|
nopantsjack posted:Man Joseph was a goddamn sissy, if God raped my wife and got her pregnant with her own rapist I'd be pretty drat pissed. "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word."
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah but he still appeared to him and showed him the stigmata. He wasn't like "Oh well, didn't have enough faith, hell!" Correct, Christ does not need us to believe through faith alone. Physical connection such as the Eucharist or the relics of saints are an important part of worship.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Caros posted:I thought you couldn't speak for God when it came to who would and would not burn in hell. Seems to me you're speaking out of turn little lunatic. "Hell" means the choice to reject God; Kyrie is merely tautologically restating this (those who have rejected Christ will be in hell). We cannot say whether any particular person (even the ones you might think are slam dunks: Judas, Pontius Pilate, etc) is in hell - they may have repented and accepted Christ.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Caros posted:But you can't say for certain that people who follow Satan will go to hell. You can guess but you really shouldn't speak for your lord. Tsk tsk. Yes you can - this is what hell is, the wilful rejection of God. You can't say that any particular person did this though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:But you claim God will never let any of them out of Hell. Are you a prophet? Because the only way you could know God will never forgive a person is if you have spoken to God and he told you, or are yourself God. Everyone seems very confused on this. Hell is the state of having rejected God. Tautologically: one cannot achieve Heaven and be united with God if one has rejected God. We cannot say whether any person has rejected God - we are not God and cannot sit in judgement. But we can say that if such a person existed, they would not be united with God, through their own free will.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 01:48
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:It just seems very strange to me that Kyrie keeps trying to put limits on God's limitless mercy. If you have hubris, God will for sure send you to Hell, he can't forgive you no matter what possibly mitigating factors might exist that Something Awful user Kyrie Elison can't see. If you go to Hell, God can not let you out because KE doesn't see a way for God to do that. KE seems to speak on God's behalf a whole lot. Hell means the choice of having rejected God. It's a tautology. If I have rejected God, God cannot "let me out": I have chosen this myself. No-one is speaking on behalf of God.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I thought God was sovereign and He decides who receives grace and whose heart is hardened. Yes, you have free will, and you can use it to reject God.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But Kyrie literally said the opposite earlier No - Satan and his angels are not people (humans). They have no earthly nature. Satan has rejected God, and is therefore (tautology) in Hell.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I realize this is a rather bush league argument that you've all heard before, but why is a state of permanent separation from God so unbearable? We've already established that God can behave towards us in a way that, were he a man, would make him a scumbag. It seems like purely a matter of "hell is unbearable because I say it is." Because God is Love.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Gay love too? Agape, not eros.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Paragraph 37: Oh that other part of the Bible that says I'm wrong? Well you can't take it literally. Perhaps it means the opposite. Luckily these difficult questions of scriptural interpretation have been worked out for us, and the results are handily available in the Catechism. I agree, it would be terrible to have to try to work all this out on your own.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Its almost as if they make it specifically obscure enough so that only they can understand the full truth Why do you think it should be possible to understand the mind of God?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I guess the essential part we are missing is: Your actual name. Elijah
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Sex isn't sinful. Mary was consecrated to service in the Temple and so had taken a vow of chastity, before the Annunciation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 00:30
|
|
|
CCC 2680 Prayer is primarily addressed to the Father; it can also be directed toward Jesus, particularly by the invocation of his holy name: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on us sinners." 2681 "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord', except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor 12:3). The Church invites us to invoke the Holy Spirit as the interior Teacher of Christian prayer. 2682 Because of Mary's singular cooperation with the action of the Holy Spirit, the Church loves to pray in communion with the Virgin Mary, to magnify with her the great things the Lord has done for her, and to entrust supplications and praises to her. 2683 The witnesses who have preceded us into the kingdom, especially those whom the Church recognizes as saints, share in the living tradition of prayer by the example of their lives, the transmission of their writings, and their prayer today. They contemplate God, praise him and constantly care for those whom they have left on earth. When they entered into the joy of their Master, they were "put in charge of many things." Their intercession is their most exalted service to God's plan. We can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world. So prayer is to the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit; one may also praise Mary, most often in the same words that God did ("Hail Mary, full of grace..."); or ask Mary or the saints for intercession ("Holy Mary Mother of God pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death"). Not polytheist - there is only one God.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Kyrie didn't know that until this morning. He was going about his business praying directly to saints, as though they were gods and he was a lamentably heretical syncretist polytheist. "You can pray directly to saints, asking them to pray for you to God. It is called intercessory prayer" seems to me entirely in line with CCC 2683 - "we can and should ask them to intercede for us and for the whole world".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is asking the same as praying? If you pray to people on earth is that OK? Prayer is not an individual task. One prays in communion with the saints, and in communion with the body of Christ on Earth - the Church. So in your prayer it is natural to petition for others, or to ask others to petition for you.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So what exactly is the purpose of prayer? Are you just thanking God? Are you trying to put yourself closer to God? Are you asking God for things (even if those things may mostly be mercy and charity)? Thanking God is prayer of thanksgiving (CCC 2637 - 8); asking God for things is prayer of petition (2629 - 33) or intercession (2634 - 6). Yes, prayer is "the raising of one's mind and heart to God". Remember - ACTS. Adoration, Contrition, Thanksgiving, Supplication.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
fade5 posted:First, that was Paul who said that, not Jesus. (And it was from a letter, so we're already playing the telephone game.) It's from scripture, it's inspired by God (CCC 106) fade5 posted:Second, a better translation would be “is not willing to work”, which implies that you're talking about a person who could do work, but won't, rather than "everybody has to work to eat no matter what". He's still right - the quote still means that if you can work, you should, it is a duty to do so. fade5 posted:Fourth, I presume this means you oppose Pope Francis turning the "Bishop of Bling's" $46 million dollar mansion into soup kitchen for the poor? I doubt it. There are many reasons why a person could not be able to work, and could need the help of a soup kitchen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Nessus posted:What if the conditions are such that there is not work available for you to do? Are you obliged morally to work in a way that injures yourself for a pittance (relative to your immediate area)? If the only work available is immoral in nature, is it obligatory to take it anyway, because you are morally obligated to work if you can? No, if you desire work but it isn't available, then you still will work - ie, you are willing to work. It's just not possible. The quote is from a passage against laziness 11 We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat. not against economic disadvantage.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Says the guy who stated that all tragedies that befall the Jews are deserved punishments from God that they brought upon themselves. This is a point on which Kyrie was deliberately misconstrued. His original quote was in the context of the destruction of the Second Temple; there are indeed Jewish writers who have claimed this was a punishment from God. It's such a non-controversial point it's even on the Wikipedia page.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I really wish that were true, but: No-wonder you're all so bad at interpreting the Bible...none of you understand context quote:If the Israelites had all chosen Christ (who is God) as their King, the uprising in Judea never would have occurred, and they never would have been routed by the Romans. Even the Jews acknowledge that when the Jews are massacred, it is a divine penalty for infidelity to God.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Nessus posted:To my knowledge, no they don't - indeed some of the theological crises they experienced in relation to the Holocaust This quote is not about the Holocaust, you really need to move on from that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So what is it about, if not "Jews deserve it when they're killed en masse"? It's about the uprising in Judea and the destruction of the Second Temple. Look at this massively anti Jewish site I've found: http://www.aish.com/jl/h/cc/48944036.html quote:The destruction of the Second Temple is one of the most important events in the history of the Jewish people, and certainly one of the most depressing. What a massively controversial statement it is to say that the destruction of the Second Temple has been portrayed as a divine penalty.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Kyrie seemed to be framing it as 'Jews killed Christ and denied him (but also secretly know he was the Messiah) and therefore are simultaneously engaging in a massive cultural doublethink, while also deserving everything they get or have gotten. Also, their religion is fake and Christianity is the real continuation of the historical religion of Israel.' And at least the part about Christianity being the continuation of Israel is the Catholic position eg perhaps http://catholicbridge.com/catholic/replacement_theology.php quote:The Church is not a replacement for Israel of old, but an unbroken continuation of Israel under the promised King and Messiah of Israel, and His Church is His Kingdom of Israel, expanded to include all the Gentile peoples of the earth. What we're discussing here is salvation history. After the Fall, God needed to save the human race. So He worked to establish a series of covenants, and eventually became incarnate and redeemed original sin. With Noah, God established a covenant that he would never again destroy the world. With Abraham, He established a chosen people, To Moses, He gave the law and a land With David, He founded an everlasting kingdom The prophets, then John the Baptist, foretold the final salvation and the coming of the Messiah. Then Christ's Passion heals us from sin and reunites us with God (and fulfils the Law: ie completes it, therefore Mosaic Law no longer applies).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Does the Catholic church teach the literal truth of the Flood? Not really. The flood is more important in that it prefigures salvation by baptism (CCC 1219) Nessus posted:David's kingdom doesn't seem to be all that ever-lasting considering that it got wrecked and even if you consider modern Israel to be a replacement, it's certainly not a monarchy. Christ is the eternal King descended from David.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, a cuckold descended from David. One of the genealogies from David is that of Mary; in addition, Joseph was Christ's legal father and therefore Christ was also of the house of David through Joseph. Catholics are not against adoption.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Nessus posted:How so? Most of the people who got in the water died. Exactly - the sinners died, and the good emerged from the waters. "Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God". Nessus posted:On his mother's side, I assume. On both.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
Nessus posted:But... they were on a boat! They didn't get in the water. I'm sure they got damp of course, but that was kind of the point. The same as the crossing of the Red Sea! It's like there was some sort of plan tying it all together.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Nessus posted:This makes it sound like you should avoid water to go to Heaven. The water of the sea is a symbol of death. Sin is destroyed in the water, as sin was destroyed by Christ's death. To be baptised is to die with Christ, and then to be resurrected to new life.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:actually those who accept christ in their hearts will not die but have eternal life CCC 1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to "plunge" or "immerse"; the "plunge" into the water symbolizes the catechumen's burial into Christ's death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature." CCC 1227 According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ's death, is buried with him, and rises with him: Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 23:31
|
|
. minor theological points are the most important after all
|
SedanChair posted:Wait where are these Marian genealogies supposed to come from? Luke? Not really. There are apocrypha giving her descent from the house of David (and also from Aaron, via her relationship to Elizabeth - King and Priest).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:does "baptized into Christ's death" mean the same thing as "died with Christ"? didn't think so. off to the mines with you Really the Bible is very clear on this Romans 6 5 If we have been joined to him by dying a death like his, so we shall be by a resurrection like his; 6 realising that our former self was crucified with him, so that the self which belonged to sin should be destroyed and we should be freed from the slavery of sin. 7 Someone who has died, of course, no longer has to answer for sin. 8 But we believe that, if we died with Christ, then we shall live with him too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Knifegrab posted:Again though you're forgetting its all a dumb book of made of stories and allegories worshipping a thing that isn't real so all your points kind of fall flat. What's wrong with stories?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Nessus posted:what was the point of the entire speech in the garden, then? Why did he pray like that? To show his perfect obedience to the will of His Father, which redeems us from original sin: CCC 612-615 The cup of the New Covenant, which Jesus anticipated when he offered himself at the Last Supper, is afterwards accepted by him from his Father's hands in his agony in the garden at Gethsemani, making himself "obedient unto death". Jesus prays: "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me. . ." Thus he expresses the horror that death represented for his human nature. Like ours, his human nature is destined for eternal life; but unlike ours, it is perfectly exempt from sin, the cause of death. Above all, his human nature has been assumed by the divine person of the "Author of life", the "Living One". By accepting in his human will that the Father's will be done, he accepts his death as redemptive, for "he himself bore our sins in his body on the tree." Christ's death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world", and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the "blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins". This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities". Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Jolly Jumbuck posted:A genuine question: How do you justify the fact that tribes, such as the ancient Native Americans, or precursors to Australian aborigines, who lived in complete isolating and could not possibly have heard of Jesus within a generation of his coming, are doomed to spend eternity in Hell? Do you feel that God has an absolute moral code, and that makes it okay for them to suffer, or is there some other explanation? CCC 633-634 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom": "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Saviour in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell." Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him. "The gospel was preached even to the dead." The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption. and CCC 846-848 "Outside the Church there is no salvation" How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Jesus' sacrifice wasn't great, he even reneged on it three days later. At least when Elvis died for my sins he had the good tact to stay dead. And what is a day's worth of suffering to a being of infinite vastness and power? It couldn't have been less of a sacrifice because nothing meaningful was ever given up! No, this is monophysitism: the belief that Christ had a single, divine nature, not separate human and divine natures. This is heretical. Christ was both fully human and fully divine. His sacrifice was thus both completely of his human life, and touched by the divine and therefore infinite. Christ's resurrection was also not to human life, CCC 646 Christ's Resurrection was not a return to earthly life, as was the case with the raisings from the dead that he had performed before Easter: Jairus' daughter, the young man of Naim, Lazarus. These actions were miraculous events, but the persons miraculously raised returned by Jesus' power to ordinary earthly life. At some particular moment they would die again. Christ's Resurrection is essentially different. In his risen body he passes from the state of death to another life beyond time and space. At Jesus' Resurrection his body is filled with the power of the Holy Spirit: he shares the divine life in his glorious state, so that St. Paul can say that Christ is "the man of heaven"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
Nessus posted:However, this sacrifice was merely 'touched by the Divine'? Are you saying Christ was not fully and truly Divine? It sounds like you're saying Christ's mortal form was slain but that his God-side, for want of a better term, was completely untouched (how could it not be; he knew it was all coming from the very beginning, and also, was God). Christ was fully human and fully divine. Therefore his sacrifice is a divine sacrifice - even though his divine nature could not suffer or die - because his human nature was unified with his divine nature.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Frankly I'm happy to hear them. This entire system seems like it would work better with minor things different (say, Christ voluntarily covered all his Godliness before incarnating as the Baby Jesus, allowing some to come back after his baptism and all of it to return once he died on the cross). This sounds like Nestorianism: the claim that Mary bore only Christ's human nature. This divides Christ into two persons. Unfortunately this is also a heresy: Christ was one person.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 06:06 |
|
|
Nessus posted:Then how could he be fully human, except in the sense that as being God is infinite, it also (by definition) includes every aspect of human nature? Besides which, it sounds like he was God on his Father's side, so to speak, in practice if not literally. CCC 479 At the time appointed by God, the only Son of the Father, the eternal Word, that is, the Word and substantial Image of the Father, became incarnate; without losing his divine nature he has assumed human nature.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2014 22:44
|
|