Circles

[Joe]

Borrowing the metaphor of circles, like in "the inner circle" and
"circle of friends," I observe that there are circles of relative
faith. I count seven, for the sake of a discussion.

The outer circle includes all of humanity. We have in common that we
all seek happiness.

Now some seek their happiness in love, and some, unfortunately, have
rejected love. Some have rejected it with finality. But many still
do seek their happiness in love, and that is the next circle. It is
my firm belief that those who seek happiness without seeking love are
doomed to fail ultimately, because it is my firm conviction that in
love alone is found true happiness. But those who seek their
happiness in love will ultimately find true happiness. Many atheists
as well as many believers are found in this circle. No one who enters
this circle with intention and finality can ever be damned, since God
is Love, and thus to seek love is ultimately to seek God. So even
atheists who simply seek love, both the giving and receiving of love,
will be saved in the end, for that seeking. But they will not remain
atheists, since God is Love. Love is the sole criterion of God's
Judgment. Obviously, I am not talking about a mere human emotion, but
rather, an act of the will. The love that I speak of is charity. A
description of this love is found in 1 Corinthians 13.

The third circle includes those who seek God. Now it is not
necessarily true that all those who believe God exists seek love, so
it is possible for one to believe God exists but not to be in this
third circle, but only in the first, for not recognizing the
importance of love. Love is more important, in a sense, than God.
The reality is that God is Love, but it is more important to love than
to believe there is God. So some atheists are actually closer to this
circle than some who believe there is God. This circle includes
anyone who seeks love and seeks God. So there are Hindus and Muslims
and Jews in this circle as well as Christians. There are even
atheists who are unaware of Who God is, and believe in Him without
calling Him God. This circle includes all those who not only seek
love but believe in love, and believe that "love conquers all." To
believe that love conquers all is to believe that love is omnipotent;
and the omnipotent entity is God, by definition. Most of those in
this third circle acknowledge as much.

The fourth circle includes believers in Jesus Christ. All true
Christians are included in it. And by a true Christian I mean one who
seeks the giving and receiving of love. One who claims to believe in
Jesus but does not seek love, I consider a false Christian. In this
circle are Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses,
Mormons, etc. --- anyone who believes in Jesus Christ and trusts Him
for their salvation. We all have love for each other because of our
common belief in the Savior, because of our common gratitude to Him,
and because we all seek love, both the giving and the receiving.

The fifth circle includes those who believe *all* the words of Jesus
Christ, including the "hard sayings." The Gospel of Saint John,
Chapter Six, has an account of Jesus giving a hard saying indeed.

John 6:55 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath
everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. 56 For my
flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. 57 He that eateth
my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him. 58 As the
living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father: so he that eateth
me, the same also shall live by me. 59 This is the bread that came
down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead. He
that eateth this bread shall live for ever.

60 These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum. 61
Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is
hard; and who can hear it?

Those in the fifth circle accept the "hard saying" of Jesus, that we
are to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. So those in this circle
believe in the Reality of the Real Presence. We believe that the
Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, not a mere symbol.
We obey His command to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. So this
circle includes Catholics and Orthodox.

The sixth circle includes those who not only believe in Jesus in the
Eucharist, but also are devoted to Him. This is the meaning of the
True Faith. Devotion to the Eucharist is the purity of love of God,
and by it Jesus saves all who come to Him seeking their salvation.
Salvation is most importantly salvation from sin, which brings us to
the seventh, inmost circle.

I strive to be in the seventh circle, but I know that I am far from
being in it in truth. The seventh circle includes those who seek
holiness with all their might, through devotion to the Eucharist. It
includes all those in heaven, who have already finished the race, and
found true holiness, and in it, true happiness. It includes all those
on earth whose devotion has begun to bear fruit, that fruit being
their holiness.

1 Peter 1:16 . . . it is written: You shall be holy, for I am holy.
Leviticus 11:44 For I am the Lord your God. Be holy because I am
holy. . . .

It is in such as these that the Kingdom of Heaven consists, and there
is no one who can come to heaven without seeking holiness. I myself
seek it Alas! all too imperfectly. But I am greatly encouraged by the
Saints who have sought it and found it before me, and I trust in Jesus
to repair for my lack, and to help me to change myself and my
attitudes. It is my hope that, despite my many, many failures in
this, ultimately God will change even my will, and cause me to seek
holiness with all my might.

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Thu, 10/22/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Those in the fifth circle accept the "hard saying" of Jesus, that we >are to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.

That's an Aramaic euphemism for absorbing another's spirit.

> So those in this circle believe in the Reality of the Real Presence.

Disagreed.

> We believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, not a mere symbol. We obey His command to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.  So this circle includes Catholics and Orthodox.

That being Roman Catholics.   That's as far as

[Bridge]

On Oct 22, 12:45 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Borrowing the metaphor of circles, like in "the inner circle" and
> "circle of friends,"  I observe that there are circles of relative
> faith.  I count seven, for the sake of a discussion.
>
> The outer circle includes all of humanity.  We have in common that we
> all seek happiness.
>
> Now some seek their happiness in love, and some, unfortunately, have
> rejected love.  Some have rejected it with finality.  But many still
> do seek their happiness in love, and that is the next circle.  It is
> my firm belief that those who seek happiness without seeking love are
> doomed to fail ultimately, because it is my firm conviction that in
> love alone is found true happiness.  But those who seek their
> happiness in love will ultimately find true happiness.  Many atheists
> as well as many believers are found in this circle.  No one who enters
> this circle with intention and finality can ever be damned, since God
> is Love, and thus to seek love is ultimately to seek God.  So even
> atheists who simply seek love, both the giving and receiving of love,
> will be saved in the end, for that seeking.  But they will not remain
> atheists, since God is Love.  Love is the sole criterion of God's
> Judgment.  Obviously, I am not talking about a mere human emotion, but
> rather, an act of the will.  The love that I speak of is charity.  A
> description of this love is found in 1 Corinthians 13.

And Mike watches the train leave in the distance. There's enough in
the second circle to tide me over.

"You will shoot from inside the key and not shoot 3-pointers until you
never miss from inside the key."

-Mr. Grubbs, Mike's Peewee Basketball Coach

[Redshirt Bluejacket]

On Oct 22, 1:45 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Borrowing the metaphor of circles, like in "the inner circle" and
> "circle of friends,"  I observe that there are circles of relative
> faith.  I count seven, for the sake of a discussion.
>
> The outer circle includes all of humanity.  We have in common that we
> all seek happiness.
>
> Now some seek their happiness in love, and some, unfortunately, have
> rejected love.  Some have rejected it with finality.  But many still
> do seek their happiness in love, and that is the next circle.  It is
> my firm belief that those who seek happiness without seeking love are
> doomed to fail ultimately, because it is my firm conviction that in
> love alone is found true happiness.  But those who seek their
> happiness in love will ultimately find true happiness.  Many atheists
> as well as many believers are found in this circle.  No one who enters
> this circle with intention and finality can ever be damned, since God
> is Love, and thus to seek love is ultimately to seek God.

Can you prove that God is "Love" as opposed to, say, logic, or
curiosity, or the color green?

[ornamentalmind]

False dichotomies seldom further.

On Oct 25, 9:28 pm, Redshirt Bluejacket <knujonmap...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> curiosity, or the color green?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Joe]

On Oct 26, 12:28 am, Redshirt Bluejacket <knujonmap...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

1. Love is the best possible.
2. God, by definition, is the maximally good being.
3. Therefore God must be love.

1. Scripture says, "God is love."
2. Scripture is given under the authority of the Holy Spirit.
3. The Holy Spirit cannot lie.
4. Therefore, God is love.

1. Love is the best possible.
2. If God is love, then He will help us to achieve love.
3. It is better for us if God helps us to achieve love.
4. If this is an ideal universe, then the case that is better for us
should obtain.
5. This is the only universe we've got. It either is or is not ideal.
6. If it is not ideal, then oh well, we gotta work with it and make it
the best we can.
7. The best we can make it is a universe where love reigns.
8. If we cause love to reign, then we have effectively installed love
as God.
9. Thus if the universe is not ideal, then God is love; conversely, if
the universe is ideal, then God is love.
10. Thus in any case, God is love.

[Joe]

The circles inside the second circle are just further extensions of
the adequacy of love. Just *more* love. Anyone who tastes love wants
more, and more is available to you. That is the whole point of
Catholicism.

[Redshirt Bluejacket]

On Oct 30, 1:23 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:28 am, Redshirt Bluejacket <knujonmap...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 22, 1:45 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Borrowing the metaphor of circles, like in "the inner circle" and
> > > "circle of friends,"  I observe that there are circles of relative
> > > faith.  I count seven, for the sake of a discussion.
>
> > > The outer circle includes all of humanity.  We have in common that we
> > > all seek happiness.
>
> > > Now some seek their happiness in love, and some, unfortunately, have
> > > rejected love.  Some have rejected it with finality.  But many still
> > > do seek their happiness in love, and that is the next circle.  It is
> > > my firm belief that those who seek happiness without seeking love are
> > > doomed to fail ultimately, because it is my firm conviction that in
> > > love alone is found true happiness.  But those who seek their
> > > happiness in love will ultimately find true happiness.  Many atheists
> > > as well as many believers are found in this circle.  No one who enters
> > > this circle with intention and finality can ever be damned, since God
> > > is Love, and thus to seek love is ultimately to seek God.
>
> > Can you prove that God is "Love" as opposed to, say, logic, or
> > curiosity, or the color green?
>
> 1. Love is the best possible.

So you presume -- can you prove that? Plenty of people have killed or
been killed, or hurt or been hurt, over "love".... maybe logic or
reason is the "best possible," or justice.... maybe it is all
experiences, coming together as a whole, creating a formula for
determining the good by allowing a weighing of all things....

> 2. God, by definition, is the maximally good being.

By whose definition? And from what evidence is this definition
derived? Why does God not transcend concepts such as goodness?

> 3. Therefore God must be love.
>

Prove your premises before this conclusion can be accepted....

> 1. Scripture says, "God is love."

Scripture universally comes through the hand and voice of man; men can
be mistaken and mislead, and can be misleading....

> 2. Scripture is given under the authority of the Holy Spirit.

Show me but a single word in any scripture that can not have been the
product of a human mind (or even of a supernatural being that falls
short of being a God)....

> 3. The Holy Spirit cannot lie.

Again, based on what evidence?

[Joe]

On Oct 30, 10:59 pm, Redshirt Bluejacket <knujonmap...@hotmail.com>

wrote:
> On Oct 30, 1:23 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 26, 12:28 am, Redshirt Bluejacket <knujonmap...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 22, 1:45 am, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Borrowing the metaphor of circles, like in "the inner circle" and
> > > > "circle of friends,"  I observe that there are circles of relative
> > > > faith.  I count seven, for the sake of a discussion.
>
> > > > The outer circle includes all of humanity.  We have in common that we
> > > > all seek happiness.
>
> > > > Now some seek their happiness in love, and some, unfortunately, have
> > > > rejected love.  Some have rejected it with finality.  But many still
> > > > do seek their happiness in love, and that is the next circle.  It is
> > > > my firm belief that those who seek happiness without seeking love are
> > > > doomed to fail ultimately, because it is my firm conviction that in
> > > > love alone is found true happiness.  But those who seek their
> > > > happiness in love will ultimately find true happiness.  Many atheists
> > > > as well as many believers are found in this circle.  No one who enters
> > > > this circle with intention and finality can ever be damned, since God
> > > > is Love, and thus to seek love is ultimately to seek God.
>
> > > Can you prove that God is "Love" as opposed to, say, logic, or
> > > curiosity, or the color green?
>
> > 1. Love is the best possible.
>
> So you presume -- can you prove that?

You either know it or you don't. If you don't, maybe you will
discover it. If not, you have my pity.

>Plenty of people have killed or
> been killed, or hurt or been hurt, over "love"....

Because it is worth so much to us.

>maybe logic or
> reason is the "best possible," or justice.... maybe it is all
> experiences, coming together as a whole, creating a formula for
> determining the good by allowing a weighing of all things....
>

All good things come from love and lead back to love.

"All you need is love." (John Lennon)

> > 2. God, by definition, is the maximally good being.
>
> By whose definition?

By a working definition, for the sake of this argument.

>And from what evidence is this definition
> derived?

Definitions are not taken from evidence, they are assigned as the
meaning of words.

>Why does God not transcend concepts such as goodness?
>

Because goodness is better than transcendence.

> > 3. Therefore God must be love.
>
> Prove your premises before this conclusion can be accepted....
>

The argument is sound if the premises are accepted. Premise 2 is a
mere definition. It is premise 1 on which the argument depends.
That, you either accept or reject. But I feel sorry for you if you
reject it.

> > 1. Scripture says, "God is love."
>
> Scripture universally comes through the hand and voice of man; men can
> be mistaken and mislead, and can be misleading....
>

Not if 2 below.

> > 2. Scripture is given under the authority of the Holy Spirit.
>
> Show me but a single word in any scripture that can not have been the
> product of a human mind (or even of a supernatural being that falls
> short of being a God)....
>

This is a proof from the authority of Scripture. You can reject the
premise and thus not accept the proof. But if the premises are true,
the argument is sound.

> > 3. The Holy Spirit cannot lie.
>
> Again, based on what evidence?

By definition. Lying and holiness are contradictory.

> 4. Therefore, God is love.
>
> > 1. Love is the best possible.
> > 2. If God is love, then He will help us to achieve love.
> > 3. It is better for us if God helps us to achieve love.
> > 4. If this is an ideal universe, then the case that is better for us
> > should obtain.
> > 5. This is the only universe we've got.  It either is or is not ideal.
> > 6. If it is not ideal, then oh well, we gotta work with it and make it
> > the best we can.
> > 7. The best we can make it is a universe where love reigns.
> > 8. If we cause love to reign, then we have effectively installed love
> > as God.
> > 9. Thus if the universe is not ideal, then God is love; conversely, if
> > the universe is ideal, then God is love.
> > 10. Thus in any case, God is love.

This last argument works whether or not there is even God. The idea
is that if there were not, then what would stop us from installing one
of our own choosing?

[Joe]

On Oct 22, 4:20 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Thu, 10/22/09, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Those in the fifth circle accept the "hard saying" of Jesus, that we
> >are to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.
>
>   That's an Aramaic euphemism for absorbing another's spirit.
>

In point of fact, no, it is not. You labor under a misconception
here, and it is no small point. The common Aramaic euphemism at the
time, to "eat one's flesh," meant to disparage a person and speak ill
of them, sort of like our word, "backbiting." So if He was speaking
figuratively, it would appear He was trying to work against Himself,
recommending that people hate, rather than love the Son of Man.

This is an important point and you really need to do more research.

Here is a good article, from which I will quote one paragraph:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

"
Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6,
16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only
speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically
eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a
physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming
intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically
in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults
me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.

"

>  > So those in this circle believe in the Reality of the Real Presence.
>
>   Disagreed.
>

You are not in the fifth circle!!

> > We believe that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ,
>
> not a mere symbol. We obey His command to eat His Flesh and drink
> His Blood.  So this circle includes Catholics and Orthodox.
>
>   That being Roman Catholics.
>

All Catholics, and all Orthodox.

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Sun, 11/1/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >Those in the fifth circle accept the "hard saying" of Jesus, that we >> >are to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. >> That's an Aramaic euphemism for absorbing another's spirit.

> >xnun

>In point of fact, no, it is not.  You labor under a misconception >here, and it is no small point.

Incorrect.  I read 8 Bibles, and find the Lamsa Bible, translated directly from Aramaic (the language of Jesus and most apostles)  to English and his commentaries, much more credible than RC doctrines.  I grew up in the RC church.

>  The common Aramaic euphemism at the time, to "eat one's flesh," >meant to disparage a person and speak ill of them, sort of like our >word, "backbiting."  So if He was speaking figuratively, it would >appear He was trying to work against Himself, recommending that >people hate, rather than love the Son of Man.

Neither you, I nor RC theologians were there.

>This is an important point and you really need to do more research.

You do, in something besides RC doctrine.  And, if the papal myrmidons could have silenced or murdered Martin Luther for his 95 theses, as they did so many others,  they would have.  Deservedly for them he was under divine protection.   xnun

[Bridge]

We've done this dance.

[Bridge]

On Nov 1, 12:02 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is a proof from the authority of Scripture.  You can reject the
> premise and thus not accept the proof.  But if the premises are true,
> the argument is sound.
>

And if the premises hold grains of truth?

[Joe]

On Nov 2, 4:43 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Sun, 11/1/09, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Those in the fifth circle accept the "hard saying" of Jesus, that we
> >> >are to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood.
> >>   That's an Aramaic euphemism for absorbing another's spirit.
> > >xnun
> >In point of fact, no, it is not.  You labor under a misconception
> >here, and it is no small point.
>
>   Incorrect.  I read 8 Bibles, and find the Lamsa Bible, translated
> directly from Aramaic (the language of Jesus and most apostles)
>  to English and his commentaries, much more credible than RC
> doctrines.  I grew up in the RC church.
>

Then you are without excuse. You should know better.

> >  The common Aramaic euphemism at the time, to "eat one's flesh,"
> >meant to disparage a person and speak ill of them, sort of like our
> >word, "backbiting."  So if He was speaking figuratively, it would
> >appear He was trying to work against Himself, recommending that
> >people hate, rather than love the Son of Man.
>
>   Neither you, I nor RC theologians were there.
>

Yet you insist that you know the meaning of the euphemism. That is
rich! Nice double standard there, Michele. But, contrary to your
assertion, we do know history, and we do know the history of that
particular phrase. The phrase or similar phraseology is used many
times in the Bible itself, and wherever it is a metaphor, it is used
disparagingly. The article I linked references multiple scriptural
quotations, so you cannot even hide behind any pretense of any
ignorance of history. It is right there, in the Bible.

Read for yourself:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

"
Psalm 27:2; Isa. 9:20; 49:26; Mic. 3:3; 2 Sam. 23:17; Rev. 16:6; 17:6,
16 - to further dispense with the Protestant claim that Jesus was only
speaking symbolically, these verses demonstrate that symbolically
eating body and blood is always used in a negative context of a
physical assault. It always means “destroying an enemy,” not becoming
intimately close with him. Thus, if Jesus were speaking symbolically
in John 6:51-58, He would be saying to us, "He who reviles or assaults
me has eternal life." This, of course, is absurd.
"

> >This is an important point and you really need to do more research.
>
>   You do, in something besides RC doctrine. 

The Bible is Catholic Doctrine, Michele. You should research this, in
the Bible.

> And, if the papal myrmidons
> could have silenced or murdered Martin Luther for his 95 theses, as
> they did so many others,  they would have.  Deservedly for them he was
> under divine protection.
>

God allowed Martin Luther to commit scandalous sins of pride, and to
tear the seamless garment that is the Church. God's respect for free
will is infinite; Martin Luther sinned against God and against His
Church, by his own free will. If he is not right now in hell, we
should pray for him as we would any enemy.

[Joe]

Law of excluded middle would appear to preclude that.

[Joe]

True. Also true, that God is infinitely patient. Whenever you're
ready, Mike. I do love you just the way you are!!

[Bridge]

You'll have to first convince me that not some of the Scripture is
true and some of it is false.

Right?

[Joe]

"Scripture," was not a premise.

The premises were,

1. Scripture says, "God is Love."

Indisputable. It does say that.

2. The Holy Spirit cannot lie.

Either He can or He cannot. There is no middle ground. Thus,
excluded middle applies.

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Tue, 11/3/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 2, 4:43 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Incorrect. I read 8 Bibles, and find the Lamsa Bible, translated >> directly from Aramaic (the language of Jesus and most apostles) > >to English and his commentaries, much more credible than RC > >doctrines. I grew up in the RC church. >Then you are without excuse.  You should know better.

I ned no more excuses than Martin Luther did.  Roman Catholicism has wrecked more human  beings than almost any other cult, to include most of my family and many of my former friends.   The bishop of Rome (self styled pope) is only that, no matter how many sycophants surround him.  I recommend that you read "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church" by Malachai Martin. Don't bother trying to discredit him - he has been an exorcist.   It was about a pope that "Power corrupts - absolute power corrupts absolutely" was said.   xnun

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Tue, 11/3/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Neither you, I nor RC theologians were there. >Yet you insist that you know the meaning of the euphemism.

No, I insist that George Lamsa, who grew up in Palestine, knew it.

>But, contrary to your assertion, we do know history, and we >do know the history of that particular phrase.  The phrase or

similar phraseology is used manytimes in the Bible itself.   That being the Douay Bible,. of course.  It being loaded with self-serving translations from Greek to Latin to English.

>Read for yourself: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

I no longer waste time of Roman Catholic sophistries.   xnun

[Bridge]

And there are no contradictory statements in the Bible?

[Redshirt Bluejacket]

An infinitely patient God would have no qualms with reincarnating us
until we hit on the right set of beliefs....

[Redshirt Bluejacket]

If a text were true because it claims to be the word of God, then the
Qur'an and the Book of Mormon are both true -- funny enough though,
they seem to contradict each other....

[Bridge]

On Nov 4, 9:58 pm, Redshirt Bluejacket <knujonmap...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Doesn't the whole concept of it being a test sit funny to anyone but
me?

I think the mindset of life being a test causes as many problems as it
may solve. What if life is just life?

[Joe]

You deny the plain sense of Scripture. I shake the dust of you from
my feet in testimony against you.

On Nov 4, 2:21 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Joe]

On Nov 4, 10:58 pm, Redshirt Bluejacket <knujonmap...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Completely unnecessary since God does not judge us on our beliefs.

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Thu, 11/5/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You deny the plain sense of Scripture.

RC scripture, which includes the apocrypha. Like that in  the  Latin Bibles chained to the altar before the Reformation.  The faithful were denied reading it in their own languages; they had to listen to the corrupt priests until Martin Luther left that depraved caricature of Christianity for their selling indulgences. And then there was the Inquisition, the counter reformation, and all the other RC artifices to deny seekers contact with the Creator, which is what Christ had come to restore.  Not to mention false doctrines such as the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, papal "infallibility," purgatory and limbo, and all the other  RC blasphemies. And then moving on to priestly pedophiles and homosexuals, lesbian nuns, and the many other manifestations of RC "truth."   But, hey - they are selling indulgences again, not just annulments!! There's hope for restoring papal riches yet!!!

> I shake the dust of you from my feet in testimony against you.

Gee!!!  I guess I'm in trouble now!!  Bettter go to "confession!!" How did you get dust on your feet?  Monkish sandals?   xnun

[Joe]

Psalm 27:2;
Isa. 9:20;

Isa. 49:26;

Mic. 3:3;
2 Sam. 23:17;
Rev. 16:6;

Rev. 17:6,
Rev. 17:16.

All in YOUR Bible, Michele.

You are scripturally and spiritually wrong.

On Nov 5, 8:13 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Thu, 11/5/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

>2 Sam. 23:17; >Rev. 16:6; >Rev. 17:6, >Rev. 17:16. >All in YOUR Bible, Michele. >You are scripturally and spiritually wrong.

Revelation (the Apocalyse in the RC bible.)   "The whore which rides the beast, drunk with the blood of the saints, with whom the kings of the earth have fornicated, which sits in seven hills, is the Roman Catholic "church."   As in "Alas, Babylon."   Now that the dust is off your feet, you want to discuss with me again?   xnun

[Bridge]

If this was facebook, this comment would have gotten a "like" from moi!

[Redshirt Bluejacket]

Agreed, but I think it says to much: "Completely unnecessary since God
does not judge us" is enough....

[Bridge]

On Nov 6, 4:12 pm, Redshirt Bluejacket <knujonmap...@hotmail.com>

That's awesome.

[Joe]

On Nov 5, 8:30 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Probably not. You have been brainwashed by some cult or other.
Seventh-day-adventism, or a different one?

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Sat, 11/7/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Now that the dust is off your feet, you want to discuss with me again? >> > > xnun >Probably not.  You have been brainwashed by some cult or >other. Seventh-day-adventism, or a different one?

Coming from a blind adherent to one of the most destructive cults ever, which believes  that re-sacrificing Christ thousands of times per day is pleasing to the Creator, that's hilarious. My brainwashed suffering ended when I kicked your religion of hatred and condemnation.   xnun

[Joe]

On Nov 7, 3:49 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Sat, 11/7/09, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>   Now that the dust is off your feet, you want to discuss with me again?
>
> >  > xnun
> >Probably not.  You have been brainwashed by some cult or
> >other. Seventh-day-adventism, or a different one?
>
>   Coming from a blind adherent to one of the most destructive
> cults ever,

1. I am not blind. My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has opened my eyes
to His Truth. He Himself took me by the hand and led me to His
Catholic Church. "A City set on a hill cannot be hidden."

2. Catholicism is by definition the universal Church, not a cult.
Cults are the kinds of things that people like Martin Luther start up,
in defiance of Almighty God.

3. The abuse of Catholicism is destructive because Catholicism has
real power. Authentic Catholicism is the practice of using that power
properly, to please God.

>which believes  that re-sacrificing Christ thousands
> of times per day is pleasing to the Creator,

4. Christ was sacrificed once for all, as Scripture says. We do not
re-sacrifice Him. We re-present His One Sacrifice, in obedience to
His direct commandment; something that you and those in similar cults
fail to do.

>that's hilarious.
> My brainwashed suffering ended when I kicked your religion
> of hatred and condemnation.
>

You hate God's Church, just as those who crucified Christ hated Him,
"without cause."

>   xnun

You will never succeed in drawing me away from God, Michele. He has
me in the palm of His hand, according to His promise. I hope and pray
for you that one day you will escape the darkness of whichever cult
you are in that commands you to hate God's Holy Church.

[Joe]

On Nov 6, 5:12 pm, Redshirt Bluejacket <knujonmap...@hotmail.com>

Comforting as that might be to believe were it true, I do not see it
as true. Holy Scripture is quite clear: God will judge us.

It is better to face reality than to comfort yourself with wishful
thinking.

[Joe]

"God is Love" is not one of them, if there actually are any.

[Joe]

On Nov 4, 11:00 pm, Redshirt Bluejacket <knujonmap...@hotmail.com>

But that isn't why Scripture is true, so this is a non-argument.

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Sat, 11/7/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

>2. Catholicism is by definition the universal Church, not a cult.

But not  Roman "catholicism."

>Cults are the kinds of things that people like Martin Luther >start up, in defiance of Almighty God.

Let's hear it again about "brainwashing."  Only God could have protected Luther from papal myrmidons.

>3. The abuse of Catholicism is destructive because Catholicism >has real power.  Authentic Catholicism is the practice of using that >power properly, to please God.

Correct.  But not Roman "catholicism."

>which believes that re-sacrificing Christ thousands > of times per day is pleasing to the Creator,

That's "Roman," which imitated the cermonies of paganism and the old Judaism in order to woo its adherents.

>4. Christ was sacrificed once for all, as Scripture says.

Correct.

> We do not re-sacrifice Him.  We re-present His One Sacrifice,

Unnecessary.

> in obedience to His direct commandment;

What commandment?

>You hate God's Church, just as those who crucified Christ >hated Him, "without cause."

I love God's church, and loath Romanism.

>You will never succeed in drawing me away from God, Michele.

I'm not trying to.  You're on your own, as I am.

>  I hope and pray for you that one day you will escape the darkness >of whichever cult you are in that commands you to hate God's Holy >Church.

I did that when I rejected papalism.   xnun

[Redshirt Bluejacket]

On Nov 7, 7:16 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I did that when I rejected Paulism and Trinitarianism

[Bridge]

...I feel cheated.

[showmethehoney]

'gods church' is a self-obtained adjective. its easy to bestow fancy
names upon oneself, especially if one is the most powerful animal in
the realm. dont you think that it is highly subjective for the pope to
be referred to as the 'holy father'? if i was the head of a church i
would ask that no one refer to me with any name of reverence. all are
equal, although some spirits may be brighter. if so, the bright should
encourage the dull, not demand worship from them, or place themselves
above another. if they do so, the community will eventually collapse
from within as power is the 'devils' tonic.

[Joe]

Why "Not Roman Catholicism?" Is it because of Imperial Rome, and you
associate the Roman Catholic Church with the Imperial power? Or do
you have some other reason for deciding there is a Church that God's
Church is specifically "not?"

How do you turn the passage where Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter,
in order to avoid the implication of the Primacy of Peter and his
successors? How do you account for the historical fact of deference
to that Primacy in the early Church?

On Nov 7, 7:16 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Joe]

On Nov 7, 7:16 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Sat, 11/7/09, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >2. Catholicism is by definition the universal Church, not a cult.
>
>   But not  Roman "catholicism."
>
> >Cults are the kinds of things that people like Martin Luther
> >start up, in defiance of Almighty God.
>
>   Let's hear it again about "brainwashing."  Only God could
> have protected Luther from papal myrmidons.
>
> >3. The abuse of Catholicism is destructive because Catholicism
> >has real power.  Authentic Catholicism is the practice of using that
> >power properly, to please God.
>
>  
>   Correct.  But not Roman "catholicism."
>
> >which believes  that re-sacrificing Christ thousands
> > of times per day is pleasing to the Creator,
>
>   That's "Roman," which imitated the cermonies of paganism
> and the old Judaism in order to woo its adherents.
>
> >4. Christ was sacrificed once for all, as Scripture says.
>
>   Correct.
>
> > We do not re-sacrifice Him.  We re-present His One Sacrifice,
>
>   Unnecessary.
>
> > in obedience to His direct commandment;
>
>   What commandment?
>

"Do this in my memory."

Luke 22:19.

[Joe]

On Nov 9, 5:00 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 'gods church' is a self-obtained adjective.

Only if there is no such reality in fact.

>its easy to bestow fancy
> names upon oneself, especially if one is the most powerful animal in
> the realm. dont you think that it is highly subjective for the pope to
> be referred to as the 'holy father'?

You are using the word "subjective" in a way I haven't seen before.
What do you mean by it?

>if i was the head of a church i
> would ask that no one refer to me with any name of reverence. all are
> equal, although some spirits may be brighter.

First, if some spirits are brighter then all are not equal.

Then, the office of the Papacy is not necessarily conferred on the
brightest one. It is no respect of persons, that one is Pope. It is
the Office that must be filled, and the one who fills it incurs the
responsibilities conferred on Saint Peter, to care for Christ's flock
that is the the Church. Reverence attaches to the Office, not
necessarily to the man. Saintly Popes, there have been, and these
deserve the respect given to Saints, but sanctity is not a
prerequisite of the Office, nor a necessary result of taking the
Office. The title, "Holy Father," refers, not to the personal
holiness of a man, but to the holiness of Christ, of whom the Pope is
His vicar on Earth.

>if so, the bright should
> encourage the dull, not demand worship from them,

We do not worship the Pope.

>or place themselves
> above another.

The Pope's Office, in fact, places him in authority over us, as per
Christ's command.

>if they do so, the community will eventually collapse
> from within as power is the 'devils' tonic.
>

The Catholic Church has not collapsed, nor will it. There have been
bad popes who worshipped power rather than God, but God's Church
survived.

[showmethehoney]

who deemed the catholic church to be 'gods church'?

i guess subjective is the wrong word, lets use pompous instead. the
'god' trinity is father, son and holy ghost. lets see, thats four
words. the pope took two of them and made them his own. thats rather
pompous imo, although im sure you do not agree with this.

equality is a relationship situation that a powerful person can
create. they can empower those around them. yes, a ceo runs the
company and makes the ultimate decisions, but that doesnt mean that he/
she is always pulling rank. what i was getting at is that, in my
utopia, the separation of power would be minimal, which seems to be
directly opposite of most heirarchal entities where the boss is WAY up
there.

whether its the person or the office, the point remains, the heirarchy
makes all the rules and has all the power. can you envision the
vatican sending out surveys to their 'flock' to determine if
contraceptives should be used to help stamp out starvation and aids
that are ravishing their converts? obviously it would benefit the
flock, but the poor sheep have no say in it. how about whether the
flock wants to have female priests? what if they want to force all
pedeophile priests to give up their position and face the music?

statistics seem to indicate a decline in church attendance.
cathloicism may not collapse in your life time, but i can envision a
day when its presence in the world is greatly diminished.

> > > you are in that commands you to hate God's Holy Church.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Mon, 11/9/09, showmethehoney <alena...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> if i was the head of a church i would ask that no one refer to me with any >name of reverence. all are equal, although some spirits may be brighter.

Jesus Christ, brightest of all and founder of the catholic church, prayed to Abba (father.)   xnun i

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Mon, 11/9/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Why "Not Roman Catholicism?"  Is it because of Imperial Rome, >and you associate the Roman Catholic Church with the Imperial power?

The RC church is organized on the model of imperial  Rome.  After Constantine, it followed in the Roman empire's tracks.  Despite the 1st commandment, it stocked its churches with idols of worship and a goddess (Mary.)  She wasn't a virgin and had other children, but the RC church  recast her as a replacement for the Roman goddess Diana.   That's enough for now.

>How do you turn the passage where Jesus changes Simon's name to >Peter, in order to avoid the implication of the Primacy of Peter and his >successors?

I don't.  He was renamed Petras (rock) on which the *catholic* church would be built.  No successors are named.

>How do you account for the historical fact of deference >to that Primacy in the early Church?

It was a model of humility and sanctity then, and could perform miracles and entice with divine love rather than Inquisitions. It was a far different church.   xnun

[showmethehoney]

respect and worship are two different things. respect can also be a
two way street whereas worship cannot.

i never knew jesus so its hard for me to comment on him. its find it
amazing that so many take his words literally. my father was the most
studious theologian that i ever met. he learned ancient greek and
hebrew and read the manuscripts that the bible was translated from. he
got an entirely different twist to the st james version. he found this
really amazing, but it also got him kicked out of the church for false
indoctrination when he began to include some of his knew conclusions
into his sermons.

call be goofy, but i have NO desire to be above another, well
mostly ;-)

On Nov 9, 6:06 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Mon, 11/9/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > We do not re-sacrifice Him. We re-present His One Sacrifice, > Unnecessary. > > in obedience to His direct commandment; > What commandment? >"Do this in my memory."  Luke 22:19.

That's break bread and drink wine together, not a lot of pomp and circumstance.   xnun

[Michele Gennette]

-- On Mon, 11/9/09, showmethehoney <alena...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>i never knew jesus so its hard for me to comment on him. its find it >amazing that so many take his words literally.

"All the armies that ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the kings that ever reigned have not affected human history as much as that one small life."   xnun

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Mon, 11/9/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  Saintly Popes, there have been, and these deserve the respect >given to Saints, but sanctity is not a prerequisite of the Office,

I must agree with Tony that the RC Church has produced some great people and done much for human civilization.  Many of its customs were instituted so that pagans would give up their ceremonies for the RC ceremonies.   But, I don't give it all the credit that doctrinaire RCs do.  If there  had been more Fulton Sheens, I might.   xnun

[Joe]

On Nov 9, 6:21 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Mon, 11/9/09, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > We do not re-sacrifice Him.  We re-present His One Sacrifice,
> >   Unnecessary.
> > > in obedience to His direct commandment;
> >   What commandment?
> >"Do this in my memory."  Luke 22:19.
>
>   That's break bread and drink wine together, not a lot of pomp and
> circumstance.
>

That isn't all they were doing at that time. Clearly, Christ's words,
"This is My Body," were of profound significance, which makes it more
than just "break bread and drink wine together." What He was doing,
in fact, was giving them His Body and Blood. Otherwise, no doubt He
would have said, "Take this, all of you, and eat it, for this is
bread, and it is fun to eat bread with friends," or something like
that. He meant what He said. He commanded His Apostles to mean the
same, when they said the same words and did the same things. That was
the significance of His command to "Do this. . ."

But you say we Catholics have been led astray. If indeed we have
been, we have been led astray by Jesus Christ Himself. We take His
words at face value, He who is the Author of Truth. If you can't
trust Jesus to tell you the truth, who can you trust? To the point,
Michele, who do you trust, when they tell you to interpret the plain
words of Christ in a sense that destroys the literal? You do not
trust Jesus to have told you the plain truth. You trust someone
else's interpretation of His words as intended to mean other than what
they literally say.

[Joe]

By me?

[showmethehoney]

great propaganda machine i guess... sure jesus said some neat
stuff.... so did aristotle and others. i think many got hoodwinked
through fear and supression to adopt xtianity. the words that are read
to them can harldy be considered his words. the have had the hell
translated out of them... or into them ;-)

On Nov 9, 6:24 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[mdb]

> great propaganda machine i guess

Do you really think that Christians are merely propagandized? I think
you are oversimplifying a huge debate about reasons for belief.

[Michele Gennette]

--On Nov 9, 6:21 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> > What commandment? > >>"Do this in my memory." Luke 22:19. > >That's break bread and drink wine together, not a lot of pomp > >and circumstance. >That isn't all they were doing at that time.  Clearly, Christ's words, >"This is My Body," were of profound significance, which makes it >more than just "break bread and drink wine together."

Agreed.  But, remember that they had been simple fishermen whom he recruited, not Temple priests.  If he wanted to make it a big ceremony, he would have taught them to do it that way. He was teaching them transcendentalism.

>But you say we Catholics have been led astray.  If indeed we > have been, we have been led astray by Jesus Christ Himself.

See previous response. It's RC priests  who have led you astray.

>  If you can't trust Jesus to tell you the truth, who can you trust?

He's the only one I DO trust.  We have dialogues every day, and have for years, but not in online forums.

>You do not trust Jesus to have told you the plain truth.  You trust >someone else's interpretation of His words as intended to mean other >than what they literally say.

Sorry, Joe, but that's what YOU do.   xnun

[Bridge]

Yeah...

Check it:

"1. Scripture says, "God is love."

2. Scripture is given under the authority of the Holy Spirit.

3. The Holy Spirit cannot lie.
4. Therefore, God is love."

Something about this chain seems superfluous and also untrue.

A thought linked to this which is turning into a question for me is,

If Love is God, what is dogma?

[ornamentalmind]

“…If Love is God, what is dogma?” – B

Rhetorical question? Regardless, dogma is directly associated with
words and concepts…it is a thing of the thinking mind. Love and/or
God, while the written and/or oral terms are of the same nature as
above, the things themselves are not words or concepts.

Words and concepts are dependent/relative/subjective.
Love and/or God are not.

> If Love is God, what is dogma?- Hide quoted text -

[Bridge]

On Nov 11, 7:30 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> “…If Love is God, what is dogma?” – B
>
> Rhetorical question? Regardless, dogma is directly associated with
> words and concepts…it is a thing of the thinking mind. Love and/or
> God, while the written and/or oral terms are of the same nature as
> above, the things themselves are not words or concepts.
>
> Words and concepts are dependent/relative/subjective.
> Love and/or God are not.
>

But also, dogma is seeming to me like an effort at control.

[ornamentalmind]

"But also, dogma is seeming to me like an effort at control." - B

Only for the non-critical and non-examining mind...

Question: Do you think that memes are an effort at control?

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Bridge]

On Nov 12, 1:56 am, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> "But also, dogma is seeming to me like an effort at control." - B
>
> Only for the non-critical and non-examining mind...
>
> Question: Do you think that memes are an effort at control?

I'm thinking they're an instance of survivability.

Dogma's dogma because it's dogma?

[ornamentalmind]

“I'm thinking they're an instance of survivability.” - B

Thought noted. Upon quick reflection, as much as I embrace
practicability, I’m not sure that I the function nor nature of memes.

“Dogma's dogma because it's dogma?” – B

Uhhh, not sure exactly your intended meaning here Bridge. The identity
of dogma = dogma of course is true. The use of dogma can include the
intention to influence (‘control’), yet as I understand the most
common use of the term, at least how I use it most often : - ) …it is
the repetition of unexamined beliefs as if they were truth.

Dogma in the context of religion normally means, well, both of the
above (intention to influence and blind belief) and perhaps more
meanings too. A less critical use of the term and perhaps more
politically correct albeit Orwelian might be in the area of rituals.

[Bridge]

On Nov 12, 5:11 pm, ornamentalmind <ornamentalmind...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> “I'm thinking they're an instance of survivability.” - B
>
> Thought noted. Upon quick reflection, as much as I embrace
> practicability, I’m not sure that I the function nor nature of memes.
>
> “Dogma's dogma because it's dogma?” – B
>
> Uhhh, not sure exactly your intended meaning here Bridge. The identity
> of dogma = dogma of course is true. The use of dogma can include the
> intention to influence (‘control’), yet as I understand the most
> common use of the term, at least how I use it most often : - )  …it is
> the repetition of unexamined beliefs as if they were truth.

Could these uses be detractors from love?

>
> Dogma in the context of religion normally means, well, both of the
> above (intention to influence and blind belief) and perhaps more
> meanings too. A less critical use of the term and perhaps more
> politically correct albeit Orwelian might be in the area of rituals.

Rituals sit much better with me because much more meaning seems to
come from the experience.

[ornamentalmind]

“Could these uses [of the term dogma] be detractors from love?” – B

All ignorance veils love.

[Joe]

On Nov 10, 4:44 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --On Nov 9, 6:21 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >   What commandment?
> > >>"Do this in my memory."  Luke 22:19.
> >   >That's break bread and drink wine together, not a lot of pomp
> > >and circumstance.
> >That isn't all they were doing at that time.  Clearly, Christ's words,
> >"This is My Body," were of profound significance, which makes it
> >more than just "break bread and drink wine together."
>
>   Agreed.  But, remember that they had been simple fishermen
> whom he recruited, not Temple priests.  If he wanted to make
> it a big ceremony, he would have taught them to do it that way.

He did.

> He was teaching them transcendentalism.

I can't find that term anywhere in my Bible. Define it please, and
prove that that is what Jesus was doing.

>
> >But you say we Catholics have been led astray.  If indeed we
> > have been, we have been led astray by Jesus Christ Himself.
>
>   See previous response. It's RC priests  who have led you astray.
>

By following the Scripture and taking Jesus Christ at His word, when
He was most in earnest.

It is not R.C. priests who established the priesthood, it is Jesus,
when He commanded them to "Do this. . ." Unless your Bible has those
words expunged, you too are responsible for fulfilling it, though you
fail to do so. And if your Bible has them expunged, then you have a
worthless book.

> >  If you can't trust Jesus to tell you the truth, who can you trust? 
>
>   He's the only one I DO trust.  We have dialogues every day,
> and have for years, but not in online forums.
>
> >You do not trust Jesus to have told you the plain truth.  You trust
> >someone else's interpretation of His words as intended to mean other
> >than what they literally say.
>
>   Sorry, Joe, but that's what YOU do.
>

Kindly show me how to twist the words, "This is My Body" to mean other
than that the "this" in question was literally the Body of the One
saying the words. I don't understand how to turn it so it doesn't
mean that. I don't think you do, either, but go right ahead and
defend your interpretation, if you can. Jesus plainly said, "My Flesh
is real food and My Blood is real drink." (John 6:56).

But you claim that I am interpreting those words to mean other than
what they literally say. Show me how, please. Show me how the
literal meaning of "real food" and "real drink" is not real food and
not real drink.

Please don't cop out and say I won't understand. I have no problem
understanding the literal words of Christ. Do you know what the word,
'literal' means? How do you justify your belief that we were not
commanded literally to eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His
Blood, given the literal meaning of the words He actually spoke?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/literal

lit⋅er⋅al
  –adjective
1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict
meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the
literal meaning of a word.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a
literal translation of Goethe.
3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal
description of conditions.
4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the
literal extermination of a city.
5. (of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in
an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.
. . .

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Tue, 11/17/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Agreed. But, remember that they had been simple fishermen >> whom he recruited, not Temple priests. If he wanted to make >> it a big ceremony, he would have taught them to do it that way. >He did.

He didn't.

He was teaching them transcendentalism. >I can't find that term anywhere in my Bible.  Define it please, and >prove that that is what Jesus was doing.

Look it up in a dictionary.  No doubt your Doauy version wouldn't have it.  His whole life was about transcendentalism. Proof?  You're starting to sound like Trance on AvC.

>By following the Scripture and taking Jesus Christ at His word, when >He was most in earnest.

Agreed.

>It is not R.C. priests who established the priesthood, it is Jesus, >when He commanded them to "Do this. . ."

He said nothing about priests.  It's always been the eternal struggle between the priests, who want to maintain the status quo for their temples, and the prophets who have been commanded by God to  change it.  If he wanted priests, he'd have gotten them from the Temple.  Instead, he recruited fishermen.

>Unless your Bible has those words expunged,

It doesn't.

>you too are responsible for fulfilling it, though you fail to do so.

In your opinion.

>Kindly show me how to twist the words, "This is My Body" to >mean other than that the "this" in question was literally the Body >of the One saying the words.

You'd have to understand the Middle Eastern way of using parables, which is what Jesus used.  Go back and read the Gospels.

>  I don't understand how to turn it so it doesn't mean that.

I know.

>Please don't cop out and say I won't understand.  I have no problem >understanding the literal words of Christ.

I'm not copping out.  Go read something besides RC approved dogma, like The Living Bible.   Joe, I respect your dedication to your beliefs.  I don't respect the Muslim dedication to theirs.  Too bad the Crusades failed. So, then the pope of those days turned on the Knights Templar for their money!!  How very characteristic of Roman  Catholicism!!   xnun

[Joe]

On Nov 17, 8:04 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Tue, 11/17/09, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>   Agreed.  But, remember that they had been simple fishermen
> >> whom he recruited, not Temple priests.  If he wanted to make
> >> it a big ceremony, he would have taught them to do it that way.
> >He did.
>
>  He didn't.
> He was teaching them transcendentalism.
>
> >I can't find that term anywhere in my Bible.  Define it please, and
> >prove that that is what Jesus was doing.
>
>   Look it up in a dictionary.  No doubt your Doauy version
> wouldn't have it.  His whole life was about transcendentalism.
> Proof?  You're starting to sound like Trance on AvC.
>

Transcendentalism is not mentioned in the Bible. Trance does not ask
you to support your doctrine Scripturally. I do. Please do so now.

You snipped away context below, kindly stop doing so. I am restoring
it:

> >But you say we Catholics have been led astray. If indeed we
> > have been, we have been led astray by Jesus Christ Himself.

> See previous response. It's RC priests who have led you astray.

By following the Scripture and taking Jesus Christ at His word, when
He was most in earnest.

> >By following the Scripture and taking Jesus Christ at His word, when
> >He was most in earnest.
>
>   Agreed.
>

You agree that the Roman Catholic Church follows the Scripture and
takes Jesus Christ at His Word. How, then, can we be led astray?

> >It is not R.C. priests who established the priesthood, it is Jesus,
> >when He commanded them to "Do this. . ." 
>
>   He said nothing about priests.  It's always been the eternal
> struggle between the priests, who want to maintain the status
> quo for their temples, and the prophets who have been commanded
> by God to  change it.  If he wanted priests, he'd have gotten them
> from the Temple.  Instead, he recruited fishermen.
>  

For His Priesthood.

>
> >Unless your Bible has those words expunged,
>
>   It doesn't.
>
> >you too are responsible for fulfilling it, though you fail to do so.
>
>   In your opinion.
>

You do not literally eat the Body of Christ and drink His Blood, but
He literally commanded you to do so, so you are in disobedience.

> >Kindly show me how to twist the words, "This is My Body" to
> >mean other than that the "this" in question was literally the Body
> >of the One saying the words.
>
>   You'd have to understand the Middle Eastern way of using
> parables, which is what Jesus used.  Go back and read the
> Gospels.
>

I have, many times. You are rationalizing, trying to justify your
Protestantism, which cannot in reality be justified.

> >  I don't understand how to turn it so it doesn't mean that.
>
>   I know.
>

You have to twist it, to escape the plain meaning. Which, evidently,
you are willing to do.

> >Please don't cop out and say I won't understand.  I have no problem
> >understanding the literal words of Christ. 
>
>   I'm not copping out.  Go read something besides RC approved
> dogma, like The Living Bible.
>

The words are the same. The inescapability of the intent of the words
is the same.

>   Joe, I respect your dedication to your beliefs.  I don't respect
> the Muslim dedication to theirs.  Too bad the Crusades failed.
> So, then the pope of those days turned on the Knights Templar
> for their money!!  How very characteristic of Roman  Catholicism!!
>

Your hatred of God's Holy Church is very misplaced. I pray that you
will change.

[Joe]

On Nov 9, 6:02 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> who deemed the catholic church to be 'gods church'?
>

God.

> i guess subjective is the wrong word, lets use pompous instead. the
> 'god' trinity is father, son and holy ghost. lets see, thats four
> words. the pope took two of them and made them his own. thats rather
> pompous imo, although im sure you do not agree with this.
>

Your logic is twisted.

> equality is a relationship situation that a powerful person can
> create. they can empower those around them. yes, a ceo runs the
> company and makes the ultimate decisions, but that doesnt mean that he/
> she is always pulling rank. what i was getting at is that, in my
> utopia, the separation of power would be minimal, which seems to be
> directly opposite of most heirarchal entities where the boss is WAY up
> there.
>
> whether its the person or the office, the point remains, the heirarchy
> makes all the rules and has all the power. can you envision the
> vatican sending out surveys to their 'flock' to determine if
> contraceptives should be used to help stamp out starvation and aids
> that are ravishing their converts?  obviously it would benefit the
> flock, but the poor sheep have no say in it. how about whether the
> flock wants to have female priests? what if they want to force all
> pedeophile priests to give up their position and face the music?
>

Indeed, Faith is not a democracy. Good thing, since if it were, it
would fall into error, just as you seem to want.

> statistics seem to indicate a decline in church attendance.
> cathloicism may not collapse in your life time, but i can envision a
> day when its presence in the world is greatly diminished.
>

Except when God steps in and manifests His truth to all the nations.
Then, the whole world will be Catholic --- all those who seek the
giving and the receiving of love.

[Michele Gennette]

I'l  laddrewss your disappointing hairsplitting later, and NOT on your terms.   xnun --- On Tue, 11/17/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to a-civil-reli...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to a-civil-religious-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=.

[Redshirt Bluejacket]

On Nov 17, 8:45 pm, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Except when God steps in and manifests His truth to all the nations.
> Then, the whole world will be Catholic --- all those who seek the
> giving and the receiving of love.
>

And why would God need to "step in" given that everything that exists
is necessarily "of" God, and every moment to occur within the Creation
of an omniscient God would be known in advance, and could have been
set forth at the moment of Creation so as to unfold without the need
for later fixing of the screwups....

[Joe]

It should be obvious that I do not consider it hairsplitting, which
would seem to imply that the contrasts I point out are unimportant.

That said, I am not trying to control this conversation, but at the
same time I am not about to compromise on what I believe to be of key
importance.

That said, let me make it clear to you that I do also respect you, and
accept you as a sincere seeker of the truth of Christ. I believe that
in God's perfect timing for you, you will find it in all its
completeness. I understand that it is more difficult for you because
of the indoctrination you have received. I am not trying to be
condescending here, I am simply stating the truth as I see it, and as
far as I know it.

Maybe we should start again, and lay some groundwork, to see what we
agree on first, rather than beginning with our disagreements.

I have expressed the belief on this group, also expressed in the
popular song by John Lennon, that "All you need is love." Scripture
says, "God is Love." I think this is of key importance, and I hope
you know that I love you as a fellow Christian and respect your walk
with Christ, and I understand that it is your walk with Him, and He is
perfectly capable of showing you the fullness of truth without any
assistance from me.

I think we both agree on certain things, like the doctrine that God is
Love. It seems we both believe in God and in Jesus Christ His only
Son, and in the Holy Catholic Church. We have so far disagreed on the
exact identity of that Church, but not, I think, on the principle that
God's Church does in fact exist in the world today. We both, it
seems, consider ourselves members of that One Church. I don't know
whether you consider me a member of her, or whether, on the other
hand, you consider me an apostate because I am a "papist" or a
"romanist." For my part, I will say that I consider you a sister in
the One Church, though I view your communion with that Church as
imperfect at present.

Obviously, and statedly, I believe that the One Church subsists in the
Roman Catholic Church, a visible Body tracing its lineage with
uninterrupted historical continuity right back to the Apostles and to
Christ. It seems we disagree on this point, and right now I do not
intend to address this point, because there is much groundwork to be
laid before we get so far. One does not move a tree by pushing on its
branches, in order to move a tree one must dig to its roots. So
before we can hope to agree on anything, we need to understand each
other better, and I am willing to extend whatever effort is required
in order to do that.

That said, I want to reiterate that I do not consider these issues
superficial at all, so I object to the charge of hairsplitting. We
both believe that God in fact gave us an Incarnation in Jesus Christ.
You would not, I think, consider it hairsplitting if I were to insist
that the Incarnation is actually Jesus of Nazareth, and not, for
example, Judas Maccabeus. Judas Maccabeus was a Messianic figure in
Jewish history, but not the Messiah and Savior of the world. Judas
Maccabeus was a human creature; Jesus Christ is the Word made Flesh.

Jesus said, "except ye be converted and become as little children, you
shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 18:3) A little child
is open and trusting, not suspicious and sophisticated. If to find
the Kingdom of Heaven requires one to be clever, then it would seem
Jesus was inaccurate when He said we must become as little children.
I do not believe Jesus was inaccurate; hence I do not believe that to
find the Kingdom requires us to be clever or suspicious. But some of
the things you have said in the past seem to imply that it does so
require, and if you will, I would like you to examine yourself to see
whether it is so.

The beauty of a discussion group like this one is that neither of us
is going away anywhere, we have plenty of time to discuss these things
rationally, we need not call each other names or start a quarrel or
any kind. I apologize if we got off on the wrong foot. Let us try to
repair that if we can. Perhaps we will not be able to agree, but if
that is the case, I'd like to know that by experience rather than just
assume it.

On Nov 18, 12:59 am, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>   I'l  laddrewss your disappointing hairsplitting later, and NOT on your terms.
>
>   xnun
>

> --- On Tue, 11/17/09, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to a-civil-religious-...@googlegroups.com.

[Joe]

On Nov 18, 1:25 am, Redshirt Bluejacket <knujonmap...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

When you hang out with your best friend, is it "fixing the screwups??"

Why should God not want to interact personally with His Creation?

We, humans, have screwed up a lot. Speaking for myself alone, I have
screwed up a lot. I do not blame my faults on God, I acknowledge that
He has done nothing except to help me to overcome them, and the fault
is all mine. So my situation requires God to step in and change me,
if I am to be changed. Why wouldn't He? Do you not believe that He
loves me?

[Joe]

On Nov 9, 6:15 pm, Michele Gennette <xnun2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Mon, 11/9/09, Joe <thelemiccatho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> >Why "Not Roman Catholicism?"  Is it because of Imperial Rome,
> >and you associate the Roman Catholic Church with the Imperial power?
>
>   The RC church is organized on the model of imperial  Rome. 

Yes, because that model is efficient. Not because the Church is like
imperial Rome.

> After
> Constantine, it followed in the Roman empire's tracks. 

Constantine legalized the practice of Christianity, ending the Roman
persecution. That was a good thing, allowing the Church the liberty
to preach the Gospel and to grow, to come out of the catacombs and
into the light of day. After Constantine, the Church grew, since it
was no longer officially illegal.

> Despite the
> 1st commandment, it stocked its churches with idols of worship
> and a goddess (Mary.) 

We disagree, and I can defend the Catholic perspective, as I'm sure
you could were you not prejudiced against it.

> She wasn't a virgin and had other children,

We disagree.

> but the RC church  recast her as a replacement for the Roman
> goddess Diana.
>

We disagree, and your charges against God's Church are false.

>   That's enough for now.
>

I do not accept your statements as accurate in the least.

> >How do you turn the passage where Jesus changes Simon's name to
> >Peter, in order to avoid the implication of the Primacy of Peter and his
> >successors? 
>
>   I don't.  He was renamed Petras (rock) on which the *catholic*
> church would be built.  No successors are named.
>

But obviously, God intended His Church to continue, and to continue
infallibly, which would not be possible without a Pope. Witness the
splintering of Protestantism after Luther's rebellion. That is what
happens without a Rock.

> >How do you account for the historical fact of deference
> >to that Primacy in the early Church?
>
>   It was a model of humility and sanctity then, and could perform
> miracles and entice with divine love rather than Inquisitions. It
> was a far different church.
>

No doubt, but the question is not whether Popes were holy, but whether
they were Popes. The question is not whether God guaranteed that all
the leaders of His Church would be impeccable; plainly, He did not.
Plainly, He asserted that there would be both wheat and tares, growing
side by side in the same field, until the harvest. The question is
rather, whether God in fact installed leaders in His Church. Whether
the Apostles has authority given by Him, and whether that authority
continues to this day, as part of God's guarantee that the gates of
hell would never prevail.

[Michele Gennette]

I'll get to this later.  Right now I have an appointment.   xnun

--- On Wed, 11/18/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Michele Gennette]

--- On Wed, 11/18/09, Joe <thelemic...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I have expressed the belief on this group, also expressed in the >popular song by John Lennon, that "All you need is love."  Scripture >says, "God is Love."  I think this is of key importance, and I hope you know that I love you as a fellow Christian and respect your walk with Christ, and I understand that it is your walk with Him, and He is perfectly capable of showing you the fullness of truth without any assistance from me.

The last sentence is correct.  So why go on with this?

>Jesus said, "except ye be converted and become as little children, >you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven." (Matthew 18:3)  A little >child is open and trusting, not suspicious and sophisticated.

Also correct. which made them easy targets for pedophile priests.

>The beauty of a discussion group like this one is that neither of us >is going away anywhere, we have plenty of time to discuss these >things rationally, we need not call each other names or start a >quarrel or any kind.

Correct.

>Perhaps we will not be able to agree, but if that is the case, I'd >like to know that by experience rather than just assume it.

Sounds good .   xnun