It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Doesn't Christianity Contradict The Ten Commandments?

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Oh and for you guys info....the commandment for 'thou shalt not kill' is kind mis translated.

what it really meant was 'thou shalt not murder'.

Killing in self-defense or in war is not murder.

Jesus himself talked about defending yourself. Back in the day the apostles were persecuted and had to pick up the sword.

'live by the sword die by the sword'.

Alot of the ten commandments have been sorta 'hijakked' i guess you could say. the Original meanings have been misconstrued to the point that many of the commandments have been changed to mean something then what it was intended for.




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by tauempire
Oh and for you guys info....the commandment for 'thou shalt not kill' is kind mis translated.

what it really meant was 'thou shalt not murder'.

Killing in self-defense or in war is not murder.

Jesus himself talked about defending yourself. Back in the day the apostles were persecuted and had to pick up the sword.

'live by the sword die by the sword'.

Alot of the ten commandments have been sorta 'hijakked' i guess you could say. the Original meanings have been misconstrued to the point that many of the commandments have been changed to mean something then what it was intended for.


OK THEN...lets talk about this.

ALl those nations the people killed off...FOR GOD...was self defense> ?

And the ones that killed Jesus, for talking against the main stream belief of the day....killed him in self defense? This was Gods plan for his to be killed, right?

And who are you to say that its been highjacked...and that DO NOT KILL...means what it says?

I do believe, when Jesus was talking about 'kill by the sword, die by the sword'.....he was warning us about reaping what we sow.

If you kill....you will one day, have to reap this seed. Jesus taught to turn your cheek...and not fight for this life.

Might want to check that.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
I see the catholics defending their branch of the Christianity tree. We don't worship idols, or any such... yet their golden topped churches are repositories of "religious art". Been to the Sistine Chapel, I have, we can talk about "religious art".

No one even touched on their practice of ritualistic cannibalism and vampirism in worshiping an itinerant carpenter. They use a word call transubstantiation instead to make it nicer, but it is the same thing.

When Jesus said eat my flesh, drink my blood; it's nice that people took a literal meaning. To bad they didn't listen to dad about that idol worship thing.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   


I see the catholics defending their branch of the Christianity tree. We don't worship idols, or any such... yet their golden topped churches are repositories of "religious art". Been to the Sistine Chapel, I have, we can talk about "religious art".

Since when has art ever been worshiped by Catholics? Do tell. How about never?

It's completely loopy to suggest that any Catholic in their right mind thinks that a piece of art work is an actual god deserving of being worshiped.

What part of this concept don't you understand? It's been explained numerous times on this thread.



No one even touched on their practice of ritualistic cannibalism and vampirism in worshiping an itinerant carpenter. They use a word call transubstantiation instead to make it nicer, but it is the same thing.

I guess you would call Jews vampires as well, then, eh? Every Sabbath Eve Kiddush (Friday evening), the Jewish people to this very day break bread and drink wine in much the same manner as Christ's Last Supper.

From the Art Scroll Jewish Siddur, p. 361:

"It is customary to give each person present some wine from the Kiddush cup. All present wash their hands in the ritual manner and the head of the household recites the blessing for bread over two challahs (i.e., loaves), and distributes a piece to each person."

Wow - Read that again. That sounds an awful lot like the Catholic Mass Communion ritual, doesn't it?

This is where the Last Supper meal originated. Jesus, was, in fact, a Jew, and was observing the Sabbath Eve Kiddush at the time.

The Tzur Mishelo, a prayer recited after the Sabbath Eve Kiddush, states the following refrain:

"The Rock from Whose we have eaten! Bless Him, my faithful friends - we have eaten our fill and left over - according to Hashem's word."

So I guess the Jews are vampires also, right?

Back to Catholicism: The breaking of the bread and wine in the Catholic Mass is not vampirism, which implies death, destruction, and the occult.

It is, instead, a spiritual Communion, in remembrance of our Savior, Jesus Christ. He commanded His disciples to "do this in memory of Me", meaning He asked the disciples to institute the Mass using the Last Supper as its centerpiece. Christians follow the same religious ritual to this day, some 2000 years later.

What is most striking from your post, however, is the venom, anger, and hatred spewing forth against the Church.

While I am all for people expressing contrary opinions, we could do less with the venom and hate on these forums, and more with mature and spirited debate and discussion. Please govern yourself accordingly.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by CookieMonster09


It's completely loopy to suggest that any Catholic in their right mind thinks that a piece of art work is an actual god deserving of being worshiped.




We KNOW and UNDERSTAND that you do not think a piece of wood or art is god but YOU ARE WORSHIPING IT.

Yes, YOU ARE.

You BOW to it, knee to it, pray to it. When you bow to a figure of a living thing you are DIRECTLY violating the ten commandments.

I hope I am clear now.



Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them




[edit on 5/20/2010 by skajkingdom]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   


We KNOW and UNDERSTAND that you do not think a piece of wood or art is god but YOU ARE WORSHIPING IT. Yes, YOU ARE. You BOW to it, knee to it, pray to it. When you bow to a figure of a living thing you are DIRECTLY violating the ten commandments. I hope I am clear now.


Catholic doctrine explicitly forbids idol worship:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition, pg. 568, section 2112, "Idolatry":

"The first commandment condemns polytheism. It requires man neither to believe in, nor to venerate, other divinities than the one true God. Scripture constantly recalls this rejection of "idols, (of) silver and gold, the work of men's hands. The have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see." These empty idols make their worshipers empty: "Those who make them are like them; so are all those who trust in them." God, however, is the "living God" who gives life and intervenes in history.

Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. It remains a constant temptation to faith. Idolatry consists in divining what is not God. Man commits idolatry whenever he honors and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example, satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money, etc. Jesus says, "You cannot serve God and mammon." Many martyrs died for not adoring "the Beast", refusing even to simulate such worship. Idolatry rejects the unique Lordship of God; it is therefore incompatible with communion with God.

2114: Human life finds its unity in the adoration of the one God. The commandment to worship the Lord alone integrates man and saves him from endless disintegration. Idolatry is a perversion of man's innate religious sense. An idolater is someone who "transfers his indestructible notion of God to anything other than God.""

(End of quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition)

From Wikipedia, under the section on Idolatry:

"The Roman Catholic and particularly the Orthodox Churches cite St. John of Damascus' work "On the Divine Image" to defend the use of icons. He wrote in direct response to the iconoclastic controversy that began in the eighth century by the Byzantine emperor Leo III and continued by his successor Constantine V.

St. John maintains that depicting the invisible God is indeed wrong, but he argues that the incarnation, where "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14), indicates that the invisible God became visible, and as a result it is permissible to depict Jesus Christ.

He argues: "When He who is bodiless and without form... existing in the form of God, empties Himself and takes the form of a servant in substance and in stature and is found in a body of flesh, then you draw His image..."

He also observes that in the Old Testament, images and statues were not absolutely condemned in themselves: examples include the graven images of cherubim over the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:18-22) which God instructed Moses to make, the embroidered figures of cherubim angels which God told Moses to make on the curtain which separated the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle tent (Exodus 26:31), or the bronze serpent mentioned in the book of Numbers.

He also defends external acts of honour towards icons, arguing that there are "different kinds of worship" and that the honour shown to icons differs entirely from the adoration of God. He continues by citing Old Testament examples of forms of "honour": "Jacob bowed to the ground before Esau, his brother, and also before the tip of his son Joseph's staff (Genesis 33:3). He bowed down, but did not adore. Joshua, the Son of Nun, and Daniel bowed in veneration before an angel of God (Joshua 5:14) but they did not adore him. For adoration is one thing, and that which is offered in order to honour something of great excellence is another".

He cites St. Basil who asserts, "the honour given to the image is transferred to its prototype". St. John argues therefore that venerating an image of Christ does not terminate at the image itself - the material of the image is not the object of worship - rather it goes beyond the image, to the prototype."

Lastly, here is a great article that discusses the false allegations that Catholic "worship" statues. Please read this article in its entirety - It is excellent:

www.catholic.com...

[edit on 20-5-2010 by CookieMonster09]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   
Awww shucks might as well jump in here too... I've got a couple pennies in my pocket:

Ok - I'm a Methodist - so that means I'm some bizarre hybrid between a run of the mill non-denomination and the Catholics.

I think that the Catholic church (just my view... not trying to hate) has single handily done more damage to faith in God and the lessons he taught us through Jesus than just about anything else (except maybe South Park... jury is out on this one).

But seriously - they've created a megalithic legalistic infrastructure where only select men have the ability to proclaim God's divine plan. The Pope is none other than a man-made king that is supposed to have some kind of direct connection to God...

If I'm not mistaken Jesus pretty much laid it out there that he came to create a bridge so that ALL OF US had a direct connect to God. What do you need the Pope for? Is he shepherding the flock? Kind of hard to shepherd from the golden palace... and the last time we needed a high-priest was back in the temple days to take the sacrifice into the Holy of Holies.... uh-oh. Pretty sure Paul didn't set this one up.

The whole bowing before the cross and then crossing your heart. A little to ritualistic for me to really think that most Catholics know what they're doing. Why the cross? The crucifix is an ugly tool used by man to kill the messiah. We honor his sacrifice by following his teachings, not bowing before his murder weapon.

Now - last supper (i.e. communion). Some dip on here tried to paint this as a picture of vampirism and/or cannibalism.

Wha??? Ok, Christ was sharing the LAST SUPPER (i.e. the Pass-Over mean). His point wasn't to "eat my flesh boys". His point was to share a meal with other believers and in doing so always remember him and his sacrifice.... hence the name "COMMUNION" (hint: comes from the word "commune").

Holy Communion isn't a time to get the priest blessed wafer of crap dry bread. It's a chance to eat and drink - in remembrance of Christ - with other followers. Jesus was pretty much the mix-master of the analogy. So guess what it was when he said that whole "take, eat, this is my body..."

If you guessed "symbolism" DING DING DING - you get what's behind door number 3!

Anyway. Most of the crucifixions of Christianity (ha ha.. the pun WAS intended) are pretty baseless because you pick and choose little parts of the faith to try and point at for the shock and awe moment.

If you wanna hate on something - at least become informed about enough to hate on it properly.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by gncnew]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   


I think that the Catholic church (just my view... not trying to hate) has single handily done more damage to faith in God and the lessons he taught us through Jesus than just about anything else (except maybe South Park... jury is out on this one).

The Catholic-bashing on ATS just never seems to stop, does it? When does it end? When does the biased, angry, hateful speech against the Church stop?

Facts to support your opinion would be nice. And, for every negative, I can cite a hundred positives of the Church throughout the ages. The Church, like any institution, has its positives and its negatives. The good, however, far outweighs the bad. Just read the Roman Martyrology, or Butler's Lives of the Saints as ample proof.



But seriously - they've created a megalithic legalistic infrastructure where only select men have the ability to proclaim God's divine plan. The Pope is none other than a man-made king that is supposed to have some kind of direct connection to God...

The Church is large. Yes. Agreed.

Legalistic? That sounds more like the Old Law, not the New. Christ came to liberate us Christians from the legalisms of the Old Law.

Pope as man-made king? No, just following the direct orders of succession as instituted by Christ when he named Peter as the Rock on which He would build His Church.

The Pope is a religious leader of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, not a king.

Direct connection to God? Any Christian can have a direct connection to God through prayer - Prayer is not the exclusive territory of popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, monks, and nuns.



What do you need the Pope for?

Why do you need a leader for any religious denomination? I can't think of a single institutionalized religion that doesn't have some sort of authority or chain-of-command managing the affairs of the religious institution.

Whether it's a priest, a pastor, a rabbi - There has always been a long tradition of religious leaders throughout history. Why single out the Pope?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


Pope's not a king? Why's he sit on a throne? Why does he have a royal guard?

Peter was the guy that started the early church... I'm pretty sure I never read anything about him wearing gold laced robes, wearing a crown, and caring a septet.

Look, I am with you that the Church has done way more good than bad.. but THE Catholic church has done a lot of harm to THE church (remember - the church is the body of Christ, not the institution of a denomination).

If you dont think the Catholic church is practicing legalism (yep, like Old Law) then why can't I just repent, be baptized, and then I'm saved?

What's up with the classes before I can share communion? What happened to the Gospel's account of 3000 being converted in a day by the river? Can't do that in today's church because you have to meet the requirements.

How about confession... we're to confess and repent - TO GOD! not a man. And on what authority did we confuse that man can assign a penance for our sin? Christ's sacrifice was for ALL sin - past and present. Why do I have to confess to a man, who gives me ACTS to preform to absolve me of sin...

"Not by acts but by Grace you are saved..."

Dipping hand in the water, crossing the body, kneeling before the cross... man, seems like I read something like before - IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. This is just a new age version of the ritual you had to do before you could enter the temple to present your sacrifice to the priests.

You look at the early church, the one that existed before man had a chance to muck up the picture that Christ painted for us. Now look at today's Catholic church and tell me you think the Pope's doing it as God intended.

How's that reading of the bible in Latin working for you? What exactly are you getting out of that? What messages and mysteries of the Bible are being taught to you in a dead language you don't even understand?

It's not about connecting people to God - at least not anymore.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


Feed the hungry, for they are your army; give reason to the unreasonable for they are your generals; give a cause to the miserable who are willing to die for they are your pawns.

Of course, the Roman Catholic church practices charity and offers many things, in order to "raise God's army" while keeping the ignorant ignorant about it. Unfortunately, rewriting "God's Laws" is where the deception of the religion shines brighter than the sun.

Tithe - it is written in the bible to pay the government with what belongs to the government (money) but to pay God in what belongs to God. That changed! I don't see a collection of animals but I do see a collection of government issued currency.

Sodomy - it is written that men should not lay with men for fornication. I don't see the Roman Catholic church getting rid of any gay priest or pedaphile (another "it is written" about children's innocence) but I do see a rewriting of "what God meant" so for any disbeliever, this si unconvincing evidence of a God's power or the truth of a religion.

It is written in the pages depicting the teachings of Jesus that it's up to you to convince me, not the other way around, so start convincing.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   
Christianity is a monothestic religion which believes in a triune, three persons in one God. (1. Father 2. Son 3. Spirit)

Christianity is the sole religion that professes that God the Son came to earth and was crucified, died and was buried, rose again on the third day.

Christians and especially Catholics have statues to remind them of the death and resurrection of God the Son.

Much the same way that you keep pictures of your children or parents in your home. You know the picture is not really the person and when you look at the picture you are reminded of your pleasant thoughts and feelings for them.

It REALLY is nothing more mysterious or evil than that.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   


Pope's not a king? Why's he sit on a throne? Why does he have a royal guard?

The Pope is a religious leader. He's the bishop of Rome, and the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church. The Pope is also the head of state of Vatican City, a small city-state within Rome.

That doesn't make him a king.

A king is a "temporal" leader. Temporal meaning civil, secular, as opposed to ecclesiastical. A Pope is a "spiritual" leader. And, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, spiritual will always trump temporal.



If you dont think the Catholic church is practicing legalism (yep, like Old Law) then why can't I just repent, be baptized, and then I'm saved? What's up with the classes before I can share communion? What happened to the Gospel's account of 3000 being converted in a day by the river? Can't do that in today's church because you have to meet the requirements.


Who ever said that living the life of a devout Catholic would be easy? It's not. It's actually quite difficult and frustrating at times --- as with anything worth pursuing.

You're talking about your eternal soul. If you prefer instant gratification, then the Church is definitely not for you. But, such is typical for our culture nowadays, when everything is about selfish "Me", and instant gratification.

From the Douay-Rheims, Matthew 5: 20:

In the words of Christ Himself:

"For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven."

(Note: "The scribes and Pharisees"... The scribes were the doctors of the law of Moses: the Pharisees were a precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law: and upon that account greatly esteemed among the people.)



How about confession... we're to confess and repent - TO GOD! not a man. And on what authority did we confuse that man can assign a penance for our sin? Christ's sacrifice was for ALL sin - past and present. Why do I have to confess to a man, who gives me ACTS to preform to absolve me of sin...


Any devout Catholic knows that we do confess our sins at every Mass, and in daily prayers (sometimes referred to as an "examination of conscience"). A priest is only involved during the Sacrament of Confession.

A priest is a holy man, devoting his entire life to his religious calling. His words of wisdom in the confessional are of great spiritual help. Everyone needs a spiritual counselor. We see the same kind of spiritual counseling done by Jewish rabbis, and Protestant ministers.



You look at the early church, the one that existed before man had a chance to muck up the picture that Christ painted for us. Now look at today's Catholic church and tell me you think the Pope's doing it as God intended.

The Mass - which is one of the central components of Catholicism - takes many of its components from Judaism. The roots of the Mass can be traced back to the very earliest days of Christianity, and even past that - to Jewish liturgical tradition.

In fact, many of the prayers recited at Mass are exact replications or derivations of Jewish prayers. If you were to read a Jewish Siddur (prayer book), and compare the prayers with the Catholic Church's traditional Mass, you would find many, many similarities.

Even if you took a secular historical approach to the Church, you would see that there is more than ample liturgical history to support the Mass in its current and traditional form (pre-Vatican II). For nearly 1500 years, the Church practiced the traditional Latin Mass (the "Tridentine Mass"), with little changes to the liturgy. Pope Benedict, in his Motu Proprio, liberalized the usage of the traditional Latin Mass, and this particular form of the Mass (the "extraordinary form") is gaining great popularity around the world, especially among young families.

The Pope is simply the leader of the Church. The actual Church itself is comprised of the Pope - yes - but also billions of adherents who practice the faith daily in prayer, the Mass, and the sacraments.



How's that reading of the bible in Latin working for you? What exactly are you getting out of that? What messages and mysteries of the Bible are being taught to you in a dead language you don't even understand?


First, the Roman Missal of 1962 typically contains the Latin right alongside the English. It's pretty easy to follow. Secondly, the Douay-Rheims is an English translation of the Latin Bible. Of course, we also have other versions of the Bible besides the Douay-Rheims - all in English. We also have the writings and commentaries of many Doctors of the Church - all in English.

Some Catholics learn Latin in grade school. Many of the Latin words are very similar to English, so it's not too difficult tor the average lay reader to understand with just a modicum of patience. For those that want to become fluent in Latin, there are certainly resources available to do so.

(Do you attack Orthodox Jews, by the way, for praying in Hebrew? Just curious.)

I have no problem with talking about the Catholic faith. I would politely ask, however, that we engage in a spirited discussion and even debate, without crossing the lines of decorum. I know that religion is an emotional - and even personal topic - but there's no need to express anger, hatred, and venom in your posts. We're all adults here.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by CookieMonster09]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   


Tithe - it is written in the bible to pay the government with what belongs to the government (money) but to pay God in what belongs to God. That changed! I don't see a collection of animals but I do see a collection of government issued currency.

Many Catholics do tithe, and then some. In fact, Catholics that belong to a particular parish donate to their Church every week at Mass. Some bring can goods for the poor. Others - with limited resources - volunteer time at their local soup kitchen or other similar Catholic charity.

Nevertheless, the only Biblical references to the tithe occurred during the period of Mosaic Law, applicable only to Jews. Jesus came to "fulfill" the Law, which occurred at His crucifixion.

Christians are no longer obligated to pay a minimum amount, but should give only as God specifically directs them to do (which may be more or less than 10%). See 2 Corinthians, Chapter 9, verse 7:

"Let each one give according as he has determined in his heart, not grudgingly or from compulsion, for "God loves a cheerful giver."

Nowhere in the New Testament is tithing commanded, urged, or suggested.

Regarding animal sacrifices in the Old Testament:

There is no longer any need for animal sacrifices. Christ has already given His life on the Cross as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins.



Sodomy - it is written that men should not lay with men for fornication. I don't see the Roman Catholic church getting rid of any gay priest or pedaphile (another "it is written" about children's innocence) but I do see a rewriting of "what God meant" so for any disbeliever, this si unconvincing evidence of a God's power or the truth of a religion.


From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition:

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity."

"Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tauempire
 


LOL, thanks for explaining what the commandments actually meant!!!

Anything else you would like to re-define?



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
And this has always bugged me, I believe the commandment means what it says, "thou shalt not kill".

So, when someone is executed on death row, everyone who agrees with the death penalty is also breaking a commandment. Yes, more than one person can be guilty of killing one person.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
"It is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. ... the Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.” Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a “rare” case arises that warrants the death penalty. Moreover, if such a rare case does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal act of self-defense would be a *morally good action* even if it does have the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the aggressor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally irresponsible to rule out all such “rare” possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately. "

from
A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters

Fr. Stephen F. Torraco, PhD

Jesus Christ was put to death via capital punishment.
Two criminals were there also, one on the right, one on the left.
One of the criminals mocked Christ, the other asked for forgiveness, (confessed his sins to the Greatest High Priest who was both, God and man), and was given forgiveness, and died and went to heaven.



[edit on 22-5-2010 by slugger9787]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 


I disagree, it say's "thou shalt not kill" YOU CANT CHANGE THAT!!! If you think it, you might as well have did it. Its the same thing.

or...... but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Mathew 5:39

or...But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. Mathrew 5:44

or... for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Mathrew 5:45

Why do people change the facts. Logic should be God.



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
I see Christians worshipping a guy hanging on a cross, isn't that against the first commandment?

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.


My Christian church does not use Jesus on a cross anyplace.. but for a symbol, The star of David, because in reality Christianity is a direct extension of the Hebrew religion.

A symbol of Jesus on a cross is very bad if you hang it in your church and pray before it - like statures of Mary or making the sign of the cross. These things are not biblical.

A cross is a symbol of horror and inflicted pain. It's the most horrible way to kill a man, it's the worst image for Christianity. Churches wrongly use this image to insight emotionalism for a confession or to make people feel bad for their sins. This is wrong and unbiblical.

In many places the bible warns against trusting your feelings and emotions but rather go strictly by what is written. If the words of Jesus condemn you for your sins, that's a different story, but to use an image of Him on a cross to help get to this state is showing that the truth is not in these so called Christians because the Spirit has not revealed the error of their ways.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
The Devil Hates Latin:

www.freerepublic.com...

"The devil doesn't like Latin," writes Tracy Wilkinson in The Vatican's Exorcists. "That is one of the first things I learned from Father Gabriele Amorth, long known as Rome's chief exorcist, even though that has never been his formal title.......

".......On the walls of Amorth's exorcism chamber, eight Crucifixes and pictures of the Madonna are hanging, plus a picture of Saint Michael the Archangel," says the book. "A two-foot-high statue of the Virgin Mary, the Madonna of Fatima, sits on a corner table.

"There are also pictures of the late Pope John Paul II; the popular saint Padre Pio; Amorth's mentor, Father Candido; and Father Giacomo Alberione, the founder of the Society of Saint Paul Congregation."

Father Amorth calls them "my protectors," adding that "the more recent addition of John Paul's has been especially effective and helpful."

"The demons become very agitated at his presence," Father Amorth says of the late Pope."



posted on May, 22 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CookieMonster09
 


I will try not to offend, but seriously - you're not really addressing my points. Salvation is just that: instant gratification.

You were saved before you even knew it (a little thing called prevenient Grace) So why is it ok for Jesus to instantly convert thousands but if you want to be Catholic it's a long arduous process before you can accept communion?

You addressed the statement I made about legalism with a deflection saying something about justice. In one statement you refer to the Pharisees and scribes as who you're NOT trying to be but then in the next talk about how Mass derives it's roots from the very rituals practiced by them?

Ahhh! I'm going gray with this kind of circular thought.

Last - you never addressed the "sacrament" of confession to a priest and that priest's authority to assign penance. What happened to Christ's sacrifice? Why do I have to do a penance?

The punishment for sin is the consequence of sin. You'll notice that every sin has a natural consequence... so why do Catholic priests assign additional "works" to wash you clean of your sin? Was Christ's blood not enough?



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join