Has it ever occured to anyone that, over the course of history, humans often come to the conclusion that anything that cannot be explained at the moment is automatically considered to be supernatural? For example, the Greeks. They had a god for just about anything that they could not explain with their means of science or technology at the time. How else could they explain the torrent of fire and molten lava that spwes out of a volcano? By claiming that Hephasteus is simply working in his forge of course.
But fast forward to today. And we know that isn't the case. The advent of computers, automobiles, airplanes, etc etc etc, would simply astound the Ancient Greeks. They would consider us gods. They would be unable to speak out of pure awe.
And since science is never ending in the sense that, with each question answered, more questions are formed... we still do not have a logical explanation for God. That being that supposedly judges us from afar, and moves through us all.
Think about it though... what if we just haven't reached the technological threshold to explain it yet?
It could be possible, that "God" is nothing more than a wave that interacts with our matter. Influencing our decisions with maybe electrical impulses or something similar. Religion is making "god" more important than it really is. With the advent of more powerful technology, we may be able to see what it is that moves through us all. More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.
Basically, what I am trying to say is, we humans have proven over time that with the advent of better technology we can understand the ways of nature around us. So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is? We just can't comprehend it yet... but we will in time I think. Just like we did with volcanoes, oceans, telephones, airplanes, etc etc etc.
Religion is powerful in many ways no doubt. It helps certain people get through rough times, and to them, it explains the way things are as well giving them a code of ethics that they can follow. But religion is also on a way ticket to being obsolete. If science can bridge the gap between the two, what now?
Now just so everyone knows, I am not trying to attack anyones beliefs, I am merely wondering outloud if the above could be the case. I would also like to hear what other people have to say. Please be open-minded, and rational.
I will explain in better detail some ideas that I have heard as well some of my own if a great dialogue can be established.
Best video I have seen since I don't know when. K for you MortalKhrist!!
I did....
All the way from Oz to NY, opposite Macy's in a Leather shop.....and he had to tell me they'd whipped our arses in the cricket.....
OK, so he wan't any more 'American' than me, really....
Bought a great coat from him though....
Thanks for sharing the video MortalKhrist
A good message for beginnning the New Year.
(Faith) believing in Christ is not enough (for St.James 2:19 tells us even the demons believe); it's believing and living His Gospel that will get us through this valley of tears.
Sinperium; Science is also dispassionate … so it is up to us to control how we use our instruments (guns). Abortions happen naturally all over the world so I am not getting the God angle here??? Or is this one of those mystical things that is Devine for the Goose … but it isn’t for the gander’s chicks??? Legal and/or moral are not the same and since it is ‘legal’, this must be just a moral decision and as individuals … this responsibility belongs to the people involved … not to the onlookers. Anyone who values life has no problem concerning infanticide … unless circumstances prompt them to act otherwise. From the Catholic propaganda, all aborted fetuses go to Heaven anyway, and I guess what empty-headed souls are going to do there is for another discussion that I won’t be involved with, hahaha.
PS: I have been busy but I will get back to you ASAIC (Urban Dictionary). MTC
Really? When I was a kid and forced to be a part of the Roman Catholic faith, the general doctrine was you went to hell until you were baptized because of original sin, and that included aborted fetuses, still born babies, and those that died for whatever reason shortly after birth prior to receiving the sacrament. I've refused to participate in religion in general for more then 20 years so it's possible things have changed, but I'm pretty sure the thinking where the sacrament of Baptism is concerned is still the same.
They can scare good Christian women into not getting an abortion simple because they don't want to send the child's soul to hell, whereas if they automatically went to heaven, why not just do it and spare them from a lifetime of torment and suffering?
Mmmmm.... lovin the vid MortalKhrist. Well put. All the rest is details.
And as far as abortions go... the fall of America is on the backs of those that where not permitted to live. This country, its people, its "justice" is guilty of allowing mass murder. No other way I can say it.
But that is getting a bit off topic.
So how about that science of when life really "begins?" Is it murder to smash a fertilized chicken egg? I bet it is to that unborn chicken...
I don't blur the lines with science I sharpen it with perspective. That is my view on religion vs science. Science is the evidence, to the perspective of religion, which all points to God. It all pulls, like the Sun - to the Son. (like that play on words)
Stant123; sorry you are right of course. I was reading a speech from some Catholic answer man and he made that statement concerning abortions but I don’t know if I have the constitution to revisit Catholic dogma to find the source. … oh I remember it was a YouTube … but this clip is telling me the wrong message is getting spread.
That video is the thoughts of a scared and remorseful young lady trying to justify what she had done to make herself feel better physically, emotionally, and morally. She says "I believe that all aborted babies go to heaven", not that her pastor said it, or the church in general. If anyone confuses that video for an official statement of the Catholic church, or any church, then they have issues with understanding what is said to them. I can only assume that the 'answer man' is probably also trying to help young women feel better emotionally and morally to help them be less depressed and speed along recovery physically. Probably setting them up for the chance to go back to church and pray for forgiveness or whatever and deal with the impact of the decisions they've been making up to that point. For the greater good, right?
To me it doesn't matter which way they go with because it's all just silly nonsense, but some people do need that belief to live their lives. I don't ever knock anyone for their beliefs, I only knock them for trying to push their beliefs onto others.
Forget about. If you all want to back to the first part of the 20th century go right ahead. I for one don't.
There were actually laws back then that prohibited people from using birth control. In some states if a man wore a rubber he could get thrown in jail!
I don't want a church telling me what I can do or can't do in the bedroom. I don't want a church telling my daughters that their bodies are not theirs. I don't want anybody preaching at me about what is right or wrong in their eyes. I live a moral life. I don't need Bible thumping people preaching at me about birth control or how scientists are wrong. These are the same people who say there is no climate change yet I was out today in NW Indiana and saw insects outside and it's January 4th.
If certain people need to take refuge in the Bible and their church that's fine but please don't push your moral agenda on me because when push comes to shove I will push back.
Ah, but is it "pushing their beliefs" or genuine concern? If one believes in the afterlife, then wouldn't one want to warn/help their friends and family?
I still think abortion is murder, plain and simple - regardless of where the babies go, or how the mother "feels." Feelings got those women into that mess.... just say NO dam it! And carry a glock.
EDIT: and Greetings from another cold Indiana native
Does anyone else get this feeling that BoobzTwo is an undercover Christian spy, testing this site?
BT posts:
nope. the Catholic Church teaches no such thing and couldn't as it teaches what Christ taught and Christ taught otherwise.
STANT123 posts:
You are incorrect ... the souls of aborted babies, still born babies do not go to Hell.
From the time of Christ this has been the unequivocal teaching of the Church. The reason lies in the fact that only Baptism can remit original sin; no one with any taint can enter Heaven (so you got that part right).
The Church teaches that every one must be cleansed from this state of Original Sin, which makes one a child of the wrath. OS must be wiped away so that the soul that was spiritually dead can come to life. OS is removed by the laver of regeneration, Baptism. Baptism puts one of the path to Heaven. Baptism is necessary for the salvation of all men becasue Christ has said,
"Unless a man be brn again of water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." St. John 3:5.
It follows then that infants are to be baptised since OS falls on all and must be expiated by the laver of regeneration, Baptism. So where do the souls of the unbaptized children go for the Church teaches they do not go to Heaven?
According to the Chruch, the souls of the unbaptized, preborn or born babies, who have died unbaptized have committed no sins, and therefore can't be punished with the torments of Hell. They go to a place called Limbo, where they live in a place of perfect natural happiness.
I don't understand baptism. It makes since that when Jesus died on the cross, that was the ultimate baptism, as well as the ultimate sacrifice. Are you saying that Christ wasn't good enough to remove Original Sin with his death?
Genuine concern would be if the religious person was talking to someone about it, stating that they care for them and their future, and that they will pray that they eventually find God, repent and be saved, and live happily with them in the afterlife, and that if they want to talk more, their home, heart, and arms are always open and welcoming. Genuine concern would know that one must accept God to be saved. Nothing else will work. They understand this and just leave things as inviting and open to discussion as they need to be allowing the other person to come to them of their own free will.
Pushing is when the religious person has forgotten that someone must accept God to be saved and continues to preach, teach, pass along, or spread His message to people that have openly stated that they do not believe, nor do they care to believe in it, and just don't want to hear the rhetoric anymore. If a person tries to disengage or change the subject, the pusher will continue the discussion.
There is a huge difference between the two. That difference is understanding not only the message itself, but the people it is being told to. Genuine concern understands, the pusher does not.
Edit:
My mistake, forgot about that whole purgatory thing. Hey, it has been over twenty years, and I was a kid at the time who didn't pay much attention. I'm bound to be fuzzy on some of the details.
As the stories go, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist at the river Jordan to remove original sin and start his public ministry. On the cross, he died for our sins so that we could be saved. The two are not for the same thing.
He died to save us from our sins.
Original Sin = Sin
Seems obvious to me.
I believe baptism is no longer necessary for salvation, for we already have salvation.
Original sin is not our sin, it was the sin committed by Adam and Eve which got them, and consequently every human that followed, kicked out of paradise. Only the sins we commit are our sins, Jesus died for those, not for original sin. Therefor the two events are for different purposes.
Christ's Death on the Cross was the ultimate sacrifice in which He redeemed us of our sins.
Not at all.
There is a difference between the stain of Original Sin and that of actual sins which are deliberate personal transgressions of God's laws.
Along with the gift of free will, Adam and Eve were given God's sanctifying grace which made them children of God and heirs to Heaven. As long as they remained in a state of grace (that is faithful to God's command), they would have been free from all sickness and would not have died and at the end of their probation time would have been translated body and soul from the earthly to the Heavenly paradise.
But they disobeyed and on account of their sin, Adam and Eve lost the supernatural gifts of sanctifying grace, God's friendship and the right to heaven. They became subject to death, to suffering, pain, and to an inclination to evil.
On account of the sin of Adam, as the head of the human race, we all are conceived inheriting his punishment. We are deprived of sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts as we would have inherited his gifts had he been obedient to God.
This sin in us at the time of our conception is Original Sin. It is a privation of grace and of a destiny to which no man has a natural right. God offered that destiny to Adam and to all his descendants. So all human beings are born without the friendship of God and with no right to Heaven.
Becasue of OS Heaven was closed to all until the Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He instituted the Sacvrament of Baptism in order to restore to us the right to Heaven that Adam lost.
"Therefore as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death has passed into all men." Rom. 5:12.
So sin and death came by Adam and grace and life by Christ.
Ha, ha, ha, c'mon now, it's not Purgatory either!
It's Limbo....
No problem. Just wanted to set that little error straight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hope Stant123 # 816 and I helped clear this up a bit.
---------------------
No worries.
As to the first part of your statement. Why do you believe that Baptism is no longer necessary for salvation?
The words of Christ are plain and who can change His words to mean something else?
"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the into the kingdom of Heaven."
Baptism is sooooo important that Christ commanded His Apostles to "....baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit....."
In St. Mark 16:16, Christ promised salvation to all those who "believes and is baptized". Scripture teaches that Baptism is an indespensible pre-requisite for attaining salvation.
As to the second part of your statement, that we already have salvation...
How so? We don't know for sure that we are saved until we've died, been judged and entered the gates of Heaven.
Redemption is not the same as salvation but it is a necessary prelude.
Both Catholic and Biblical teaching is that salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. The Apoc. 21:27, teaches that "there shall not enter it (heaven) anything defiled, or that worketh abomination, or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb."
As we have said, Christ has already redeemed us, and unlocked the gates of Heaven. He did His part, now we have to cooperate by doing ours. We can only pass through those gates IF our soul is in the right spritual state (of grace) at the time of our death.
Salvation is all about how one enters death ... and that's why Our Lord gave us the Sacrament of Baptism which gives our soul santfitying grace, removes Original Sin and makes us children of God and heirs to Heaven. That's why it's the first sacrament and one of the reasons why the Church insists that infants be baptized ASAP after birth.This practice dates from the Apostles.
Lula, when did your Christian fore founders ‘learn’ Jesus was coming or that He was supposed to be a God? I think a good topic for discussion would be “The Life and Times of Jesus on Earth” … considering you made this your ‘life calling’ … your absolute truth? First off, set your Bible aside because that concoction didn’t come about for hundreds of years after the fact … now proceed if you can. Of course, I am more interested in the first thirty years, not the last few, but that is just me, hahaha. Science and God … remember the topic.
Actually, the Messiah was a Jewish concept and there is a quite a bit of oral and traditional commentary on that going back centuries. That's how Jewish believers were so readily able to see a connection with what Christ was doing and saying.
Sinperium; I am not so interested in myths and faith here ... I am concerned with Jesus at least the 'man' part. The question should have been (always assumed dealing with Lula), "When did the RCC (founders) knew he was a God" because they offer excuses for His entire childhood and early adulthood. To me this means they just don't know ... which prompted me to ask the question. Were they convinced when He was born as the 'Wise Men' who followed the star were? Maybe they learned of this miraculous stuff while He was 'in seclusion' away from the people in question, but were afraid to say, hahaha. What matters what he 'said' ... if he was forged in the mind of men, say? Here is a good (atheistic) view of this mess:
“…But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of today knows absolutely nothing. This Jesus, if he lived, was a man; and, if he was a reformer, he was but one of many that have lived and died in every age of the world. When the world shall have learned that the Christ of the Gospels is a myth, that Christianity is untrue, it will turn its attention from the religious fictions of the past to the vital problems of today, and endeavor to solve them for the improvement of the well-being of the real men and women whom we know, and whom we ought to help and love.” “Did Jesus Christ Really Live? by Marshall J. Gauvin
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
And if you want to be bored to tears try and find anything out in the Catholic Encyclopedia … give it a try; let me know if you can find it yourself, hehehe. But just in case … http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08377a.htm
PS: I sent a reply,
BRAINSUCKER 720 Quoting Brainsucker, reply 720I'm also curious, why there is no modern prophet nor teaching about God. Why there is no God intervention to human life? I mean, why God never show himself to us, the people and life with us?......?
The short answer is God did show Himself to us over 2000 years ago in the Person of Jesus Christ who was the modern and last "Prophet".
To be more thorough, I'll have to back up a bit.
It was the good pleasure of Almighty God's Infinite Wisdom, Mercy and Love that He revealed Himself and His eternal decrees to us that we might attain salvation. Now there is but One God and one way to salvation which is Christ and God knows mankind needs to be educated by means of many precepts and to progress in this knowledge in stages and so advance in faith in complete salvation in Christ.
Almighty God spoke to us in different ways and manners. Through oral traditions and written Revelation God gradually made known who He is and what His plans are concerning man's salvation.
Read the first chapter of Hebrews which speaks of Christ's Divinity. It's only 14 verses. The first couple of verses explain that God spoke at various stages of history through the prophets and He has now, "in these last days" spoken to us once and for all in the Son.
"And so he who would now inquire of God, or seek any vision or revelation, would not only be acting foolishly, but would be committing an offense against God, by not setting his eyes altogether upon CHrist, and seeking no new thing or other beside. And God might answer him after this manner, saying, 'If I have spoken all things to you in My Word, which is My Son, and I have no other word, what answer can I now make to you, or what can I reveal to you which is greater than this? Set your eyes on Him alone, and in Him I have spoken and revealed to you all things." (Ascent of Mount Carmel, Book 2, ch. 22.)
Now, "in these last days" refer to the period of time between the First Coming of Christ and the Second Coming or Parousia. These days have begun because the definitive "Word" of God, Jesus Christ can be seen and heard.
By speaking to us through His Son, God reveals to us His saving will from the moment of the Incarnation onwards, for the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity has come into the world to redeem us by dying for us and to open for us the way to Heaven. Therefore Jesus Christ is the "prophet" par excellence for He completes God revelation.
Christ is the "PROPHET" referred to by Moses in Deut. 18:18. Just before he died, Moses predicted this "PROPHET" who would come during the last days and this is the "PROPHET" to whom all must listen.
From there go to St.John 7:40 and some of the Jews said of Jesus, "This is really the Prophet".
The Christ, the Messias, was the title most used in the Old Testament to designate the future Savior whom God would send.
What follows in this passage shows us the range of people's attitudes towards Christ. Many of the Jews didn't know or didn't take the time to learn that He had been born in Bethlehem, the city of David, exactly where the Old Testament prophet Micah 5:2 had prophecied the Lord would be born. They did not accept Christ. Others realized from His miracles that He must be the Messias, but they too refused to accept Him.
ANd this is the same pattern throughout history. Some people think Christ was just an extraordinary man and other refuse to acknowledge Him at all.
Just saw this BT and didn't want to let it go without comment.
When a pregnant mother naturally loses her unborn baby, it is called miscarriage...something very different from procured abortion. They aren't equivical in any way, shape or form. That in and of itself should help explain the God angle!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
