. Most species are seen to appear abruptly, to maintain their typical form for most of their history, and to vanish as suddenly as they appeared. This failure to trace coherent lineages of ancestors and descendants is easily explained via the creation model.

What are the weaknesses of the Model?

Just as it is impossible to tell from fossil records if one fossil is truly transitional, or representative of a distinct form, the ability to make clear distinctions among kinds is required in order to determine whether a form which appears to be transitional between species, actually represents the creation of a new kind. By the very definition of evolution, there must be transitions, and by the definition of creation, there cannot be transitions. So every "transitional fossil" an evolutionist sees is seen by the creationist as a distinct kind or a member of the same kind. Created kinds, by their nature, leave no other traces besides the appearance of what was created.

Another serious challenge to the creation model is the issue of when it occurred. Creationists have failed to convincingly show scientific evidence for a young creation, which is generally but not absolutely associated with the creation model.

Problems with Evolution

Evolutionists commonly criticize creationists for picking faults with evolution instead of letting the creation model stand on its own merit. What they do not understand is that there are only two models of origins. If life did not evolve, then it was created. Therefore evidence against evolution is evidence for creation, and evidence against creation is evidence for evolution.

What is the scientific creation model?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 24, 2004

Answers

Bump

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 24, 2004.

"Therefore evidence against evolution is evidence for creation, and evidence against creation is evidence for evolution."

A: Actually, evidence against creation is evidence against evolution, for nothing can change until after it exists. Creation provides existence. Evolution provides ongoing change in that which already exists. The two are completely complimentary, and mutually supportive.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 24, 2004.


do creationists totally deny evolution? Are genetic and hence phenotypic changes not influenced by the environment?

-- bromis (bromis@bioactive.org), November 24, 2004.

The fact of genotypic change with resulting phenotypic change over time is so obvious and undeniable that creationists don't dispute it. They would look foolish if they attempted to do so. Instead, they cling to their own interpretation of the "microevolution vs. macroevolution" theory. They accept that small phenotypic changes occur in populations of living things, but deny that cumulative small changes over time can ever add up to major change. According to their theory, a species of butterfly that gradually changes in hundreds of observable ways is still the same species of butterfly. It just looks entirely different from its ancestors.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 24, 2004.

You can't have it both ways, Paul.

Either God created as He claims He did--or evolution is true, life occured by chance, and there is no God.

Micro-evolution is expected in the creation model and id designed by God. It is also revealed in the Scriptures **kudos**...Macroevolution is false.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 24, 2004.



Why does life occuring by chance preclude god?

-- bromis (bromis@bioactive.org), November 25, 2004.

On the contrary, I do have it both ways. I fully accept the truth God had revealed through the Church (including the Bible), and I also fully accept the truth revealed by scientific investigation. Truth cannot conflict with truth, and I find no conflict between genuine revealed truth and genuine discovered truth. The only conflict is between your own flawed interpretations of the Bible and your own inadequate understanding of science. But that is a personal problem. It involves you and your perceptions. It doesn't involve science as it really exists, or the Bible properly understood.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 25, 2004.

Scientific creation is unadulterated pseudo-science. The very phrase is an oxymoron. The works of God are not suitable for the rigor of theoretical modeling and empirical verification. How can a cosmologist in Sdyney, Australia or Cambridge, Mass. independently verify that the origin of human kind is based on some form of ex- nihilo creation? It's impossible. It lies outside the proper domain and boundary of scientific inquiry. I am a Christian (C.S. Lewis is one of my inspirations) but I don't support the scientific creation thesis. QED

-- bill dickens (dickensb@comcast.net), November 25, 2004.

We don't even have to examine just the earthly evidence left behind to understand that creation is not as old as the evolutionist claims.

Human Artifacts: At various times and places, man-made objects have been found encased in coal. Examples include a thimble, an iron pot, an iron instrument, an 8-karat gold chain, three throwing-spears, and a metallic vessel inlaid with silver. Other “out-of-place artifacts” have been found inside deeply buried rocks: nails, a screw, a strange coin, a tiny ceramic doll, and other objects of obvious human manufacture. By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years older than man. Again, something is wrong.

[URL correction]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences32.html#wp1260401

[Link below.]

Astro Physical Science 3.



-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 25, 2004.


Poppycock! It is precisely such absurd, ignorant statements as these which make so-called "creationism" so pitiful and laughable, and so far removed from science. In fact, I read an account of the very same artifacts, and their discovery in the mountains of Lebanon. However, the article I read, in a reputable journal, was written by someone interested in reporting the actual facts, not in advancing some ridiculous private agenda. The artifacts you refer to were found during mining operations, BURIED beneath a pile of loose rock rubble - obviously entrapped there centuries earlier by a rockslide. Much of the rock rubble was in fact coal, since that mineral was abundant in the immediate area - which is why it was being mined there. The artifacts were not "encased" in coal, as fossils are. They were merely buried under several tons of coal rubble. The artifacts were approximately 800 years old. The coal was Paleocene in origin - 50 to 60 million years old. Presenting such "creationist" rewrites of legitimate articles doesn't build confidence in your position. In fact, it makes such writers look at best downright silly, and at worst, fundamentally dishonest. If your position had any genuine merit at all, you wouldn't have to try to "trick" people into accepting it. You could convince them based on the facts. Unfortunately you have no facts that support your position, which is why you have to resort to such perversions of the truth as this. I am not accusing you personally. You obviously just read an article in some "creationist" magazine, written by someone either ignorant of the facts or basically dishonest, and you lacked the necessary knowledge to recognize it as absurd.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 25, 2004.


Well Paul--that's your claim.

But I would think that this site would update their claims from time to time--and if what you say is true, then they at least would remove this from their site.

I haven't investigated this and I don't know that you are refering to the very same discoveries.

This article says the artifacts were encased in the coal.

Who to believe???

All I can say is that Creation Science as I am refering to has nothing to do with this article's claims about artifacts. This is just a sidenote.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 26, 2004.


I see my link doesn't work..but here's a list of the references the article submits.

Human Artifacts:

a . J. Q. Adams, “Eve’s Thimble,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, October 1883, pp. 331–332. b . Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., “Human Footprints in Rocks,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, March 1971, pp. 201–202. c . John Buchanan, “Discovery of an Iron Instrument Lately Found Imbedded in a Natural Seam of Coal in the Neighbourhood of Glasgow,” Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part 2, Section IV, 1853. d . “A Necklace of a Prehistoric God,” Morrisonville Times (Morrisonville, Illinois), 11 June 1891, p. 1. e . Robin Dennell, “The World’s Oldest Spears,” Nature, Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 767–768. u Hartmut Thieme, “Lower Palaeolithic Hunting Spears from Germany,” Nature, Vol. 385, 27 February 1997, pp. 807–810. f . “A Relic of a By-Gone Age,” Scientific American, Vol. 7, 5 June 1852, p. 298. g . David Brewster, “Queries and Statements Concerning a Nail Found Imbedded in a Block of Sandstone Obtained from Kingoodie (Mylnfield) Quarry, North Britain,” reported to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1844. u Rene Noorbergen, Secrets of the Lost Races (New York: The Bobbs- Merrill Co., Inc., 1977), p. 42. h . Ibid. i . J. R. Jochmans, “Strange Relics from the Depths of the Earth,” Bible-Science Newsletter, January 1979, p. 1. j . Robert E. Gentet and Edward C. Lain, “The Nampa Image—An Ancient Artifact?” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 35, March 1999, pp. 203–210. u G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 297–300. u G. Frederick Wright, “The Idaho Find,” American Antiquarian, Vol. 2, 1889, pp. 379–381. u G. Frederick Wright, “An Archaeological Discovery in Idaho,” Scribner’s Magazine, Vol. 7, 1890, pp. 235–238. k . Frank Calvert, “On the Probable Existence of Man during the Miocene Period,” Anthropological Institute Journal, Vol. 3, 1873, pp. 127–129. u J. B. Browne, “Singular Impression in Marble,” The American Journal of Science and Arts, January 1831, p. 361.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 26, 2004.


Your link works if you close the space before the "#". However, the site is simply another regurgitation of all the same pseudoscientific babble that is found repeated over and over in all creationist writings. The only thing the site demonstrates is the authors' profound ignorance of science.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 26, 2004.

I know you need to believe that Paul. Otherwise, you might have to concede to the fact that the Bible is fully and solely authoritaive in all matters of life.

That is uncomfortable to you, since your religion is--like evolution-- based solely on man's own [evil/sinful] desires.

But whether you like it or not--Creationists know the truth and it is only a matter of time before it [creation science] works its way into the public eye. Schools will eventually have to admit that created objects can be studied. Therefore creation science is as valid as evolution science that studies objects they say popped-up by chance.

There is great evidence for intelligent design. And it can be verified scientifically. Once that happens--Catholicism will greatly diminish....because people will develope a hunger for His Word in other areas as well. Then they will know the truth and the truth will set them free : )

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 26, 2004.


I know you need to believe that Paul. Otherwise, you might have to concede to the fact that the Bible is fully and solely authoritaive in all matters of life. That is uncomfortable to you, since your religion is--like evolution-- based solely on man's own [evil/sinful] desires.

This is Ad Hom, ig isnt relaly proof of Creaitonism, its just an attack on paul and roman Catholisism... relaly faith you said in this very thread that this is wht we do...

But whether you like it or not--Creationists know the truth and it is only a matter of time before it [creation science] works its way into the public eye. Schools will eventually have to admit that created objects can be studied. Therefore creation science is as valid as evolution science that studies objects they say popped-up by chance.

Evolution doesnt rely sley onhance, leas tof all theistic evolution. Your stubborn rfusal to reject this fact is overwhelming!

Likewise, Creationist may claim it gains acceptance, bt it rellay is gainign no real support among academic circles who see the real evidence.

There is great evidence for intelligent design.

If you mean eidence a creator mad ehtigns aong a certain pattern, then yes. if referencing the Intelelgent design theory that states evlution did not happen, then no.

And it can be verified scientifically.

I cant even verify the ky is Blue scietificallyh... sicece always has a measure of doubt.

Once that happens--Catholicism will greatly diminish....because people will develope a hunger for His Word in other areas as well. Then they will know the truth and the truth will set them free : )

This is fantasey. I mean relay Cahtolisism predates Evoltionary theory, and many Catolics today are Cretionists! Wevolutionary theory is not a Doctorine of the Catolic CHurch, tis a Scentific theory the chruch meley accepts as a Scietific theory. Prove it false and you still have Catholisism!

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 26, 2004.



Hwere is a smaple of cahtolic Creationism, Faith...

http://users2.ev1.net/~origins/pdf/hexrev.pdf

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 26, 2004.


> "Otherwise, you might have to concede to the fact that the Bible is fully and solely authoritaive in all matters of life".

A: No, in fact it is not, and that is precisely your problem. Do you use the Bible when you cook? Or is there another kind of book that is more authoritative? Did you learn math from the Bible? Or grammar? Or American History? Probably not since the Bible is not authoritative in any of these areas. Likewise if you want to learn science you do so from scientific sources, not from the Bible. The Bible is authoritative in matters of divine revelation - what God has revealed about Himself and about our relationship to Him. Period. It wasn't written for any other purpose, and it is not authoritative on any other subject. And, it is not authoritative in matters of divine revelation either unless it is authoritatively interpreted.

> "But whether you like it or not--Creationists know the truth and it is only a matter of time before it [creation science] works its way into the public eye. Schools will eventually have to admit that created objects can be studied."

A: Of course created objects can be studied! Who said otherwise? I have said from the beginning that ONLY created objects and processes that are part of the created universe can be studied by scientific methods! Anything else lies completely outside the purview of science.

> "Therefore creation science is as valid as evolution science that studies objects they say popped-up by chance."

A: No scientist claims that anything happens simply "by chance". The very foundation of science is the principle that nothing happens without a CAUSE. When a new phenomenon is discovered, scientists don't start debating whether or not it had a cause, whether or not it "just happened". No, they immediately start investigating WHAT the cause might have been. Scientists who are atheists obviously will consider ONLY purely naturalistic causes, while the majority of scientists who are believers in God recognize the hand of God in His creation, yet still must seek to describe natural phenomena in natural terms, because that's what science is.

> "There is great evidence for intelligent design. And it can be verified scientifically."

A: As a Christian, I absolutely agree. This is however an unscientific position since "intelligent design" as it pertains to the Creation of the universe lies outside the domain of science, and true science therefore cannot offer an opinon on the subject.

> "Once that happens--Catholicism will greatly diminish....because people will develope a hunger for His Word in other areas as well. Then they will know the truth and the truth will set them free"

A: Catholics have been set free by the fullness of truth ever since it was given to the first leaders of our Church directly from the lips of God. The result has been the continual growth of the Holy Catholic Church for 2,000 years, a growth which has not slowed in the slightest because of acceptance of the findings of science. Even the bits and pieces of truth which you have received from the Catholic Church provide a measure of freedom. Imagine the degree of freedom which could be yours if you accepted the fullness of revealed truth, with or without the fullness of scientific truth!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 27, 2004.


God's Word is fully authoritive in the things to which it addresses.

In whatever scientific matters it addresses--it is authoritive.

In whatever history it has recorded--it is accurate and fully authoritive.

Your analogy is ridiculous Paul, as I wouldn't turn to the Bible for recipes on making chocolate chip cookies--since the Bible doesn't address the topic. Though I would trust that there is probably good reason why people during Jesus' day didn't eat refined processed foods anyway!!

It seems you still do not understand just what creation science is yet. Based on your statement:

As a Christian, I absolutely agree. This is however an unscientific position since "intelligent design" as it pertains to the Creation of the universe lies outside the domain of science, and true science therefore cannot offer an opinon on the subject.

I say this because you still don't understand that creation science is not a study of creation itself...but the evidence left behind. Origins, however it occurred, is outside the domain of true science and cannot be observed or studied--since it occured in the past. All we can do is study the same evidence.

Theistic evolution is a compromise bewtween God's revelation and the theory of men (evolution) who want to believe that life exists by chance and not because it was created by any Creator.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 27, 2004.


In one paragraph you state, correctly, that origins are outside the domain of science, but the reason you state is in error. It is not because the origin of the universe is a past event that it cannot be studied scientifically. Science enables us to study many past events with great precision. The reason Creation cannot be studied scientifically is that its cause was not natural, but supernatural. That fact alone places it outside the domain of science.

In the very next paragraph you contradict yourself, stating that "theistic evolution is a compromise between God's revelation and the theory of men (evolution) who want to believe that life exists by chance and not because it was created by any Creator." Since, as you rightly stated in the earlier paragraph, Creation lies completely outside the domain of science, it is therefore inconsistent and contradictory to state that scientists formulate a scientific theory in order to support their beliefs in a matter that lies completely outside the realm of science. Scientists believe that evolution occurs because that is what the overwhelming body of scientific evidence indicates. They believe in God and Creation for the same reason anyone else does - faith. One has no direct bearing on the other. They are entirely separate areas of knowledge, attainable through entirely different means.

But the fact remains that no genuine truth can oppose any other genuine truth. No compromise is involved. I believe FULLY in all that God has revealed; and I also believe FULLY in the natural truths science has revealed. If a situation developed where it appeared to me that truth from one source conflicted with truth from another source, I would know immediately that my understanding of one body of truth - or possibly both - must be flawed. I would correct that situation by further investigating with an open mind, so that I might better understand both areas of truth and their respective origins, and thereby understand more clearly how they mesh with and support each other, which any two truths must do. I would not respond to such a situation by picking one truth over the other and then trying desperately to disprove what has already been proven by mountains of supporting evidence.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 27, 2004.


Your problem, Paul, is that you really don't understand what creation science is.

You also deny the fact that the so-called scientific theory of evolution does not include a Creator--but purports to show that life originated by chance, over great spans of time. There is no need for a Creator in this so called scientific theory.

But the fact is that each theory--whether intelligent design by a creator--or a chance happening...neither can be proved or seen or reproduced in a laboratory and therefore are both out of the realm of true science. The origins of our existence happened in the past. Therefore, all we can do is examine the evidence left behind.

Creation scientists can examine the very same fossils and earth with the very same scientific methods and equipment. There is nothing about true science that says we cannot examine created objects and order.

Both evolution and creation can be properly called scientific models, since they can both be used to explain and predict scientific facts. The one which does the best job of this is probably the better scientific model, though that does not *prove* it to be true.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 27, 2004.


Your problem, Paul, is that you really don't understand what creation science is.

{aND YOU DON UNDERSTAND WHAT SICNECE IS AT ALL. REALY THE "sCEITIFIC DACTS" YOU PRESENT ARE USUSALLY TRSANSPARENTLY FALSE.}-Zarove

You also deny the fact that the so-called scientific theory of evolution does not include a Creator--but purports to show that life originated by chance, over great spans of time. There is no need for a Creator in this so called scientific theory.

{This is also false. evolution doesnt proport to show the origin of life at all, it merley postulates that over time, sccessive Generatiosn have developed and progressed to their current form. The theory is decent wiht modification, not origin of life. Thouhg the origin of life can be speculated and woudl be included in evolutionary theory, its main thrust is in decent wiht modification.

Likewise, the theory of evolution does not preclude the possibility of a Creator, rather, a Creator is compatabke with evlutionary theory, if said creator created the proccess of evolution.

You have no ground to say otherwise.}-Zarove

But the fact is that each theory--whether intelligent design by a creator--or a chance happening...neither can be proved or seen or reproduced in a laboratory and therefore are both out of the realm of true science.

{You still asume that evolution relies on chancve happening, and that the whole evolutionary theory is dependant on random chance and precludes a creator, which sint so. Likewise, we can observe other things woch imply evluiton.}-Zarove

The origins of our existence happened in the past. Therefore, all we can do is examine the evidence left behind.

{which you refise to do honestly, or rather, your soruces refuse to.}- Zarove

Creation scientists can examine the very same fossils and earth with the very same scientific methods and equipment. There is nothing about true science that says we cannot examine created objects and order.

{Science only examiens created objects and order, however, Creationists often reject the sicentific meatod, as ndicated in the past wiht your former argumens.}-Zarove

Both evolution and creation can be properly called scientific models, since they can both be used to explain and predict scientific facts. The one which does the best job of this is probably the better scientific model, though that does not *prove* it to be true.

{Then evolution, though not proven to be true, is the better modle as the current Data seems to show life dispersed and changign over several million years.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 28, 2004.


Thanks for your opinion Zarove,

But the jury is still out on what model better supports the evidence.

You might as well get used to the idea that Creation Science will slowly make its way into the school system.

The icing on the cake will be that people will discover that perhaps the world was created by God exactly as He said He created.

Then maybe our children will have hope again.

Evolution in its true sense (not your theistic version)is a hopeless theory about life and it is certainly not what God reveals.

Luckily the earth's evidence can't be hidden behind that hopeless theory forever : )

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 30, 2004.


...until, you discover that Evolution was God's design all along, Faith.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


Prove that rod..,

Where does God say that we slowly evolved from a puddle of sludge?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 30, 2004.


Thanks for your opinion Zarove,

{ i DIDNT VPICE An opinion, I am hpwver critical of the "Facts' you present...}-Zarove

But the jury is still out on what model better supports the evidence.

{Not if you keep using either bad arguments or false claims... so far you havent shown any evidence for creationism.( Mentioning a book and sni[pping quotes sint evidence)}-Zarove

You might as well get used to the idea that Creation Science will slowly make its way into the school system.

{which is relevant to the topic how? You started htis thread to discuss " Just what is Creation sceince", not the school systems...}- Zarove

The icing on the cake will be that people will discover that perhaps the world was created by God exactly as He said He created.

{Yeah, then be told they cant pray, voice religious concenrs, or rea the Bible since they are on public property... I think you need to focs your effoerts elsewhere.}-Zarove

Then maybe our children will have hope again.

{Are you serious? Do you relaly think that the evolutionary theirty which most children sleep thrpugh in io class is responcible for creatin a sence of hopelessnes in the children? Thats absurd! There is no evidnce that evolutonary theory destorys hope.}-Zarove

Evolution in its true sense (not your theistic version)is a hopeless theory about life and it is certainly not what God reveals.

{No, its not. And our theistic verison is identical to the current scientific modles. You simpelu asusme that the true theory of evolution is athoestic, and relies on random chance and no god creatin anyhting... this is a misconception that you refuse to let go, dispite the inability to demonstrate HOW evolution s intrinsically ateostic.}-Zarove

Luckily the earth's evidence can't be hidden behind that hopeless theory forever : )

{Why not start by showign some (real) evidence on this board then?}- Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 30, 2004.


"Prove that rod.., Where does God say that we slowly evolved from a puddle of sludge? "--Faith.

Uh.....Genesis. He took some clay and made Adam. What is "a puddle of sludge" if it isn't found in the earth like "clay"?

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


God could have just, "poof", made Adam out of nothing at all...just "poof" Adam is there. But, no. God fashioned the earthly clay as a starting point. That sounds like Evolution in a Divine way. That clay was changed into something else--a human.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


The clay was changed into a human. God did not create a human out of nothing. Why the clay??? What was God teaching us about the existence of His creations?? Perhaps that Evolution is His design??

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


And don't forget the time element:

How long did it take, from our human percept of time, for the "clay" to become a "human"? Again, Evolution!

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


God is infinite. Man is mortal until he too will become infinite with God. Should we Evolve to that condition or are we already there? Is there no evolving to mess with? Hmm....

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


So rod.,

God didn't create from nothing? You think Adam was a clay sculpture first?

Well, where did God get the earth? Another sculpture?

Genesis says that God created man in His own image. He made man from nothing--from dust! I see nothing about clay sculptures except in the parables about God being the potter and us being the clay--however-- that is poetic. God uses such analogies to express Himself, and when He does--it is clearly the intent of theiterature that we understand it that way. In the same way that Jesus says He is the Bread from heaven--we understand that He is not literally a loaf of bread. says

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 30, 2004.


Then, Faith, why would God create anything at all? much less Man? Of what need is the universe if Man can be created from dust? Why everything that we see? Why is there order in the universe? Of what need is order when God doesnot need it?

Ah! it is for His creation's sake that there is order and evolution. You have alluded to it yourself; God can create from nothing. Yet, there is the material world. It is pretty strange that God would have us exist in a material world, but at the same time give us the real existence in the spiritual world. Odd! There must be meaning and purpose for this tangible world of ours. Hmmm....

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


But, because you refuse to accept what is matter for only what is spiritual, you miss the entire reality of His existence. His image is also in His creation--all of It. So, the bread, as you reject it, is also a rejection of His presence, which also becomes an existence with those who accept Him. Surely, that purpose can become obvious to the true believer

In other words, don't go "dissing" what you cannot faithfully grasp.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


I do not believe that Adam was a "clay sculpture". Scriptures doesn't teach that. Where did you get such an idea, Faith?

Scriptures tells that God took that earthly substance in order to create Adam. God then breathe life/spirit into Adam. We can use your "poetic" view and say that the "breath" is what gives life. Why do microbes move, reproduce, and die? Well, they too received God's "breath" of animation. Ah! the "breath" for Evolution.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


"So, the bread, as you reject it, is also a rejection of His presence, which also becomes an existence with those who accept Him."

This is "not" true Rod... You can "claim" all day long that Jesus is present in the "bread" (which you Catholics call the Eucharist) however this is not true... Jesus never mentioned that He would have a "literal" presence in the bread which represented His body and the fruit of the vine which represented His blood.

"Surely, that purpose can become obvious to the true believer"

The passage that Catholics quote to claim a "real presence" in the Eucharist doesn't even have anything to do with the Lord's Supper... True believers do not literally eat Jesus body nor do they literally drink His blood...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 30, 2004.


Hi Kevin,

I think my belief may go beyond the Catholic belief. I tend to believe that Christ is present in the Holy Trinity. I tend to believe that God simply thought it and it became so. I tend to believe that God is ever present in all that we see in His creation. We can call it Pantheism. So, why not in the Holy Eucharist? It is all in one's faith that He is present. He is even present in each one of us who truly believe in Him.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


"...Jesus never mentioned that He would have a 'literal' presence in the bread which represented His body and the fruit of the vine which represented His blood. "--Kevin.

Well, then, whoever wrote the Bible must have written it with errors. That part in John sure does sound literal to me.

John 6:54-60

Jesus therefore said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, abides in me and I in him. As the living Father has sent me, and as I live because of the Father, so he who eats me, he also shall live because of me. This is the bread that has come down from heaven; not as your fathers ate the manna, and died. He who eats this bread shall live forever."

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


Just a few verses down Jesus also points out this:

63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[5] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe."

It's all about believing rod. Eating and drinking are symbolic of believing and receiving. It's all a spiritual message. Jesus also said that when you eat this bread and drink this wine--you will never hunger or thirst again:

35Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.

Was that to be taken literally as well?????

If not--then you need to understand how we need to follow through with the same rules when it comes to interpreting this literature.

-- (faith01@myway.com), November 30, 2004.


Faith wrote:

"Eating and drinking are symbolic of believing and receiving."

If it is only a symbolic gesture of faith, then there isn't really any reason for partaking. I get the symbolism. But, I can understand the lack of faith and the compromise of calling it "symbolic". It is peculiar that the symbolism never entered the minds of those who rejected Christ's offer and simply walked away. So much for symbolism. No, they walked away because it was not symbolism; it was the real deal.

Why should anyone partake of a symbolic act? That would be a Gnostic interpretation and an empty act. I get the symbolism. Must I also perform a "symbolic" work?

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


Faith wrote:

"Jesus also said that when you eat this bread and drink this wine--you will never hunger or thirst again: "

Well, think of the truth in His teaching. Of course, we will never hunger nor thirst again, both figuratively and literally.

....................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


Faith wrote:

"If not--then you need to understand how we need to follow through with the same rules when it comes to interpreting this literature. "

Rules? Whose rules were you considering? Yours? Mine? The Catholic Church? St. Paul's? The Church down the street?

"Literature"??? I thought the Holy Scriptures were inspired, no?

Oh, I see, now. The "rules" can be adjusted to carve out one's theological and doctrinal views. I keep forgetting that there really isn't a "standard" "rule" to this "literature". But, I do understand that some "rules" are more predominant over others. Yes, the problem with [different] interpretations once again becomes very obvious.

Good night, everyone. It is late and work never pauses. Later...

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 30, 2004.


No rod..,

The rules of proper writing and understanding. It's the first thing you learn in school.

John., for example--writes with a lot of symbolic analogy. It is his style. Jesus spoke in parables and used familiar things to make comparisons.

John writes that Jesus is the true vine and that we are the branches. He writes that Jesus is the good shepherd and we are His sheep. Have we taken that literally? No. We yunderstand the symbology.

Jesus says that He is the bread from Heaven and that anyone who eats this bread will live forever. He says we will never hunger or thirst. Does he mean it literally? Only in the spiritual sense. Feeding on Jesus satisfies our soul. When we keep His Word in our hearts--we never hunger or thirst spiritually. Therefore--His analogy with the bread is also spiritual. If He is literal bread and we literally eat Him, then we literally cannot hunger or thirst because that is the literal understanding of the text.

Of course, honest people realize that you need to be consistent in your understanding. You can't say that Jesus literally is bread but you are only satisfied spiritually with it.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 01, 2004.


Honest people?

Your understanding does not address my comments. Why this material world if our existence is spiritual? You merely skipped over that one, Faith. Uh, the first thing I learned in school was to keep my spanish in check and my ears wide open.

It all boils down to interpretations.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2004.


Faith interprets the following to mean something:

"If He is literal bread and we literally eat Him, then we literally cannot hunger or thirst because that is the literal understanding of the text."

Of course, we cannot hunger. What exactly is your understanding, Faith?

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2004.


My understanding is that the bread is symbolic--it represents Jesus, who came from heaven to give Himself up for our salvation. He gave His flesh and blood in place of ours. When we receive this sacrifice as a substitutionary sacrifice in place of ourselves (don't forget that we owe a debt to God for our sin--which is death), but Jesus paid that debt for us. When we understand this gospel, when we believe--we accept Jesus as our Savior. We receive Him--which is symbolized by eating the bread.,and drinking the wine. We are satisfied--not physically, because we will still need to eat and drink in this life., but spiritually. Jesus is spiritual food for the soul.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 01, 2004.

So, if that is reasonable thinking, why would those people walk away from Jesus, as He spoke those words in question? I mean; it is symbolic. Symbolism doesn't kill. Why did they walk away if it was as reasonable to believe, as you have understood it, Faith?

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2004.


They walked away because they were rejecting Jesus. They did not want Jesus as their Messiah. They chose not to believe.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 01, 2004.

Don't forget rod,

They weren't walking away because Jesus said He was bread--they walked away because He claimed to be from heaven. He was claiming to be God.

"At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven."

They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?"

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 01, 2004.


Well, that wasn't the only reason for walking away. Even the Apostles had their doubts. The main issue did involve the "eating" and "drinking" of the Body and Blood of Christ.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2004.


Yes, they "grumbled" about His claim that he came down from heaven - but in spite of their grumbling they remained there and continued to listen as He continued to preach. It wasn't until He said "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him" (John 6:54-56) that their "grumbling" turned to open rejection.

... Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard THIS said, "THIS is a difficult statement; who can listen to it?" (John 6:60)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 01, 2004.


And the same thing happens today. Many non-Catholic faith systems that deny Transubstantiation are basically adopting Gnostic theologies, which compromise their real faith in Christ.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2004.


BTW, this thread took an alternate route because of Faith. I don't mine the detour; it is ok with me, but it was your driving that caused the derailment, Faith. Just for the record.

......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2004.


Paul..,

The liteners of Jesus' day made the same mistake that the Catholics make today. The listeners of Jesus' day, could not see past the literal words--to the spiritual reality beyond. The only difference is that the Catholic accepts these words literally--and the Jews would not. However, I believe they really did understand the implications--but they prefered to hang on to the literalism so that they could justifiably walk away.

Jesus used dualistic symbolism throughout His entire discourse, refering to the physical reality of the manna to represent the spiritual reality of faith in Him. Just as the manna came down from heaven and provided sustenance for the people of God during their sojourn, so too Jesus has come down out of heaven to be the sustenance of God's people--and their salvation.

But the crowd continues in its blindness, unable/unwilling to see the real significance of Jesus' words. So Jesus gets quite specific--He himself is this bread. The one who comes to Me--a clear reference to faith, will not hunger (the bread is spiritual, not natural) and the one who believes in Me will never thirst. Coming and believing become eating and drinking in verse 54.

The Jews, continuing to dwell simply on the physical plane, and refusing to follow Jesus above to the spiritual truth underlying the symbol of His words, begin to quarrel among themselves about this teaching. Yes the men asked, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" But of course, Jesus was not really saying He was going to. He was speaking of His coming sacrifice and the resultant forgiveness of sins and eternal life for all who would believe and receive Him.

Jesus did decide to come down to their level in an attempt to bring them up to His. He moves on with the metaphor, already firmly established, of "eating=believing." The only way to eternal life is through union with the Son of Man. This involves a vital faith relationship with Him, symbolized by the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood.

Everyone who beholds the Son and believes (6:40)., Those who are drawn by the Father (6:44)..,He who believes in Christ (6:47)., and He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood (6:54) EQUALS "eternal life" or being *raised up.*

Consequently, the Roman Catholic interpretation of this passage is left without foundation. Jesus is obviously not speaking of the Sacrement of the Eucharist--established many years later....but He is refering to His body and blood which will be given-up for us at Calvary.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 01, 2004.


So, there is symbolism in the killing of His flesh, too?

Why the suffering and punishment of His flesh? It seems dualistic indeed that the flesh and the spirit are part of the overall existence. It is amazing that God walked the earth as Jesus. Why in the flesh? If the Spirit is our real existence, why the Flesh at all?

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 01, 2004.


Rod,

Jesus was not speaking of the Lord's Supper (what you call the Eucharist) in John 6:54-60. No one can literally eat His body or literally drink His blood... That is not possible...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), December 02, 2004.


That is not possible??? It is possible, but that's another context.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.


I know rod..,

The bread turns into Jesus's flesh., and the wine turns into His blood--literally. It is just that you can't see it. It happens--but it's a *mystery.* The bread still looks and tastes like bread--the wine still looks and tastes like wine, but it's not. Believe it--it's a mystery--have faith!! Right?

Yeah, it's a mystery alright. *Mystery Babylon.*

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 03, 2004.


It is a mystery that all Christians appreciated, and which was the central focus of their worship from the time of the Apostles until the Protestant Rebellion. Protestants alone have lost this crucial element of true Christian faith. But then they have rejected so many other Christian truths as well. So very sad.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 03, 2004.

Faith and Kevin.

How can you believe that God walked on water while in the human form?- -Jesus. Does God need to be understood in symbolic terms only for a person to accept Him?

God is real, not symbolic. When God, through Christ and the Holy Spirit, can make Himself tangible, He does it in all things for those who can see Him. If He is seen in a drop of rain, a rainbow, a cooing of a dove, a creation of the universe, or the Crucifixion of His Son, then why wouldn't God make Himself tangible to many in the simplest design? Should a person partake of the universe or an accidental bread and wine to accept Him? Symbolism means nothing in the clouds of interpretation.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 03, 2004.


It is a Catholic teaching that evolved long after Christ and His apostles.

Communion in the early days was done in rememberance of Christ and what He accomplished at Calvary. Nobody thought they were literally eating Jesus then. It was understood in the way it was meant to be understood. Protestants have come back to that understanding. They had to protest what had become of the Lord's Supper. It was paganism at its worst! It is no doubt the work of the Devil....right down to those encased pieces of flesh that the Vatican has saved in glass boxes!! Those tricks should not deceive you--but they do.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 03, 2004.


"Work of the Devil"?? There you go again, Faith. Funny, I've heard the same thing said about Protestantism.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 03, 2004.


Faith says:

"Communion in the early days was done in rememberance of Christ and what He accomplished at Calvary. Nobody thought they were literally eating Jesus then. It was understood in the way it was meant to be understood. "

Is this just your opinion or do you have some evidence to back this theory up?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 03, 2004.


Well James.,

Show me one verse in the Bible where we see those early believers performing the Sacrifice of the Mass.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 03, 2004.


"On the first day of the week, when they were gathered together for the breaking of the bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight." (Acts 20:7)

Gathered together on Sunday for the celebration of the Eucharist. And so it continues today in the Church Christ founded for all men.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 03, 2004.


Faith says:

"Communion in the early days was done in rememberance of Christ and what He accomplished at Calvary. Nobody thought they were literally eating Jesus then. It was understood in the way it was meant to be understood. "

James asks:

"Is this just your opinion or do you have some evidence to back this theory up?"

To which Faith responds:

"Show me one verse in the Bible where we see those early believers performing the Sacrifice of the Mass."

Notice the subtle deception here. Faith makes a claim, and then when asked to back up that claim, she requests that the other party put in the effort to prove her wrong. Remember Faith, you were the one who claimed that the early Christians thought the eucharist was symbolic. All I was doing was asking for proof, which seems to be a reasonable request. If its not a reasonable question, someone can let me know.

You seem to dodge the difficult questions.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 03, 2004.


Hi Faith--

I once saw a pebble skim across the surface of a pond. It was a fascinating sight! The pebble landed on the dry side and I walked over to see if it was you. The pebble hardly ever touched the water, but it did make a splash. How do you do that?

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 04, 2004.


Correction Paul.,

There is no indication that when they gathered to celebrate the Lord's Supper--that they were re-sacrificing Jesus in a Mass.

Theirs was a celebration in rememberance--like what we non-Catholics do every Sunday when we participate at the Lord's table.

Show me one verse where we see the ritualistic practice of the Sacrifice of the Mass....

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 04, 2004.


Faith,

I don't think you can say that Protestants came to the understanding that the Lord's Supper was merely symbolic. For example, Lutherans believe in "real" presence. Their understanding is only slightly different than that of Catholics. I don't think Luther was completely comfortable with the specifics of transubstanciation but still believed that Christ was in fact truely present in the bread and wine. It was not simple symbology for Luther.

Many Anglicans also believe in real presence. There are of course a good number of Protestants who do see it just as you do.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 04, 2004.


Faith says:

"Communion in the early days was done in rememberance of Christ and what He accomplished at Calvary. Nobody thought they were literally eating Jesus then. It was understood in the way it was meant to be understood. Protestants have come back to that understanding."

Faith, I asked you before to provide evidence for your statement. Is your opinion a matter of faith that all protestants must accept? You define dogma and everyone must give their consent?

I asked a very simple question, where is the evidence that the early Christians thought that the Eucharist was symbolic. There is certainly no shortage of literature from the early days of the church, so I am sure that my request is a perfectly reasonable one, is it not?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 04, 2004.


Jim,

I am not a Lutheran. And I would add that I believe in the real presence of Christ, but He is in the believer--not the bread. Christ resides in us. Not because we have eated Him--but because we have received Him in faith and we believe.

Where two or more are gathered in His name in prayer--He is there also. That is Scriptural.

But to base the doctrine of Transubstantion on John 6--is to miss the real message of John's gospel. The message is that Jesus Christ is food for the soul to those who believe. That's why John 6 starts first by laying down the whole point to begin with:

John 6:25-36:

When they found him on the other side of the lake, they asked him, "Rabbi, when did you get here?" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval."

Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

So they asked him, "What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.' "

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."

"Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread."

Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

As you can see Jim, the ground work has been set forth and I see nothing about eating and drinking Jesus--but I see that we are to come to Jesus and believe in Jesus and we will never hunger or thirst. Of course--this is spiritual.., we will never hunger or thirst spiritually because Jesus is food for the soul.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 04, 2004.


James,

I answered your question with another question because I feel it is for you to prove your contention. My contention is Scriptural as we see that the early believers in the Bible itself did not practice any such Mass as the Catholic Church does today.

I asked you to show me a verse in the Bible that would support your claim that the apostles recrucified Christ again and again...

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 04, 2004.


But to base the doctrine of Transubstantion on John 6--is to miss the real message of John's gospel. The message is that Jesus Christ is food for the soul to those who believe. That's why John 6 starts first by laying down the whole point to begin with: - Faith

Transubstantiation isn't based just on John 6. John 6 is evidence of the belief in the Church that is based on the words of Christ that the bread "is my body." Rather than the bread "signifies my body." The writings of Christians after the time of the apostles also bears out the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. People like Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr. Both died martyrs. Surely they died for the truth. Read their writings and then read John 6 again to get a good perspective.

Elpidio has already brought up in previous dicussions that there is no word in Aramaic for "is." If this is true, then when the Gospel writers translated Jesus' words to Greek from the Last Supper, they must have decided between using the word "is" and "signifies." They chose "is".

-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), December 05, 2004.


Andy.,

I think that the first part of John 6 indicates the real point. John then moves into the symolism of this truth...And when Jesus said that this is my body--he was holding the bread at that moment and the hearers in that moment must have known that Jesus didn't mean it literally, but was pointing to a deeper spiritual truth and the cross.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 05, 2004.


Faith says:

"I answered your question with another question because I feel it is for you to prove your contention."

Who made the initial claim? The answer is that you did. Don't you feel that if you made a claim, that it is reasonable to be able to back the claim up. To me, this seems to be a very reasonable request. If you make a claim, you should be able to substantiate it. I just don't understand why you are so unwilling to provide any evidence to back up your claim. Clearly, I am sure you would be the first to agree that the responsiblity is on you to provide evidence to back up any claim you make. To refuse to do so, I am sure you will agree would clearly be un-Christian. It's a simple request. Are you unable or unwilling to back up your claim?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 05, 2004.


Well James.,

As I pose my question to you, I also back up my claim. And that is that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not Scriptural and was not performed by the apostles.

You need to prove this Catholic doctrine--which, in my opinion-- developed years later...

We know that deception and division began entering the picture even while Paul was still living, so the fact that Christians only one generation after Christ might have performed this ritual, doesn't mean anything. Yet--even eith that said, I'd challenge you to find proof that even they actually performed the "Mass" as you know it today.

Personally--I need Scriptural evidence that something is true...if I am going to believe it. John 6 does not do it for me because I see the symbolic language and I think I am grasping the real meaning in Jesus' words...which are spiritual and they are life to those who believe. And I do not believe that by *believe* is meant that we are to believe that Jesus is literally bread. I understand that we are to believe that Christ gave His life for us on the Cross. And that He is risen and that He will give eternal life to those of us who are waiting for Him.

-- (FAITH01@MYWAY.COM), December 05, 2004.


Well James.,

As I pose my question to you, I also back up my claim. And that is that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not Scriptural and was not performed by the apostles.

You need to prove this Catholic doctrine--which, in my opinion-- developed years later...

We know that deception and division began entering the churches even while Paul was still living, so the fact that Christians only one generation after Christ might have performed this ritual, doesn't mean anything. Yet--even with that said, I'd challenge you to find proof that even they 9early Christians) actually performed the "Mass" as you know it today.

Personally--I need Scriptural evidence that something is true...if I am going to believe it. John 6 does not do it for me because I see the symbolic language and I think I am grasping the real meaning in Jesus' words...which are spiritual and they are life to those who believe. And I do not think that by *believe* is meant that we are to believe that Jesus is literally bread. I understand that we are to believe that Christ gave His life for us on the Cross. That He poured out His blood for our sin--He covers us. He is risen and He will give eternal life to those of us who are waiting for Him.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 05, 2004.


Lol..sorry for the double post. This server busy thing is a pain. While I waited for it to be *not* busy, I corrected my post a little-- and then submitted it--only to find that both posts went through.

Elpidio or Zarove--you can remove the first one, and this one too, if you want to. It would keep the thread neater.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 05, 2004.


Faith says:

"As I pose my question to you, I also back up my claim."

Alright Faith, I guess that is the best you can do. It doesn't sound too convincing though. I would recommend that you not try to publish your thesis in a refereed journal, because they might want more convincing proof.

Here is another question, is it possible to believe that Jesus is really physically present in the eucharist and still be saved? For example, there are many eastern christians who are not catholic but when it comes to the Lord's Supper they believe virtually the same thing that Catholics do. Is it possible for these people to be saved even though they believe in the real presence?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 05, 2004.


James

An interesting question. If we as Catholics, as well as other denominations which include many Protestants, all have it wrong, does this belief in Christ's real presence in the bread and wine interfere with our salvation?

My thought is --- no of course not. Its not like we all came to this belief out of disrespect for or ignorance of the Lord---or that we have puposefully entered into some form of heresy.

I am interested in what others who oppose transubstanciation would think.

P.S. I don't believe that those who do not believe in transubstanciation have come to that conclusion with a purposful intension to hold an heretical belief or disbelief either.

I think it is very difficult to personally control ones beliefs. THey seem to have a life of their own.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 05, 2004.


The problem I have with the Mass is that it denies the sufficiency of Christ's one time sacrifice at Calvary.

It--in a sense--says to Jesus that although you (Jesus) suffered for our sin--it wasn't enough. We want you to keep on suffering and remain a victim over and over again on our altars. We don't trust that your one time sacrifice has us covered or that it (That one time sacrifice at Calvary)--by itself--was powerful enough to forgive sin past, preasent, and future.

The fact that the mCatholic claims that the bread is "literally" Jesus' flesh and the wine is *literally* His blood--makes that sacrifica all the more real and done over and over again every day.

This denies what God's Word has said about Jesus and His work at Calvary.

So to answer your question, "Can a person who believes they are literally sacrificing or eating Jesus, still be saved?".., I'd have to answer that it would appear that this person does not have faith in Jesus' one time sacrifice at Calvary--but has rather--placed their faith in their own efforts and rituals to save them.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 05, 2004.


Sounds like thats a "no."

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 05, 2004.

Faith says:

"The fact that the mCatholic claims that the bread is "literally" Jesus' flesh and the wine is *literally* His blood"

However, Faith, I wasn't talking about Catholics in my question. That is, there are many non-Catholic Christians who believe that Jesus is really and truly present in the eucharist. For example, Eastern Christians, Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. Can these people be saved and still believe that Jesus is physically present in the Lord's Supper?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 05, 2004.


James.,

It really depends on what they believe about Jesus' sacrifice at Calvary. Many people participate in the Mass and the Eucharist as it is believed by the doctrine of Transubstantiation--and don't even really understand that doctrine. I am a great example of that. I always assumed that Communion was done in rememberance and I never understood that my church (Roman Catholic) believed it to be literal.

So I think many people are celebrating Jesus and don't think that they are recrucifying Him over and over.

Lutherans do not believe in Transubstantion like the Catholic Church teaches and I can't speak for Angelicans.

All I know is that if you miss the biblical truth in favor of tradition and you haven't placed your faith totally in Jesus' one time sacrifice at Calvary to save you--then you are likely busy trying to save yourself through rituals and sacraments., rather than trusting in Christ.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 05, 2004.


Faith says:

"then you are likely busy trying to save yourself through rituals and sacraments., rather than trusting in Christ."

How do you know that people who believe in the real presence are trusting in rituals rather than Christ? Do you do a survey? What was your sample design?

Second, you claim you never understood the docrine of transubtantiation. Have you read any books on the subject that were written from a Catholic perspective? Obviously, if you are going to reject something properly, you would want to make sure you understood the concept thoroughly. The reason I bring this up, is that many people who oppose Catholic teaching, do so without spending the time to truly understand what the church actually teaches. For example, we have a church in my neighborhood that is highly anti-catholic, however the pastor's only source for catholic doctrine is Lorainne Boettner's Roman Catholicism, which was written in 1962. Hardly an unbiased or up to date resource for understanding what the Catholic Church teaches. I think Haddon Robinson (a protestant, btw) said it best when he said that if we want to obey the eigth commandment, we need to thoroughly understand someone's position before we criticize it. And the burden is on the one doing the criticism.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 05, 2004.


I own three books on the subject because initially--I didn't want to believe what was being revealed to me.

"The Lamb's Supper" The Mass As Heaven on Earth--written by Scott Hahn

"The Eucharist" Wine of Faith-Bread of Life by M. Basil Pennington

"This is our Faith" Michael Francis Pennock

Personally, my belief is that many Catholics are like robots who just go to Mass--do the motions and get the heck out. I think they never really pay attention to what their faith is and they feel good about suffering through the Mass, as though they have been given a clean slate for the week.

So many Catholic that I know are completely unaware of endtime prophecy and have never even heard of the rapture. They don't know that they are literally eating Jesus at communion nor do they understand what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus or to be born-again. They rely on their actions--such as being baptised as a baby--going to confession and receiving communion to save them.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


> "Personally, my belief is that many Catholics are like robots who just go to Mass--do the motions and get the heck out. I think they never really pay attention to what their faith is and they feel good about suffering through the Mass, as though they have been given a clean slate for the week"

A: Sadly, some do. Just as some Protestants go to church services more as a social function than to actually worship. But the measure of a church is what it offers those who participate fully, not what is received by those who fail to do so.

> "So many Catholic that I know are completely unaware of endtime prophecy and have never even heard of the rapture"

A: That is because the Catholic Church teaches only pure Christian truth, not novel theologies spawned within the past couple of hundred years. No Christian on earth prior to the 19th century ever heard of these various bogus end times and rapture theories. The Catholic Church has a solid eschatological theology dating back to the Apostles. Why would we pay attention to such new theories?

> "They don't know that they are literally eating Jesus at communion nor do they understand what it means to have a personal relationship with Jesus or to be born-again"

A: Catholics are in a far better position to fully understand such concepts than any member of a manmade denomination depending on partial truth and private guesswork. You only know the term "born again" because of reading it in early Catholic writings. Granted, some Catholics don't know their faith as well as they should; however, again, you judge the value of a medicine by its effect on those who take it, not those who fail to do so.

> "They rely on their actions--such as being baptised as a baby--going to confession and receiving communion to save them"

A: Not if they follow the teaching of the Church. On the other hand, many Protestants think they will be saved by simply believing, regardless of what they do or don't do, an idea that directly contradicts the Word of God.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 06, 2004.


Golly, Faith. Maybe? You should start a new thread about the failures of people who don't pay attention to their church teachings, or something. You can also start one on false faith systems and the people who believe in them.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Regarding the Eucharist, Faith says:

"Many people participate in the Mass and the Eucharist as it is believed by the doctrine of Transubstantiation--and don't even really understand that doctrine. I am a great example of that. I always assumed that Communion was done in rememberance and I never understood that my church (Roman Catholic) believed it to be literal."

Then she says:

"I own three books on the subject because initially--I didn't want to believe what was being revealed to me."

This seems a bit strange, are you saying that at first you assumed that the Eucharist was symbolic, then you believed in transubstantiation, then you rejected it?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.


Paul, you say: A: Sadly, some do. Just as some Protestants go to church services more as a social function than to actually worship. But the measure of a church is what it offers those who participate fully, not what is received by those who fail to do so.

Where I worship--it isn't about what the church can offer me., but what I bring to God. Worship isn't about making us feel good.

A: That is because the Catholic Church teaches only pure Christian truth, not novel theologies spawned within the past couple of hundred years. No Christian on earth prior to the 19th century ever heard of these various bogus end times and rapture theories. The Catholic Church has a solid eschatological theology dating back to the Apostles. Why would we pay attention to such new theories?

That's ridiculous Paul..we can see the revelation of the rapture in the Scriptures themselves and many early theologians did as well.

In 1 Thess 4:17, the Church is said to be "caught up" to meet Christ in the air, at the last trump. The Greek word there is "harpadzo" meaning to remove, seize, or take away. So, to me, the English "Caught up"and Latin "Rapture", as well as the Greek word "Removal" in the Bible text are all three good descriptions of the removal of the Church from earth by Jesus in 1 Thess 4:17.

The early Church Fathers did not use the word "Rapture". The "Text Book of the History of Doctrines" by Reinhold Seeburg, 1952, quotes the doctrinal position of virtually all the early Church Fathers and commentators. The common word used in the early writings was "resurrection" of the dead and "translation" of the living saints. "Translation", of course, they took from Heb 11:5, where Enoch, the seventh from Adam, was "translated" that he should not see death. Enoch is a strong Old Testament type of the New Testament Rapture of the Church.

Rapturebiblefood

Rapture churchfathers

A: Catholics are in a far better position to fully understand such concepts than any member of a manmade denomination depending on partial truth and private guesswork. You only know the term "born again" because of reading it in early Catholic writings. Granted, some Catholics don't know their faith as well as they should; however, again, you judge the value of a medicine by its effect on those who take it, not those who fail to do so.

Correction Paul--we read of being born again in the Bible.

A: Not if they follow the teaching of the Church. On the other hand, many Protestants think they will be saved by simply believing, regardless of what they do or don't do, an idea that directly contradicts the Word of God.

This is so false it isn't even worth a response.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


Paul says:

"On the other hand, many Protestants think they will be saved by simply believing, regardless of what they do or don't do, an idea that directly contradicts the Word of God."

To which Faith responds:

"This is so false it isn't even worth a response."

I am glad to see that Faith understands that it is faith AND works that produces our salvation. On the other hand, many protestant do actually believe what Paul says, I have talked to many of them.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.


Sorry to disappoint you James, but I believe that faith alone saves.

The reason that what Paul says is so false is that the truly saved person, though saved by faith--will reveal such salvation by their works--not to get saved, but because they are saved!

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


Faith,

When you say any Catholics don't know they are "eating Jesus." It makes it sound absurd. Some may actually take offence to that phrase and I know that wasn't your intent. Catholics "receive" the body of Christ. May sound small or petty but I just put it out for general information. You never know when you'll run into thin skin.

-- Jim (furst @flash.net), December 06, 2004.


Taken *literally*.., this doctrine is absurd Jim. Taken symbolically, then it becomes far more comprehensive.

When we receive His body in communion --what we are saying is that we are receiving Christ and His sacrifice. We are accepting Him as our Savior.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


Faith says:

"though saved by faith--will reveal such salvation by their works--not to get saved, but because they are saved!"

Can we know someone is saved by their works? If so, what should we look for?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.


I think Jesus knows who are His--and who does what for what reasons.

Obviously even atheists can do good deeds. But they don't do them in the spirit of God. They do them for selfish reasons.

You'll know a true Christian when they reflect the kind of love that Jesus did..,and when everything they do--they do for His glory.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


Faith wrote:

"Where I worship--it isn't about what the church can offer me., but what I bring to God. Worship isn't about making us feel good. "

Then, Faith responds to James with this:

"Sorry to disappoint you James, but I believe that faith alone saves. "

My question:

Why do you preach that it isn't about our "works", but about His "work" in us? Then, you make those conflicting comments above.

It sounds confused, Faith.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Faith says:

"You'll know a true Christian when they reflect the kind of love that Jesus did..,and when everything they do--they do for His glory."

What in particular should we be looking for. For example, how can we tell that everything you do is for His glory? If we can tell, we need some concrete evidence. The question then becomes, what is that evidence and what standard do we use?

For example, no one can argue that Mother Teresa didn't have good fruit, but I have never seen a protestant suggest that she was saved. The best you can get, is we can't tell. Well if we can tell who is saved by their fruits, then we should be able to tell. So what specifically should we look for?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 06, 2004.


Faith

As a Catholic with a lot of work to do at getting it right, I have no difficulty understanding the Eucharist in both ways. I see the symbolic aspect of the Eucharist as well as accepting it as the body of Christ. This was what I was taught and have undertood since childhood (except for 20 yrs off for bad behavior)

I will admit that sybolic interpretation is easier, but easy isn't always the correct. Your statement that the literal view is "absurd" is an opinion that informed Catholics would disagree with---some Protestants included. It can be argued til the end of time and I know that the Catholic Church as well as the other denomenations accepting the literal understanding of the Eucharist will never come around to a symbol only view.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 06, 2004.


But what is truly the *literal* understanding has to be the symbolic meaning as I have tried to demonstrate. And obviously the true meaning or the iteral meaning is not so easy to come by after-all. Look at how many hearers in Jesus' day walked away. Do you nthink they walked away because they didn't want to eat Jesus' body?

From what I gather--they walked away for the same reason they are always walking away--they were rejecting Jesus as being God, their true Messiah-- and they still do.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 06, 2004.


It has actually come down to one fine act of faith. Jesus is telling the world that if we partake of His body and blood, we are accepting Him as our Saviour, literally. Why is it simple to consume antibiotics with the faith that it will remedy our symptoms or even cure our illness? That is an act of 100% faith in a mixture of medicine, yet we choose not to partake of His offer of eternal life. Where is your faith?

They walked away back then, they still walk away today.

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Hmmmm......

"Do you believe that Jesus is the Messiah, Our Saviour? Prove it."

Symbolism rarely proves anything. There is always that residual doubt that eventually festers into complete rejection. It is like a token--never the real thing.

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.


Getting back to my previous question on how we can tell whether or not someone is saved, (i.e. what fruits we should look for), here is a real life dilemma that a protestant would face and I would like Faith to tell us what fruits we should look for.

Suppose I am a protestant and I am looking for a church to join because I just moved into a new area. If I believe Faith's point of view, it would be important for a Pastor to be saved. I would not want to attend a church with an unsaved Pastor. Now, here is the problem, I have read some stories about some pastors having a problem with pornography and the stories suggest that it is more than just a fluke, that is a small, but still significant group of pastors have a problem with pornography. Now as Faith said in another thread, someone who looks at pornography can't be saved. It is clear that by looking at pornography you are putting your own desires ahead of God's desires.

Now, here is my question. If I am looking for a Pastor, what fruit do I look for to ensure that I don't choose a church with a pastor that has a pornography problem? If we can tell, who is saved and not saved by someone's fruit, then Faith must be able to help me solve this dilemma.

Actually, I found the following book title on CBD:

The Pornography Trap: Setting Pastors and Laypersons Free from Sexual Addiction

which suggests this issue is at least considered large enough to make an investment.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.


James,

I actually said that only God really knows who are His and that the wheat and the weeds are mixed together in this world. I do not believe that any one church is the *true church* whatever that is., but that Christ's true body is spiritual or invisible in that sense because only God knows who we really are.

As far as finding the right kind of church, you need to find a church that preaches the Bible. If the pastor is in sin--that has little to do with your faith walk or salvation. You would find the same p [roblem in the catholic church--not knowing whether the priest is gay or a child molester etc....

There is no perfect church or establishment here on earth.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


You have such a fine way of saying "child molester" and Catholic Church in the same sentence, Faith. You also make allowances for your guys, while critizing others. Obviously, you would preach that there isn't a true church. That seems to be the foundation of Protestantism. That's the reason Protestants can justify going off and starting their own style of "church". Well, there is only one true Church. If there isn't, then everything is basically just a wishful little divertimento in empty faith.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


rod.,

Please be honest or don't bother responding to my posts.

I believe that the true church, "Christ's true Body" is real and does exist.., but it is spiritual., as I have stated numerous times here.

And as far as bringing up the Catholic Church's problems--I did so to remind James that sin is a human problem and that the Catholic Church can't assure anything anymore than any other church!

I notice it didn't bother you that James seems to believe that Pastors are all into pornography? Why not attack him instead. Personally, I am tired of your non-sensical rantings.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


The feeling is mutual, Faith. The big difference is that I have no hatred towards non-Catholic faith systems. I don't go around calling them the "Devil's work". That kind of babble needs to stop. Are you listening?

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Your agenda, Faith, is to destroy peoples faith who are Catholic or not like your faith. That needs to stop, Faith. If you wish to convert new believers, do it by teaching the Gospel. Don't do it by attacking God's Church. When you attack the Church, you are attacking God. But, you can't see what I'm telling you. You fulfill my personal prophecies time and time again. Be nice, girl.

............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Listen rod,

This is a religion discussion board and I can raise any objections I have with regard to the Catholic church. If you don't like it--then don't read my posts.

If you are going to respond--then respond to the topic with intelligent rebuttal. Attacking me personally is against to board rules.

Spamming is also against the rules. You need to offer quality posts and keep to the subject.

I will ask Zarove or Elpidio to delete your rantings which only cause the real topic to get lost in a long thread of non-sense. Other people have the right to respond to posts directed to them, without missing them because you spammed the thread.

Elpidio already informed you the last time you tried this--that it is perfectly fair for me to raise questions and make points about the Catholic religion.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


Faith--

Literary Rules?

The difference between your posts and James' post is rather simple to figure out. James posted a hypothetical problem. He did not call pastors to be porn addicts. On the other hand, you post your opinions without evidence. Your posts take on an image of being "factual". Did you notice James' use of the word "if"?

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Again rod--

Honesty would be a better approach if you want serious dialogue. James may have posed a hypothetical--however, the understone was still there and he was saying that this is a true fact about Pastors-- which he tried to support with this:

Actually, I found the following book title on CBD:

The Pornography Trap: Setting Pastors and Laypersons Free from Sexual Addiction

which suggests this issue is at least considered large enough to make an investment.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


Yes, your opinions are not the issue. The issue is your lack of evidence. Are you listening?

You seem to have a hard time handling my posts.

If you cannot provide evidence to support your attacks on the Church, then apologize for your anti-Catholic bashing. Plain and simple.

If you can post your "opinions", we all can.

Elpidio is free to delete as he wishes. He may even ban me at his whim. But, as long as you keep your attacks on Catholicism without hard evidence to support your "opinions", I'll be here. So, it would be best to do some homework or retract all of your unfounded remarks and allegations against the Church.

Elpidio--

La uniqua fuerza que tengo contra esta batalla son mis palabras y mi derechos. Si tu quieres que me retire de aqui, si puedo retirarme por mientras hasta que se calma todo. Pero nada va a cambiar. El odio para la Iglesia Catolica nunca muere.

.................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Why should I attempt to take "honesty" lessons from you, Faith? If anyone should be taking lesson, it should be you taking lessons from me. How's that for honesty?

I don't go around defiling God's Church.

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Anyone who rereads this thread rod,

Will easily see just who it is who does the attacking and who obviously does no work at all when he posts.

I will not apologize for raising my well-founded objections with regard to the Catholic religion. You, on the other hand, should stop your incessant barage of meaningless personal attacks of me.

You can call my points about Catholicism--Catholic bashing--all you want. It is a mechanism you use because you are unable to handle my posts.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


Neither will you post hard evidence to suppport your agenda against the Catholic Church. That is hard evidence one can see in your posts. They don't need to re-read anything.

Your boat is sinking. Apologize while you are still above water, Faith.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Faith, here is what I said:

"I have read some stories about some pastors having a problem with pornography and the stories suggest that it is more than just a fluke, that is a small, but still significant group of pastors have a problem with pornography."

I don't see where I implied that all protestant pastors have a problem with pornography.

I will also point out, that my evidence comes from protestant sources, not catholic sources. Some protestants evidently think that this is a significant enough problem to deal with. I think I stated the problem fairly.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.


Personally, I don't think rod has anything to apologize for. I think he raises legitamite concerns.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.

Faith,

Here is some more evidence for my position.

I don't think you can claim that I made an unsubstantiated claim:

from: http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/stats.htm

# 51% of pastors say cyberporn is a possible temptation. 37% say it is a current struggle (Christianity Today, Leadership Survey, December 2001). 4 in 10 pastors have visited a porn site (Christianity Today, Leadership Survey, December 2001).

# 17.8% of all "born again" Christian adults (in America) have visited sexually-oriented Websites (Zogby survey conducted for Focus on the Family, 2000).

# 63% of men attending "Men, Romance & Integrity Seminars" admit to struggling with porn in the past year. Two-thirds are in church leadership and 10% are pastors (Pastor's Family Bulletin, Focus on the Family, March 2000).

# 1 in 7 calls to Focus' Pastoral Care Line is about Internet pornography (Pastor's Family Bulletin, Focus on the Family, March 2000).

# "If you think you can't fall into sexual sin, then you're godlier than David, stronger than Samson, and wiser than Soloman" (Pastor Bill Perkins).

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.


Personally--I never demand that anyone apologize for their theology-- only personal attacks. I never asked him to apologize this time James. That's his pompous demand because instead of addressing my concerns and questions with regards to Catholicism--he just starts shouting out insults and he tags me with his select choice names.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.

None of this would have started had you not made your blanket statement that Catholics are Mary worshipers. You did it again the time before you left this forum. You have done it again. Many Catholics and a few Protestants have made efforts to get your mind cleared of your false beliefs. You continue to spread your propaganda after ignoring good strong teachings about the Catholic Church. Your indignation always gets the better of you. You know that you must apologize to all Catholics who suffer under your malicious words.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Catholics are not "Mary worshipers" just the same as you are not a Catholic, Faith. Stop making blanket accusations about Catholics.

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


James.,

What is your point about that? We are all in this sinful nature-- Catholic too, by the way.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


Too bad rod!

From where I stand, you may claim that the Catholic Church does not worship Mary all you want--but in fact, it is how it is played out in reality. All one has to do is consider the thousands of shrines to Mary vs. the handful to Jesus.

This is my position, and I'm sticking to it.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


If that is all you have for your argument, I should hand you a towel the day you decide to remove yourself from the wallowing pits of error and false teachings, Faith.

I suppose that the Lincoln Memorial, in your thinking, is a shrine to worship "Honest Abe", right?

If your shrines are temples of worship for Mary, why is Holy Communion the focal point and purpose of the Mass in those shrines? Because Christ is the focal point, Faith. Your thinking seems to say that any Protestant church that doesn't have the name of Jesus in it worships something or someone else. I imagine that with your thinking you read only books with pretty covers on them.

Your argument is a failure. I suggest that you spend some time in those shrines. Take notes.

.............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.


Did honest Abe appear to us at the Lincoln Memorial and give us instructions on how to get to heaven?

Clearly these apparitions oppose the biblical gospel of salvation by grace through faith in the finished sacrifice of Christ., and glorify a counterfeit Mary in His place.

1 Timothy 4:1 says "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons."

These apparitions are given false credit for pointing people to Jesus. In truth, there is little sign of real devotion to Christ among pilgrims to Marian shrines!

Here is an example of a blantant denial that Christ's sacrifice paid the full debt for sin--and it is accepted and promoted by Rome. Every pope in the last 60 years has honored Our Lady of Fatima. Devotion to this mythical "Immaculate Heart" has substituted for devotion to God and Christ, and supposedly, obedience to "Our Lady" brings peace. (This is believed by all Catholics, rod)

This apparition is surely not Mary!!!! It claims for itself the authority and attributes that belong to Christ alone.

Here is what this apparition declares (There is no way any person can believe that these apparitions are in keeping with the Word of God):

"I will never leave you [This is the promise of Christ to His disciples, and it presupposes omnipresence, an attribute to God alone.] My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God...

Sacrifice yourselves for the conversion of sinners [Only Christ's sacrifice avails for sinners], and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary...

I promise to assist at the hour of death with all the graces necessary for salvation all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession and receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary and keep me company for a quarter of an hour while meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary with the intention of making reparation to me..."

This counterfeit Mary's offer of "the graces necessary for salvation" and her promise to "lead you to God" is one more denial of the sufficiency of Christ's finished work upon the cross, a denial which is implicit in Catholic dogma rituals.

It is to Mary's heart that the world must make reparation for the evil it has done against her?? That is another blasphemous teaching!

David said, "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned" (Psalm 51:4) Sin is against God, not against any of His creatures.

-- (faith01@myway.con), December 07, 2004.


Faith says:

" I never asked him to apologize this time James."

You are right, I am sorry. It was rod suggesting that you apologize.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.


Faith says:

"What is your point about that? We are all in this sinful nature-- Catholic too, by the way. "

I was responding to your post which said:

"James may have posed a hypothetical--however, the understone was still there and he was saying that this is a true fact about Pastors"

My evidence was just trying to establish that some Pastors have a problem with pornography. The intent was not to slam protestant pastors. However, you did say before, that someone who looks at pornography could not (without repentance, I assume) be currently saved. It would seem that it would be important if I were looking for a church, to find one with a saved pastor. But I guess we can't tell who is saved by their fruits, which contradicts your earlier statement. BTW, I will certainly admit that Catholics are sinners too.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.


When did I say this:

that someone who looks at pornography could not (without repentance, I assume) be currently saved.???

I don't remember making this judgement., though I would tend to agree that someone who falls into this behavior is not walking closely to God.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


Actually, Faith, in the thread titled: Are there sins a saved person cannot commit?

I brought up the issue of pornography and your response was:

Well then james.,

I question the validity of such a claimed salvation.

Think of the word salvation for minute. It means to be saved or delivered.

How is it that one could say they are saved or delivered--yet they practice pornography?

I think that this is what is meant by working out our salvation. Yes-- we still are lured into the sinful things of the flesh--but now we have the power to resist. If someone claims to have salvation--yet doesn't work it out--how real was it?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.


My point is, that if I were a Protestant and I was looking for a church, I would want to make sure I find one where the pastor was saved. However, you claimed two seemingly inconsistent things:

1. We can tell who is saved by their fruit. 2. People who look at pornography probably aren't saved.

If these are both correct, we can ensure that we choose a pastor who isn't into pornography by looking at their fruit, because if they are saved, they would have fruit, and consequently wouldn't have a problem with pornography. But since you have backtracked from point number 1, I guess we cannot tell which pastors are saved and which aren't.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.


It doesn't really matter James, whether the Pastor is saved or not. Those are your conditions for finding a church--but in fact, pornography is not something we can see about a person. It's a very secret sin. Who can tell by looking at a priest whether or not he is a homosexual or whether he is into pornography or child molestation or what ever?

You need to find a church that preaches the Word of God so you can grow in the Word and so that you have a body of believers in which to worship with. That is the reason for church. A body functions as one and eventually--bad seeds are weeded out.

Like I said earlier--even athiests do good works and can look good on the outside. Pastors or priests can surely put on a good front and look good on the outside. But that's not the fruit I am talking about.

I believe we reap what we sow.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


Faith

One part of one of your statements above about not knowing whether your (Catholic) pastor is gay,-- or a child molestor etc, just doesn't sit right. It seems excessively provocative.

I for one have never had a bad experience with any priests or pastors and have been around them all my life. I know some others have and its horrifying. But just the same, it really never crosses my mind when at mass whether a priest is gay.

I shouldn't even have to say this, but Child molestors are an exception rather than a rule within the Church. Its a tragic situation that has occured within the Church but still a small number when compared to all of the good and holy men who make up the priesthood.

Catholics are outraged about the situation that has occured. But some outside of the Church I believe secretly enjoy the controvercy and scandle that has hit us as a result of a small number of perverts who have besmurched the name and character of so many good and inocent clerics within the Catholic Church.

I truely find no joy in stories of ministers or rabbis who have behaved in a sinful manner. Doesn't do anything for me or make me feel more secure in my Catholicism because "others are doing it too."

Its all sad and no good comes from it.

-- Jim (furst@flash.net), December 07, 2004.


I agree Jim,

However, James brought it all up. I think he was trying to lead the discussion to the conclusion that because Protestants can't tell whether a Pastor is into pornography--then ultimately, he has no way to know a good church--thus., as a Catholic, it is decided for you and there is not this sort of problem. I just wanted to remind him that his point has no ground since sin can effect all humans both Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

Of course, I could be wrong and James may have been trying to make another point. It's hard to guess and since he never clarified anything, I have to assume.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 07, 2004.


Actuaally, Faith I clarified my point several times. The reason I bring up the pornography issue, is not to slam protestant pastors, but to deal with the two points you made earlier. The first, in this thread was:

1. We can tell who is saved by their fruit.

and your second point, in another thread:

2. People who look at pornography probably aren't saved.

I take it that you are admitting that you are wrong on the first point.

We can't tell who is saved by their fruit.

You also, said:

"Of course, I could be wrong and James may have been trying to make another point. It's hard to guess and since he never clarified anything, I have to assume. "

Actually, I clarified my point several times. Also, you said in another post that:

"I notice it didn't bother you that James seems to believe that Pastors are all into pornography?"

I never said that Faith, I said it was a small, but significant problem. Reread my posts, and you will see what I said. The only reason I chose protestant pastors as an example was because Catholics do not believe in the OSAS doctrine. Mortal sin can break our fellowship with God.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 07, 2004.


Well Jesus says it himself:

He cannot lose those who the Father has given Him. No one can snatch us out of His hand.

Once someone is truly saved--and Jesus knows who are His--they cannot be lost.

We can do a pretty good job at seeing who is walking in the spirit and who is not. We always eventually reap what we sow. Someone may put on a good front--but that can't last forever---their fruit will give them away. If not before our eyes--certainly before God.

-- (faith01@myway.com.), December 08, 2004.


Well Jesus says it himself:

He cannot lose those who the Father has given Him. No one can snatch us out of His hand.

Once someone is truly saved--and Jesus knows who are His--they cannot be lost.

We can do a pretty good job at seeing who is walking in the spirit and who is not. We always eventually reap what we sow. Someone may put on a good front--but that can't last forever---their fruit will give them away. If not before our eyes--certainly before God.

If you want to argue, you'll have to take it up with God--since it is His Word which tell us that you will know who are His by their fruit.

Matthew 7:15-23:

A Tree and Its Fruit

"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers

-- (faith01@myway.com.), December 08, 2004.


Then what specific fruit should we look for?

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.

Ask God by searching the Scriptures. The answer is in there.

Not that I understand why you need to do this??

God already knows the answer to this question, "Who is saved?" Why do you need to judge people?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


The reason I am asking is that you said we can tell who is saved by their fruit. However, when I inquire further into your statement, you cannot give any concrete details as to how we operationalize this process. If we can tell who is saved by their fruit, then there must be something specific we should look for. You haven't given any specifics, no matter how I try to pose the question to you. If I say, Mother Teresa has good fruit, therefore that must be evidence that she was saved, you would respond that we don't know because we can't tell because we don't know whether she is doing the works for her own glory or for God's. This of course, suggests that although you can claim we can tell who is saved by their fruit, in reality you cannot tell. In theory you claim you believe scripture, but in practice you don't.

The second thing I will point out Faith is that you have no problems portraying Catholic priests as homosexuals and molestors, and are not apologetic about it in the least. However, when I carefully crafted my hypothetical situation, you made the rediculous claim that I portrayed all pastors as into pornography. There is certainly no evidence to that effect, and even if that was my intent, you certainly cannot claim that you have ever once even attempted to treat the Catholic Church in even a semi-respectible light.

The question you really have to ask yourself, is are you doing your apologetics for God's glory or your own? I don't think I have ever seen you concede even one point to a Catholic on this board. You also come accross at times as insulting and arogant. Maybe that is not your intent, but I think many people would agree with me. When David banned me from this board, many people came to my defense. Even, you who backed David (as far as I could tell, which of course was your right) could only come up with a defense of David by saying that I must of done something to deserve being banned. This was another case of you making and assertion without providing any evidence. You really need to consider whether you want to be right, or effective.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.


Thanks for the lecture James,

However, I stand by my claim that we can know who are His by their fruit.

I am not in the business of judging others though, so I don't really need to know. In the end, the wheat will be separated from the weeds and we will all *know* the truth.

For now--all I can do is try to be true to God's Word and hopefully lead some to Christ. You may not like my style--but I can't do it any differently. This is only a discussion board. I like to get right to the topic.

Some people mmay come to the truth, some may not--or even maybe I'll discover some things I was wrong about.

So far, it would seem that none of us ever changes their positions, so we are all likely wasting our time.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Faith says:

"You may not like my style--but I can't do it any differently."

You could, but you choose not too.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.


Faith,

people do and can change. It would be to your advantage if you maintained such a philosophy that includes the idea that one can change. Basically, Repentance is such a philosophy and practice. Surely, you do not reject such a doctrine, no?

How many people have you encounter who have suggested the same things we have, Faith?

You don't have to be a Catholic, Faith. You have every right to reject anything that doesn't jive with your understandings or faith. I'm not an atheist and I'm learning that I don't have to go and irritate them. I don't put the puppy's nose in it in order to teach them better. There are other ways to achieve a desired effect.

I guess brilliant people tend to be abrasive. I'm usually accused of being abrasive, I just wish they'd add the part about being brilliant, oh well...

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


Faith claims she can tell who is saved.

James asks how do we tell who is saved.

Faith says we can't tell.

James then clarifies that we really can't tell.

Faith says scripture says we can.

James says ok, how can we tell.

Faith says we can tell, but hedges in case we can't really tell, by saying that it's not important anyway.

I'd hate to see you try and convince an athiest with your logic.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.


rod says:

"You don't have to be a Catholic, Faith. You have every right to reject anything that doesn't jive with your understandings or faith. I'm not an atheist and I'm learning that I don't have to go and irritate them. I don't put the puppy's nose in it in order to teach them better. There are other ways to achieve a desired effect."

My thoughts exactly rod.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.


You are right James,

I choose not to.

That is because I believe that my direct approach and my sincere adherence to my theology will speak volumes to those who are meant to hear it.

The others aren't going to like what I say no matter how I approach it. Jesus didn't mince words or compromise the Scriptures in any way.

He simply stated the Scriptures over and over again, and pointed them to their error in understanding.

and rod, you are right in that I am not known for budging too easily.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


James,

I was beginning to feel as if my sanity was lost in "La La Land". I am very happy, in a dissapointed way, that you are experiencing this type of interaction. I thought I was alone.

Faith,

I have this little bit of humor playing around in the thoughts at this moment:

A man and a woman managed to keep in good terms because they would eat out twice a week on a regular basis. He on a Monday; she on a Thursday. "Bodda-bing..."

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


I think you used that line already rod.....

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.

Ooo! Faith. You've been listening. Thanks.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


James,

You really need to take this issue up with God.

He says we can know by our fruit.

He also tells us what this fruit is.

Have you looked to God's Word for the answers yet?

That is actually what I told you to do.

You may not be able to tell if a Pastor is involved in pornography from looking at him.., but still--the bottom line is that if he is, he will be found out and it is definately a sign that he is not saved.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Ok, Faith. You've made it clear that your style ain't changin anytime in our lifetime. So, that is perfectly fine with you. Who cares if feathers get ruffled on other people, tuff luv! So, it is only logical that you won't mind if I adopt your tuff luv manuevers with you, yes? That's only fair.

I guess we need to walk in each other's shoes in order to see what each sees. Of course, it's always accept that a woman walk in men's shoes, but a man in women's shoes is generally frown upon.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


Sorry for the tense omissions. I thunk it, but I didn't plunk the keys hardnuff.

........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


Faith says:

"That is because I believe that my direct approach and my sincere adherence to my theology will speak volumes to those who are meant to hear it."

I have nothing wrong with someone having a direct approach. However, you often cross the line and become needlessly offensive. To be needlessly offensive would in my opinion be sinful. After all, think of the fruits of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness (meekness, humility) and self-control.

When you refuse to provide evidence for your accusations are you practicing these fruits. When you implicitly suggest that all priests are molesters are you practicing goodness and kindness. When you refuse to apologize for things you have done wrong on this board are you practicing peace and gentleness and self control.

Certainly, you have the right to be direct and you do not have to be fair and practice the fruits of the spirit. But when you focus on your rights, you are not practicing christianity. Like the Bible says: By their fruits you shall know them.

-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), December 08, 2004.


James.,

You judge me with falsehood.

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 08, 2004.


Chihuahuas! woman. You're just plain stubborn. I bet you do all the driving!

(Sorry, just trying to be just like you, Faith--direct.)

...................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.


"It is a mystery that all Christians appreciated, and which was the central focus of their worship from the time of the Apostles until the Protestant Rebellion."

There is "no proof" that the Apostles (or any of the first century christians) "literally" ate the bread or drank the blood of Jesus.

"How can you believe that God walked on water while in the human form?- -Jesus."

By faith in God's word.

"Does God need to be understood in symbolic terms only for a person to accept Him?"

Not at all...

The Bible does not say anywhere that taking the Lord's Supper is literally eating Jesus body and drinking His blood.

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 12, 2004.


Really? How do you interpret "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed"? (John 6:55) Also, what did Paul mean when he wrote, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.? (1 Corinthians 11:27)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 12, 2004.

Paul wrote, "Really? How do you interpret "For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed"? (John 6:55)"

This is symbolic and Jesus is not speaking of the Lord's Supper... for this is not even mentioned in this chapter...

If you will notice what Jesus said prior to this statement in John 6:27 when He said, "Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him."

The food that endures to everlasting life is the "spirit" as Jesus taught in John 6:63, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life." (see also 2 Corinthians 3:6).

Paul wrote, "Also, what did Paul mean when he wrote, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.? (1 Corinthians 11:27).

This has nothing to do with John 6:55...

Some were not discerning the Lord's Body in partaking of the Lord's Supper, that is why some were weak and sick and some died...... (see 1 Corinthians 11:28-33)...

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 13, 2004.


God Himself says "My flesh is food INDEED", or as many reliable texts render it, "My flesh is REAL food; My blood REAL drink". And your first response is "This is SYMBOLIC"? Do you know the meaning of "INDEED"? The meaning of "REAL"? "REAL" means "actual", "genuine", as directly OPPOSED to "symbolic". It means "NOT SYMBOLIC"! God says "My flesh is REAL food", and you would look Him in the eye and say "sorry God, you are wrong, your flesh is NOT REAL food, but only symbolic"?

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 14, 2004.

Christ's flesh and blood is real food to all who are hungry.

Only Christ can satify this hunder that is not physical--but spiritual.

He gave His real flesh and blood at the cross....and to those who *believe* and receive Him into their hearts by faith--will live forever., and they will never hunger or thirst again--spiritually speaking of course!

If this is a literal remark from Jesus--and if He wasn't speaking in symbolic language, then shouldn't it be true that when you eat his flesh and blood at communion--that you should never again hunger or thirst literally as well?

I mean., Jesus didn't clarify that this hunger and thirst was not literal, so if we follow your line of thinking, then jesus' flesh and blood are literal food and drink and we can literally expect to not hunger or thirst anymore--right?

-- (faith01@myway.com?), December 14, 2004.


"God Himself says "My flesh is food INDEED", or as many reliable texts render it, "My flesh is REAL food; My blood REAL drink". And your first response is "This is SYMBOLIC"? Do you know the meaning of "INDEED"?"

Read John 6:27 and John 6:63... Yes it is symbolic...

-- Kevin Walker (navyscporetired@comcast.net"), December 15, 2004.


why did He call the bread and wine His own Flesh and Blood if the bread and wine were symbolic of everlasting life, why bother with bread and wine at all if it does nothing and you don't need it, but yet He said that this was the moment He had longed for, the moment when He would leave His Body, Blood and Spirit on earth for all time, a continuation of His Sacrifice on Calvary, not a reinaction. The Food He would leave in the World would be His Living Flesh. In the same way that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him, So to when we recieve His Body and Spirit we live in Him and He lives in us so that all may be one in the Father. This is the mystery of the Catholic Church, the unity with God which was lost by one man ,Adam, is now restored by the new Adam , Christ. When we eat His Flesh we Really, Physically and Spiritually become a part of His living Body, His Body which was resurrected from the dead and has everlasting life. This is what He means when He said whoever eats My Flesh will have everlasting life, He achived everlasting life not just spiritually but physically also. Since a Human Being is body and spirit, neither can exist without the other, our salvation is necessarily both physical and spiritual. As Gods life as a man is now Both physical and spiritual since He resurrected His Own Body, our own future life is also both physical and spiritual and necessitates His physically Resurrected Flesh so that we are resurrected IN His already resurrected Body and BECAUSE of His resurrected Body.

-- otrasaigh (lilyt@eircom.net), February 17, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ