Wanted: Catholic Art Degrading Jesus' True Suffering
Gary Schooley
I am looking for (typical) Catholic art that diminishes Jesus' severe
beating and suffering on the cross (for a future article). I need
something like you see on the Catholic candles, where it looks like he
was hardly touched, with a few tiny drops of blood, but otherwise not
bruised and battered as he really was. I *could* buy one and scan it,
but I won't allow such things in my home (nor will I pay good money for
it). Does anyone know where I can find a good example of that online?
Thanks,
Gary Schooley
bam
"Gary Schooley" <scho...@texas.net> wrote
I, personally don't have a clue what you're talking about. Are the holes in
the hands, the pierced side, the crown of thorns and the crucifixion in
themeselves not enough? What do you want? A broken nose? A twisted knee?
What are you talking about?
BAM
skii
"bam" <b...@digital.net> wrote in message
news:ud6582c...@corp.supernews.com...
before catholic!
Gary Schooley
bam wrote:
No, in Catholic art, it is typical to show the opposite; virtually none of the
suffering and beating he endured. It is always minimized, as the church tries
to take people's eyes off him and get them onto Mary. That is what I am looking
for. I need it to contrast with the truth of Scripture:
Isaiah 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root
out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him,
there is no beauty that we should desire him. 3 He is despised and rejected of
men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our
faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Gary Schooley
nobody special
"Gary Schooley" <scho...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3CD3A019...@texas.net...
>
>
> bam wrote:
>
> > "Gary Schooley" <scho...@texas.net> wrote
> >
> > > I am looking for (typical) Catholic art that diminishes Jesus' severe
> > > beating and suffering on the cross (for a future article). I need
> > > something like you see on the Catholic candles, where it looks like he
> > > was hardly touched, with a few tiny drops of blood, but otherwise not
> > > bruised and battered as he really was. I *could* buy one and scan it,
> > > but I won't allow such things in my home (nor will I pay good money
for
> > > it). Does anyone know where I can find a good example of that online?
> >
> > I, personally don't have a clue what you're talking about. Are the holes
in
> > the hands, the pierced side, the crown of thorns and the crucifixion in
> > themeselves not enough? What do you want? A broken nose? A twisted knee?
> > What are you talking about?
> >
> > BAM
>
> No, in Catholic art, it is typical to show the opposite; virtually none of
the
> suffering and beating he endured. It is always minimized, as the church
tries
> to take people's eyes off him and get them onto Mary.
That's not at all true- have you been in a Catholic church? If you have,
you surely saw the Stations of the Cross on the walls which go over the
suffering and beatings He received in some detail, and this practice alone
pays far more attention to the Passion than in any Protestant church I've
attended. Also, I've seen some Catholic paintings and statues on the
subject which could cause nightmares. There's a life-sized depiction of the
Crucifixion in a shrine not too far from me which can only be described as
horrific. The blood, the scourged flesh, the crown of thorns, the painted
sweat... believe me, it's not for the faint of heart. I'm no art historian,
but I think this style probably hit it's high point in the late Middle Ages
when depictions of Christ's death and the torment of sinners in Hell was
very gruesome indeed, but it's certainly still with us especially in more
traditional parishes.
If anything, you might want to ask Protestants why they remove the Christ
figure from their crosses entirely. I'd say that does more to diminish the
suffering He endured than in any art trends you may have noticed in Catholic
parishes (which still isn't much).
Alan W. Craft
>
>"Gary Schooley" <scho...@texas.net> wrote in message
>news:3CD3A019...@texas.net...
>>
>>
>> bam wrote:
>>
>> > "Gary Schooley" <scho...@texas.net> wrote
>> >
>> > > I am looking for (typical) Catholic art that diminishes Jesus' severe
>> > > beating and suffering on the cross (for a future article). I need
>> > > something like you see on the Catholic candles, where it looks like he
>> > > was hardly touched, with a few tiny drops of blood, but otherwise not
>> > > bruised and battered as he really was. I *could* buy one and scan it,
>> > > but I won't allow such things in my home (nor will I pay good money
>for
>> > > it). Does anyone know where I can find a good example of that online?
>> >
>> > I, personally don't have a clue what you're talking about. Are the holes
>in
>> > the hands, the pierced side, the crown of thorns and the crucifixion in
>> > themeselves not enough? What do you want? A broken nose? A twisted knee?
>> > What are you talking about?
>> >
>> > BAM
>>
>> No, in Catholic art, it is typical to show the opposite; virtually none of
>the
>> suffering and beating he endured. It is always minimized, as the church
>tries
>> to take people's eyes off him and get them onto Mary.
>
>That's not at all true- have you been in a Catholic church? If you have,
>you surely saw...
Schooley surely sees...nothing, and knows even less.
Alan
Gary Schooley
nobody special wrote:
The bulk and majority of Catholic art that *I* have seen makes Jesus' suffering
look like a walk in the park. The reason Protestants take him off the cross is
Scripture says they took him off the cross. Meanwhile, Catholics shame and curse
him daily by placing him back on the cross:
http://schooley.home.texas.net/Cursed.htm
GS
Gary Schooley
"Alan W. Craft" wrote:
E.S.A.D. Ol' one line witchCraft. I see you can still only manage one line zingers and
lame attempts at insults. :o)
GS
bam
"Gary Schooley" <scho...@texas.net> wrote
>
> The bulk and majority of Catholic art that *I* have seen makes Jesus'
suffering
> look like a walk in the park. The reason Protestants take him off the
cross is
> Scripture says they took him off the cross. Meanwhile, Catholics shame and
curse
> him daily by placing him back on the cross:
You furball.
The reason Protestants "took" Him off the cross is because they consider it
an idol. And by taking Jesus off the cross they have minimized His
sufferings. It is leftover Calvinism.
You don't even make the sign of the cross.
You'e not saved; you're not Christian.
BAM
Marsie
mouth, totally out of control of himself. Let him stay in his own little
world....
"Gary Schooley" <scho...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3CD3FA67...@texas.net...
bfm
> No, in Catholic art, it is typical to show the opposite; virtually none of the
> suffering and beating he endured.
Nonsense.
>It is always minimized, as the church tries to take people's eyes off
him and >get them onto Mary.
More nonsense and lies. The Church does not try to get people's eyes
off of Christ and on to Mary. Mary leads us TO Christ not away from
HIm and I am getting a little tired of the LIE of the Anti-Catholics
who claim that the Church puts Mary before Jesus.
> Gary Schooley
You are a pawn of Satan, as you own words clearly show.
bfm
> E.S.A.D. Ol' one line witchCraft. I see you can still only manage one line >zingers and lame attempts at insults. :o)
Maybe he figures one-liners are all the time a pathetic pawn of Satan
like youself is worth.
Craig
snip
>
> If anything, you might want to ask Protestants why they remove the
> Christ figure from their crosses entirely. I'd say that does more to
> diminish the suffering He endured than in any art trends you may have
> noticed in Catholic parishes (which still isn't much).
The Taliban take on the thing is that there should be no images of
living things. Maybe that is the whole Islam way and Taliban just got
carried away with it.
I was raised in Lutheran church. The one in South Dakota had a crucifix
with the jesus statue on it. The one, a different synod/faction, in
California had a bare cross. I never questioned that.
I recall being a bit of amazed when the Lutheran parochial school
teacher would carry on about the impropriety of the Catholics and all their
statues of saints Mary and so on. I forget the exact justification of that
church having statue of Jesus on cross. I recall a bit of it seeming about
as nonsensical as the justifications I hear for the Catholic statues. I
guess more nonsensical since it was justifying their own while condemning
that of others.
Word things just right and I guess they can be not a double standard nor
hypocrisy.
--
If things were different they just would not be the same.
Craig
My goodness!
What do you suppose that Jesus had in mind with, "Judge not lest ye be
...."?
Gary Schooley
Craig wrote:
You'll never know the meaning of Scriptural judgment until / unless you do as
I have and look up ALL references to it in Scripture. If you do, you will find
that Scriptural judgment is not a Scriptural opinion vs. an unscriptural one.
Your typical "judge not" attitude is just a fear tactic to avoid the issues
facing the RCC and your own hypocrisy. Jesus, as well as the apostles, was
often rebuking and disputing with religious hypocrites like you - that is NOT
"judgment" at all. Look it up if you dare - remain IGNORANT of it if you
insist.
Luke 6:37 ¶Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall
not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
Note that "judge" is followed by "condemn". These are serious terms usually
unto death or imprisonment (in those days, according to the law). Just because
someone warns a Catholic to repent of that lie, does not mean it is a lack of
forgiveness. Forgiveness is in direct association to a sin or crime committed
against someone. Neither you nor any other Catholic on this NG has committed a
real sin against *me* as far as *I* am concerned. But, regardless, I forgive
you for insisting on being ignorant of the matter, if that means anything to
you (it doesn't to me because, as I have said, I perceive no real sin against
*me*).
Luke 12:56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the
earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? 57 Yea, and why even
of yourselves judge ye not what is right?
Note Jesus scolding them for NOT judging. Hypocrites like you have no place
for BOTH sides of Scriptural judgment; it's as if those words are invisible,
as you don't have the honesty to admit that you don't know anything about
Scriptural judgment.
Luke 12:58 When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou
art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he
hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the
officer cast thee into prison.
Now, notice the real legal setting and connotation here. It is far more than a
mere Scriptural opinion vs. an unscriptural one as you assume. How is it that
you don't know that? Because you use your out of context "judge not" as a
convenient hiding place; if you look at BOTH sides of it, you will see that
you are trying to hide behind a skinny twig.
John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous
judgment.
"JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT"???!!! "Religious" hypocrites like you can't handle
the Scriptural TRUTH of the matter.
John 7:51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he
doeth?
Note, judgment according to the LAW; a serious legal proceeding, not someone
attacking the Catholic lie.
Acts 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right
in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
"...judge ye"?
Acts 23:3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall:
for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten
contrary to the law?
Notice that it is a real, serious judgment "after the law". That is a real
judgment unto being "smitten", NOT a mere Scriptural opinion vs. an
unscriptural one.
And, when it comes to "judgment" in the context of opinion ("...in my
judgment..., etc."), "religious" people always make the wrong assumption
(based partly on the above) that THEY are being "judged", when in actuality,
it is the lie between their ears that is being judged. I make no apology that
it is MY judgment that the Roman Catholic Church and RELIGION is a filthy lie
from the pits of hell. That is the lie, not the people (although they
themselves also behave as if they are Satan's very spawn; they will be judged
for that, in a real court, before the face of the Lord, with very REAL
consequences).
1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he
himself is judged of no man.
"Judge not" hypocrites have no place for Scriptures like this, and can only
look at one side of it as is convenient for their pathetic arguments.
Jeremiah 7:5 For if ye throughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye
throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour;
Leviticus 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not
respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in
righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
"...shalt thou JUDGE THY NEIGHBOUR"?!?!?!
Isaiah 1:17 "Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge
the fatherless, plead for the widow".
Here is how wicked things like the RCC managed to start, grow and flourish:
Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because SENTENCE against an evil work is not executed
speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do
evil. 12 Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be prolonged,
yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God, which fear
before him: 13 But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither shall he
prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not before God.
Gee, it's looking like you don't know ANYTHING about Scriptural judgment at
all. No wonder Catholics HATE Scripture so much - they are always on the
opposite side of it. *I* have passed no sentence on you or anyone else - I
tell you of God's judgment and sentence. You have every right to eternal
damnation if you want. *I* have no right to DO anything but warn you (which I
will continue to do as long as I see fit).
There are countless more Scriptures that show how little "religious"
hypocrites like you really know about judgment. Your feeble little "judge not"
is but a ploy born of fear, cowardice and dishonesty.
Gary Schooley
Craig
Craig wrote:
Luke 6:37 貯udge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall
"...judge ye"?
Gary Schooley
Wonder why my news reader didn't supply any quote marks in this?
That is such a long rant that I think I will give it a full read later.
Not being religious I fail to see how I could be a religious hypocrite.
I gather that you read very much into my question.
I'd been a bit amazed by some of the 'judgment's made by some folks in
this thread - folks in general who claim to be Christians - Catholics -
whatever.
So, here was this: "You'e not saved; you're not Christian." someone who
seems to have great knowledge who is and isn't saved.
Oh well. I have seen a lot of professing to be Christians who didn't
impress me at all as giving a shit what Jesus was about. The book is their
idol and they worship the words and anything that might make sense of the
words is rejected, maybe because making sense just would not seem mysterious
and holy enough.
I guess Catholic is not the only religion that has done much murder and
atrocious behavior in Jesus name. It has just been the most powerful which
afforded it ability to do more and nastier things in greater proportion than
some others.
As for you, it appears that you had yourself a delightful conniption
over your own fantasy.
At least one of your examples is not even the same meaning of 'judge'
such as judging a person to be deserving or not deserving or making some
generalized judgment of propriety.
Matthew had a bit more elaboration than Luke seemed to think need to
relate:
Matthew 7
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
But Mat' Luke and John present different takes on a number of things.
Like one would appear that Jesus knew and predicted Judas would betray
and another could as well be interpreted that Jesus was going to chose who
to send to do the deed. - And it might seem odd that the crew seemed pretty
unsettled asking, "Is it me?"
But I digress ....
And I suppose I ought respond you your idiotic name calling with
something appropriate that it calls for, you uppity moron.
If I said that you didn't have the sense that god gave a duck, do you
think you could prove me wrong?
Craig
Yea. That relationship of judge and condemn would have been part of my
response if I'd received an expected response.
I didn't feel like quoting the whole thing. I figured professing to be
Christians would know the whole thing well enough. - Maybe I should have
mentioned my take is from Mat'.
> unto death or imprisonment (in those days, according to the law).
> Just because
> someone warns a Catholic to repent of that lie, does not mean it is a
> lack of
> forgiveness. Forgiveness is in direct association to a sin or crime
> committed
> against someone. Neither you nor any other Catholic on this NG has
> committed a
> real sin against *me* as far as *I* am concerned.
LOL - By some folks definition of 'sin' being 'mistake' or 'error' I
suppose you have sinned against me.
Would I need judge you to laugh at you?
>But, regardless, I
> forgive
> you for insisting on being ignorant of the matter, if that means
> anything to
> you (it doesn't to me because, as I have said, I perceive no real sin
> against
> *me*).
>
> Luke 12:56 Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of
> the
> earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time? 57 Yea, and
> why even
> of yourselves judge ye not what is right?
NIV
56Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the
sky. How is it that you don't know how to interpret this present time?
>
> Note Jesus scolding them for NOT judging.
Don't be deluded by things with different meaning having same spelling.
>Hypocrites like you have no
Clowns like you are amusing.
> place
> for BOTH sides of Scriptural judgment; it's as if those words are
> invisible,
> as you don't have the honesty to admit that you don't know anything
> about
> Scriptural judgment.
>
> Luke 12:58 When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate,
> as thou
> art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from
> him; lest he
> hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer,
> and the
> officer cast thee into prison.
>
> Now, notice the real legal setting and connotation here. It is far
> more than a
> mere Scriptural opinion vs. an unscriptural one as you assume. How is
> it that
> you don't know that? Because you use your out of context "judge not"
> as a
> convenient hiding place; if you look at BOTH sides of it, you will
> see that
> you are trying to hide behind a skinny twig.
No. I see that you are having yourself one hell of a time with all that
you read into my question.
>
> John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous
> judgment.
NIV
21Jesus said to them, "I did one miracle, and you are all astonished. 22Yet,
because Moses gave you circumcision (though actually it did not come from
Moses, but from the patriarchs), you circumcise a child on the Sabbath.
23Now if a child can be circumcised on the Sabbath so that the law of Moses
may not be broken, why are you angry with me for healing the whole man on
the Sabbath? 24Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment."
He was talking to some uppity folk - not his followers.
Different context, issue and meaning than what I was asking about.
>
> "JUDGE RIGHTEOUS JUDGMENT"???!!! "Religious" hypocrites like you
> can't handle
> the Scriptural TRUTH of the matter.
LOL - Are you shouting and judging me with righteous judgment?
>
> John 7:51 Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know
> what he
> doeth?
LOL - I guess you have pretty well chosen your position as my accuser,
prosecutor and judge?
I suppose you figured you have your fantasy me dead to rights. I'd
wonder if a little work I could get you into an argument with yourselfs
projection?
>
> Note, judgment according to the LAW; a serious legal proceeding, not
> someone
> attacking the Catholic lie.
Yea. The word can have various meanings in various context. A word can
have very much subtleties of meanings beyond what a dictionary is going to
supply.
>
> Acts 4:19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it
> be right
> in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
>
> "...judge ye"?
Yea. You supply too little context to convey any meaning:
NIV
18Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at
all in the name of Jesus. 19But Peter and John replied, "Judge for
yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God.
20For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard."
>
> Acts 23:3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited
> wall:
> for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be
> smitten
> contrary to the law?
>
> Notice that it is a real, serious judgment "after the law". That is a
> real
> judgment unto being "smitten", NOT a mere Scriptural opinion vs. an
> unscriptural one.
Yea - whatever. Hasn't anything to do with Jesus, "Judge not ...etc
>
> And, when it comes to "judgment" in the context of opinion ("...in my
> judgment..., etc."), "religious" people always make the wrong
> assumption
> (based partly on the above) that THEY are being "judged", when in
> actuality,
> it is the lie between their ears that is being judged. I make no
> apology that
> it is MY judgment that the Roman Catholic Church and RELIGION is a
> filthy lie
> from the pits of hell. That is the lie, not the people (although they
> themselves also behave as if they are Satan's very spawn; they will
> be judged
> for that, in a real court, before the face of the Lord, with very REAL
> consequences).
Cracks me up that it was some bozo's judgments of you that got me
thinking about the issue. Then just Xians in general. Perhaps you would have
seen in different light had I posted it to a different persons post. ??
But, as I said - I'm not religious. While I consider that church, as an
entity, to be more vile than most I figure that to be due to it becoming
more corrupted by its attainment of great power. For the most part I meet
Christians one their own relative merits - judge or whatever. I don't claim
catholic folks to be worse folks than any other claiming to be christians.
>
> 1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet
> he
> himself is judged of no man.
11The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who
among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In
the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We
have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God,
that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we
speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the
Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[3] 14The man without
the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for
they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are
spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things,
but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16"For who has known the mind of the Lord
that he may instruct him?"[4] But we have the mind of Christ.
different context and meaning again.
>
> "Judge not" hypocrites have no place for Scriptures like this, and
> can only
> look at one side of it as is convenient for their pathetic arguments.
Your arguments are really not all that good against someone who would
fit the fantasy you aim this at.
Or do you suppose a whole lot of them Catholics believe every word has
the exact same meaning in every context.
Hmmmm - they certainly have themselves some exact interpretation of
blood and meat in certain context.
>
> Jeremiah 7:5 For if ye throughly amend your ways and your doings; if
> ye
> throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour;
eh?
>
> Leviticus 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou
> shalt not
> respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but
in
> righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
>
> "...shalt thou JUDGE THY NEIGHBOUR"?!?!?!
>
> Isaiah 1:17 "Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed,
> judge
> the fatherless, plead for the widow".
You are going back to 'eye for an eye' times. There is some appropriate
bringing up old testament stuff. I don't see this as such though.
>
> Here is how wicked things like the RCC managed to start, grow and
> flourish:
>
> Ecclesiastes 8:11 Because SENTENCE against an evil work is not
> executed
> speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them
> to do
> evil. 12 Though a sinner do evil an hundred times, and his days be
> prolonged,
> yet surely I know that it shall be well with them that fear God,
> which fear
> before him: 13 But it shall not be well with the wicked, neither
> shall he
> prolong his days, which are as a shadow; because he feareth not
> before God.
>
> Gee, it's looking like you don't know ANYTHING about Scriptural
> judgment at
Did I say something?
> all. No wonder Catholics HATE Scripture so much - they are always on
> the
> opposite side of it. *I* have passed no sentence on you or anyone
> else - I
> tell you of God's judgment and sentence. You have every right to
> eternal
> damnation if you want. *I* have no right to DO anything but warn you
> (which I
> will continue to do as long as I see fit).
Go for it. Get it out of your system.
These folks are quite immune to harm as near as I can tell. Christians
thrive on Christian bashing and Catholics are certainly Christians.
Professing to be Christians.
>
> There are countless more Scriptures that show how little "religious"
> hypocrites like you really know about judgment. Your feeble little
> "judge not"
> is but a ploy born of fear, cowardice and dishonesty.
Well, you have impressed me as being quite hot about whatever you are
carrying on about. You have not impressed me as knowing so much about what
you are ranting about though.
But "know and knowing" can have variation on a theme for meaning.
Perhaps you know much but discern little.
Was it The Stand by Steven King where the fellow carried on about "...
it isn't what you don't know but what you know that ain't so ...." or some
such words about what gets one in trouble or trips one up or something?
>
> Gary Schooley
Gary Schooley
Jason wrote:
> there is the key, "that you have seen".... so its clear that this is a simple
> matter of a biased perspective and very little research on the subject...
> but I do see that your lack of knowledge in this area did not stop you from
> posting your perception as if it were 'fact' to a Catholic NG...
I have SEEN and continue to see the RCC diminish Jesus' true suffering down to
nothing. I also SEE their mounting efforts to exalt Mary ABOVE Jesus and take
people's eyes off him and what he accomplished on the cross. WE will all continue
to see that, as Jesus is pushed out of the picture all together (in preparation for
the antichrist).
This is why the RCC readily accepts the utter blasphemy of Mary as "co-redemptrix;
Mediatrix".
As usual, Scripture goes one way and the RCC goes the exact other way; the RCC has
NO intention to adhere to Scripture and is determined to follow it's own agenda
right straight to hell.
Read that blasphemous prayer to Mary, then read Revelation (and the rest of
Scripture) and you will see that Mary is nowhere to be found, and certainly NOT in
the invented capacity that the church pretends.
Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is
become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for
there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
There are no if's, and's or but's about it, ANYWHERE in Scripture; NO exceptions
whatsoever to support that highly blasphemous and damning practice and doctrine.
Jesus and his word is a thorn in the side of the RCC; they will eventually replace
him with "a christ", maybe even "Mary christ".
So, read revelation and about the judgment in Scripture - see if you can find Mary
anywhere.
Gary Schooley
nobody special
Then you need to see more Catholic art, my friend. I've seen stuff which
would curl your toes and turn your stomach. But now we're off into
subjectivity-land I guess, and this will depend heavily on the parishes
you're hitting. But I've got to say that your question seems odd since I've
heard people make the exact opposite complaint and say that it can be too
graphic.
>The reason Protestants take him off the cross is
> Scripture says they took him off the cross.
Scripture also says that he was placed on the Cross... and this is what is
represented. Nobody denies that He was removed, but the meaning of the
Cross is the crucifixition and that is what is depicted. Catholics have
crosses with Jesus both on and off of it, whereas most Protestants seem to
make a point out of portraying it without Him. Seems pretty silly to me, to
show the instrument of torture and death then turn all squeamish when the
Body is actually represented on it. But to each their own I guess.
> Meanwhile, Catholics shame and curse
> him daily by placing him back on the cross:
Shame- how so? It was Christ's sacrifice and death which gives the Cross
it's importance- if anything I think you might consider how Protestants have
'sanitized' the Passion in removing the image of Christ from the Cross. Any
artistic representation of the Crucifixition is just that- an image, and
cannot bring any shame by showing what really happened. Do you believe that
the Stations of the Cross, which detail individual actions which occurred on
the way to Calvary (and after) somehow curse Christ as well? Should it not
be portrayed at all? Should we not even mention it? Of course we should,
for it is through Christ's death and resurrection that our salvation was
won. And yet here you have a thread where you claim that Catholic
representations of the Crucifixition are too sanitized and somehow diminish
the Passion, and in the same breath say that showing a Christ-figure on the
Cross shames him. That doesn't make much sense to me. Doesn't a
Christ-less Cross tend to de-emphasize Jesus' true suffering more than a
Catholic representation depicting what actually happened?
I may be arguing small and relatively unimportant points here since both the
Cross and the Crucifix aim to represent the same thing (imo), but you're the
one who seems to see an important difference. You've went from claiming
"Catholic art sanitizes Christ's suffering" to "Catholics shame Christ by
showing Him in his Passion". It seems to me that you're arguing both sides
of the same point.
nobody special
"Jason" <geoc...@technogeeks.org> wrote in message
news:VVUA8.50962$n7.46...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
simple
> matter of a biased perspective and very little research on the subject...
> but I do see that your lack of knowledge in this area did not stop you
from
> posting your perception as if it were 'fact' to a Catholic NG...
>
> > the cross is Scripture says they took him off the cross. Meanwhile,
Catholics
> > shame and curse him daily by placing him back on the cross:
>
crosses
> in my home, and so do many Catholics...
I certainly do. :-)
nobody special
"Marsie" <sie...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:FKTA8.877$Jb.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Why does anybody even respond to this guy? He is probably frothing at the
> mouth, totally out of control of himself. Let him stay in his own little
> world....
Boundless optimism!
Ummm... you weren't referring to me, I hope. (wipes froth off mouth) :-)
bfm
> I have SEEN and continue to see the RCC diminish Jesus' true suffering down to
> nothing. I also SEE their mounting efforts to exalt Mary ABOVE Jesus and take
> people's eyes off him and what he accomplished on the cross.
How do you expect to be taken seriously when you tell lies like this?
>WE will all continue to see that, as Jesus is pushed out of the
picture all >together (in preparation for the antichrist).
Not in the Catholic Church which will be the only church left by that
time and will be persecuted by the Anti-Christ.
> As usual, Scripture goes one way and the RCC goes the exact other way; the >RCC has NO intention to adhere to Scripture
The Catholic Church is the only Church to fully adhere to Scripture.
Maybe because unlike Protestants, the Catholic Church has all of
Scripture, not just what the Protestant Deformers didn't rip out.
> Jesus and his word is a thorn in the side of the RCC;
No it's not. That's just another of your delusions.
bfm
> it is the lie between their ears that is being judged. I make no apology
> that it is MY judgment that the Roman Catholic Church and RELIGION is a filthy
> lie from the pits of hell.
Your judgement is flawed and satanically influenced. The Catholic
Church is the Church Jesus started in the Scriptures.
> themselves also behave as if they are Satan's very spawn;
Why don't you go back and add up all the lies you have told about the
Catholic Church. Then look in Scripture and find out who the father of
lies is. Then judge your own soul.
> all. No wonder Catholics HATE Scripture so much
Catholics do not hate Scripture. See my advice to you concerning lying
above.
Without Catholics you wouldn't even have Scripture, I bet you don't
even use the entire Bible just what the Protestant Deformers let you
keep.
Will Nordmeyer
BUT, please consider whether the Artwork you look for is art of the
crucified and dying Jesus (which generally has a fair amount of blood,
etc). or the risen Jesus - which still has the marks, but not the
blood/beating.
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Will Nordmeyer
>
>
> Jason wrote:
>
> > there is the key, "that you have seen".... so its clear that this is
a simple
> > matter of a biased perspective and very little research on the
subject...
> > but I do see that your lack of knowledge in this area did not stop
you from
> > posting your perception as if it were 'fact' to a Catholic NG...
>
> I have SEEN and continue to see the RCC diminish Jesus' true suffering
down to nothing.
I have SEEN nothing of the sort... and I've been to plenty of Catholic
Churches.
> I also SEE their mounting efforts to exalt Mary ABOVE Jesus and take
> people's eyes off him and what he accomplished on the cross.
I have SEEN nothing of the sort. Mary has NEVER been exalted above
Jesus.
Legatus
<wi...@nospam.daytondigital.net> wrote:
> "Gary Schooley" <scho...@texas.net> wrote in message
> news:3CD2DCA8...@texas.net...
> > Greetings:
> > I am looking for (typical) Catholic art that diminishes Jesus' severe
> > beating and suffering on the cross (for a future article). I need
> > something like you see on the Catholic candles, where it looks like he
> > was hardly touched, with a few tiny drops of blood, but otherwise not
> > bruised and battered as he really was. I *could* buy one and scan it,
> > but I won't allow such things in my home (nor will I pay good money
> for
> > it). Does anyone know where I can find a good example of that online?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gary Schooley
> >
> Never seen any artwork on "Catholic Candles"...
Oh but they're out there. There's a growing mexican population in my
fair city. The major supermarkets are starting to carry products that
apparently appeal to mexicans and >poof< we've got 8 day candles (with
decals of religious scenes) in the stores. They're quite neat... but
read the fine print, it's hysterical. But Gary's out to lunch on his
main premise anyhow...
Steve
--
Pot-Kettle-Johnson
Uncle bob
"Will Nordmeyer" <wi...@nospam.daytondigital.net> wrote in message
news:3cd67716$1...@news5.uncensored-news.com...
>
> "Gary Schooley" <scho...@texas.net> wrote in message
> news:3CD497E1...@texas.net...
> >
> >
> > Jason wrote:
> >
> > > there is the key, "that you have seen".... so its clear that this is
> a simple
> > > matter of a biased perspective and very little research on the
> subject...
> > > but I do see that your lack of knowledge in this area did not stop
> you from
> > > posting your perception as if it were 'fact' to a Catholic NG...
> >
> > I have SEEN and continue to see the RCC diminish Jesus' true suffering
> down to nothing.
>
> I have SEEN nothing of the sort... and I've been to plenty of Catholic
> Churches.
>
> > I also SEE their mounting efforts to exalt Mary ABOVE Jesus and take
> > people's eyes off him and what he accomplished on the cross.
>
> I have SEEN nothing of the sort. Mary has NEVER been exalted above
> Jesus.
How many hail mary's on a rosary? How many are fathers?
Uncle Bob
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
bfm
> How many hail mary's on a rosary? How many are fathers?
>
> Uncle Bob
All prayer to Mary are prayers through Mary to God.
Craig
Then Mary is before God as sort of a receptionist, secretary or some
such?
How come God needs such an intermediary anyway? Jesus never said
anything about having to go through channels.
Uncle bob
"Craig" <sun...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:ab9rco$ge7tb$1...@ID-31769.news.dfncis.de...
> bfm wrote:
> > "Uncle bob" <home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3cd6fef4$1...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com>...
> >
> >> How many hail mary's on a rosary? How many are fathers?
> >>
> >> Uncle Bob
> >
> > All prayer to Mary are prayers through Mary to God.
>
> Then Mary is before God as sort of a receptionist, secretary or some
> such?
> How come God needs such an intermediary anyway? Jesus never said
> anything about having to go through channels.
>
Uncle Bob
-----------== Posted via Newsgroups.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsgroups.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Russ
<sun...@pacbell.net> writes:
>> All prayer to Mary are prayers through Mary to God.
>
> Then Mary is before God as sort of a receptionist, secretary or some
>such?
No. All the Hail Mary does is ask her to pray for us.
> How come God needs such an intermediary anyway? Jesus never said
>anything about having to go through channels.
You never asked anyone to pray for you? Does that make them an intermediary?
No one ever ask you to pray for them? Does that make you an intermediary?
Russ
Uncle bob
"Russ" <mcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020507204355...@mb-fi.aol.com...
Whats wrong with praying to God directly instead of getting someone else to
do it. What exactly is the point?
Besides you are comparing a living being praying to an imaginary being with
an imaginary being praying to an imaginary being.
Craig
I'm not really big on necromancy.
I've not even seen in the bible about talking to dead people. Sounds
like some sort of witchcraft to me.
Craig
> "Craig" <sun...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:ab9rco$ge7tb$1...@ID-31769.news.dfncis.de...
>> bfm wrote:
>>> "Uncle bob" <home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<3cd6fef4$1...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com>...
>>>
>>>> How many hail mary's on a rosary? How many are fathers?
>>>>
>>>> Uncle Bob
>>>
>>> All prayer to Mary are prayers through Mary to God.
>>
>> Then Mary is before God as sort of a receptionist, secretary or
>> some such?
>> How come God needs such an intermediary anyway? Jesus never said
>> anything about having to go through channels.
>> She is one secretary you will never have an affair with. hehe
Why is she a virgin?
Well, if they had a statue and it was supposed to represent Mary before
she consumated her marriage with her husband - or anyone else and they said
the statue represented Mary before she gave birth to Jesus and she went
ahead and gave birth to his brothers - then I could understand reference to
the statue as representing her when she was a virgin.
So, they pray to the "Holy Virgin" to pray to God for them. They don't
say anything about praying to a statue representing a person when the person
was a virgin. Was she a virgin and then a married woman and not a virgin
anymore and when she got dead she became a virgin again?
How old do you think Mary might have been by the time she got with
child? Fourteen? Surely no older than sixteen. Them statues certainly don't
look that young.
>
> Uncle Bob
>
>
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Newsgroups.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==---
> ------- http://www.newsgroups.com The #1 Newsgroup Service
> in the World! -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Ulimited Fast
> Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
--
R. L. Measures
> bfm wrote:
> > "Uncle bob" <home...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3cd6fef4$1...@corp-goliath.newsgroups.com>...
> >
> >> How many hail mary's on a rosary? How many are fathers?
> >>
> >> Uncle Bob
> >
> > All prayer to Mary are prayers through Mary to God.
>
> Then Mary is before God as sort of a receptionist, secretary or some
> such?
> How come God needs such an intermediary anyway? Jesus never said
> anything about having to go through channels.
>
€ Subordination is an important element of RC inculcation. Never mind
that in the Sermon on the Mount we were told that each of us can pray to
the Heavenly Father in private -- who listens in private. It seems
curious that Mary bypassed the resurrection. In Italian society, family
structure is matriarchal, so it seems likely that an Italian organized
religion would have a strong female figure/sky-goddess who has much
control over the male sky-god.
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures (radio)
www.vcnet.com/measures/library.html (org. religion)
Craig
> Craig (sun...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>
>> Russ wrote:
>>> In article <ab9rco$ge7tb$1...@ID-31769.news.dfncis.de>, "Craig"
>>> <sun...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>> All prayer to Mary are prayers through Mary to God.
>>>>
>>>> Then Mary is before God as sort of a receptionist, secretary or
>>>> some such?
>>>
>>> No. All the Hail Mary does is ask her to pray for us.
>>>
>>>> How come God needs such an intermediary anyway? Jesus never said
>>>> anything about having to go through channels.
>>>
>>> You never asked anyone to pray for you? Does that make them an
>>> intermediary? No one ever ask you to pray for them? Does that make
>>> you an intermediary?
>>>
>>> Russ
>>
>> I'm not really big on necromancy.
>
> break out your dictionary. . .
Close enough. If you didn't know what I meant then you are not bright
enough to grasp much ideas anyway.
>
>> I've not even seen in the bible about talking to dead people.
>> Sounds like some sort of witchcraft to me.
>
> who said anyone is dead? you mean their soul is interceding from
> heaven right? because we beleive in the immortality of the soul....
And all souls are virgins? Or is it just Mary got hers back?
And trust me. She died quite some time back. And I really doubt is
manifesting in all them graven images that supposedly represent her.
You folks would give me the impression that if one is good and goes to
heaven they are then transformed into something else than who or what they
was. And the main thing that you gotta do to get to heaven is, no matter how
wretched and despicable a person one is, to mummer some crap to some Priest
for absolution because he is scared of going to hell to burn up forever.
You have that right up there with some robber telling the judge that he
is sorry and the Judge say's "Well, that is okay then. go your way." I'd not
see what is the use of a religion or a God that was so full of crap as that.
You have the whole affair reduced to suppositious bunk administered by
shysters who cannot decide what they ought to do with child fuckers in their
ranks. - Give some rehab and then set them lose on some unsuspecting new
prey?
Oh - Now it is to turn the notorious serial molesters over to
authorities and the ones who keep it to the hobby level are left to
someone's discretion to send them to rehab and then set them lose somewhere
without warning the new flock that they are in the care of a predator who is
much more important then they are.
Well, the church has investment in him. The flock are just sheared to
pay for the investment and a grand new building to impress more rubes.
And one is occasionally served up for the pleasure of their 'good'
shepherds needs.
>
> What we Are is God's gift to us.
> What we Become is our gift to God.
Craig
> Uncle bob (home...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
>>
>> "Russ" <mcr...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:20020507204355...@mb-fi.aol.com...
>>> In article <ab9rco$ge7tb$1...@ID-31769.news.dfncis.de>, "Craig"
>>> <sun...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>> All prayer to Mary are prayers through Mary to God.
>>>>
>>>> Then Mary is before God as sort of a receptionist, secretary or
>>>> some such?
>>>
>>> No. All the Hail Mary does is ask her to pray for us.
>>>
>>>> How come God needs such an intermediary anyway? Jesus never said
>>>> anything about having to go through channels.
>>>
>>> You never asked anyone to pray for you? Does that make them an
>>> intermediary? No one ever ask you to pray for them? Does that make
>>> you an intermediary?
>>
>> Whats wrong with praying to God directly instead of getting someone
>> else to do it. What exactly is the point?
>>
>> Besides you are comparing a living being praying to an imaginary
>> being with an imaginary being praying to an imaginary being.
>
> to consider something so deep as the 'body of Christ' and how the
> body needs all its parts to operate correctly... this being the case
> I wont waste much time explaining it to you...
LOL - Of course you won't.
>
> Intersession is very biblical...
Cite reference of folks praying to statues to pray to god for them.
Or bowing - kneeling - before statues and praying for the soul the
statue represents to ask god favors for them.
>
> What we Are is God's gift to us.
> What we Become is our gift to God.
--
Craig
All the while keeping them in their place here on earth.
I've had folks give me descriptions of the woman's place was as
subservient but equal. ?? - Maybe that relates to the Old South and what
Separate but Equal worked out to.
All men are created equal and should know their place and keep to it?
I've met rare Christians in general who impressed me as giving much a
damn what Jesus was about. What they seem to be most into is justifications
and loopholes in relation to the whole affair.
Lot of times I am told, "By faith alone are ye saved" which indicates to
me they never read James. So I get them to give James a look and they might
tell me that it doesn't mean it that way - although the whole book is the
verbatim exact word of god without error.
The Catholics seem more than most to want to claim that the common man
cannot understand any of it and only them priests can deliver what the
arcane message really is.
Well, that would make it necessary to tell folks stuff that doesn't make
a damned bit of sense. If they told folks it meant much of what it appeared
to mean then folks would not be dependant on some possible child molester to
tell him what it really means.
Them priests is like lawyers.
Craig
> Craig (sun...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>
>> Jason wrote:
>>> Craig (sun...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Russ wrote:
>>>>> In article <ab9rco$ge7tb$1...@ID-31769.news.dfncis.de>, "Craig"
>>>>> <sun...@pacbell.net> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> All prayer to Mary are prayers through Mary to God.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then Mary is before God as sort of a receptionist, secretary
>>>>>> or some such?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. All the Hail Mary does is ask her to pray for us.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How come God needs such an intermediary anyway? Jesus never
>>>>>> said anything about having to go through channels.
>>>>>
>>>>> You never asked anyone to pray for you? Does that make them an
>>>>> intermediary? No one ever ask you to pray for them? Does that
>>>>> make you an intermediary?
>>>>>
>>>>> Russ
>>>>
>>>> I'm not really big on necromancy.
>>>
>>> obviously.. you apparerently dont know what it is...
>>> break out your dictionary. . .
>>
>> Close enough. If you didn't know what I meant then you are not
>> bright enough to grasp much ideas anyway.
>>
>
I thought you were bitching about necromancy. It was the closest term
that for talking to the dead that came to mind of the moment. - Mebbe there
has to be some fortune telling involved for strict application.
>
>>>
>>>> I've not even seen in the bible about talking to dead people.
>>>> Sounds like some sort of witchcraft to me.
>>>
>>> who said anyone is dead? you mean their soul is interceding from
>>> heaven right? because we beleive in the immortality of the soul....
>>
>> And all souls are virgins? Or is it just Mary got hers back?
>
> she never lost it in the first place, and I feel like I am speaking a
> different language since you clearly have little knowledge of
> theology..
Joseph and her were only to not have sexual relationgs before Jesus was
born.
You seem to have little knowledge of common sense.
>
>> And trust me. She died quite some time back. And I really doubt
>> is manifesting in all them graven images that supposedly represent
>> her.
>
> manifesting in?
> http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp
Love that final sentence:
"The making and use of religious statues is a thoroughly biblical
practice. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know his Bible."
It is good to punctuate such a batch of faulty logic and fallacy with
something really classic.
Well, it is good to see the source of the stuff folks have been
parroting on the issue with claim that God giving special instruction makes
amendment or loophole to build all the graven images one pleases.
"Thou shalt not make unto thee ...." Is nullified when God instructs
some such as, "Thou shalt make these specific thingws unto me."
"Don't Piss On My Leg And Tell Me It Is Raining." [book title by Judge
Judy]
And don't try to impress me with comparison with what the protestandt
do. I've disagreed with more of them than with Catholics on the same issue.
And I don't personally care if someone makes themselves all the graven
images they wish. But if they want to bullshit me with justifications I'm
happy to go on about it and why I think it to not just be the law but a good
idea. ;-)
>
>> You folks would give me the impression that if one is good and
>> goes to heaven they are then transformed into something else than
>> who or what they was.
>
> well this statement has all kinds of errors in it, but lets just say
> that one must die in a state of grace, and then yes, then our
> curruptable bodies are 'improved'.
>
>> And the main thing that you gotta do to get to heaven is, no matter
>> how wretched and despicable a person one is, to mummer some crap to
>> some Priest for absolution because he is scared of going to hell to
>> burn up forever.
>
> so thats the 'main thing' huh..
It seems at least the only thing for some. One can live a life of any
amount of corruption taking chance that he will not become dead by total
surprise and there be a priest handy. Then some last minute repentance based
on fear of hell rather than based on any sincerity is ones ticket. - Well,
one might be sincerly afraid of hell.
>
> <snip>
Craig
I don't personally care about the thing itself. I'm more into the
statement and the judtification of the loophole.
Some folks will tell me that the statue itself is unimportant yet they
will defend the whole affair as if it is important. To me, such controversy
should serve as another example of why it is not just the law but a good
example. - It would bring to my mind some about Pauls reasoning about food
sacrificed to idols:
1 Corinthians 8
1 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have
knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.
2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet
as he ought to know.
3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.
4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in
sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that
there is none other God but one.
5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth,
(as there be gods many, and lords many,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and
we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with
conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an
idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the
better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of your's become a
stumbling block to them that are weak.
10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's
temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat
those things which are offered to idols;
11 And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom
Christ died?
12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak
conscience, ye sin against Christ.
13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while
the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.
>
> "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven]
> fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls
> full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8
>
> should we not make 'golden bowls' now?