Catholic Hatred. (Impossible Thread, Episode #2)

chiram
reply to post by drivers1492

 

C: My post was originally meant for Whitewave (below) excuse me, got a little confused, but it would still be relevant to the story

Whitewave:
You say that the sin is on Adam and Eve and that you didn't do anything deserving of Gods' wrath? We are all born of Adam and Eve. Their sin is comparable to a genetic disease. It's passed on to all the descendants. Even if a child is raised well, taught to never lie, steal, deceive or commit any "sins", the child will still sin. Some more than others, some less. But still, ALL have sinned and all will sin. It's in our very makeup as a human. Since one man sinned, bringing the whole world that followed (as his descendants) into sin, it was fair and right that only one man should pay for that sinful nature.

C: Adam and Eve don’t exist; it’s a creation myth, i.e. allegory

Hello chiram,

This is better than I could ever explain, John Martignoni answers the question asked (an excerpt, ATS rules).


Q: I had a theology professor who told me that Adam and Eve were just myths, and that the rest of Genesis was all just legends...is that what the Church teaches?

A: Absolutely not! The Church has always taught that Adam and Eve were real people and were the first human beings from whom all other human beings are descended. In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in Paragraph 37 of an encyclical entitled Humani Generis, states, "...the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from [Adam] as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents." In other words, the Church teaches that all humanity descended from Adam and Eve. They had to be real for that to happen.

Paragraph #38, states: "This [encyclical], in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis...do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense..." Again, Adam and Eve are not myths, and the rest of Genesis is not legend. They are history in a "true sense."

Paragraph #39: "Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things..." Can it be stated any clearer than that?

And listen to what the Catechism says, Paragraph #375, "The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice".250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".251

250 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511.
251 Cf. LG 2.

NO mention of a myth here.

Paragraph #404: "By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin. Someone please tell me, how do myths commit personal sins?...

www.biblechristiansociety.com...



GBY,

colbe

colbe

You can't be your own pope, it is easier for sure but look at the error.

I for one am not "my own pope". I have no pope, nor have i any need of one. I'm not sure why you think anyone does.

The rotten "imputation" heresy of Jesus did it all on the Cross, your sins are forgiven, you're
in, you're saved. This is not true. What of your life lived? What if you fall down and commit a mortal sin? Why must we persevere to the end? Jesus did NOT impute His perfect righteousness and perfect sacrifice on the Cross on to you, you're covered. He redeemed mankind, Our Lord opened Heaven.

If he did not die for the reasons he claimed, then he died for nothing, and it was a waste of his life. You cheapen his death to the point of no value when you say such things.

If Jesus "opened Heaven", then it was open - why do you persist on claiming he gave Peter the keys to what you believe was an already open door?

I must confess that I'm not real clear on the Catholic doctrine of "mortal sin" - does that mean that you believe some sins will kill you (i.e. "mortal") and others are ok to commit?

We must persevere to the end because the end comes, whether we persevere or not, and if we don't, we were either not saved to begin with, OR we nullified God's will. Do you really think mortals can stop God in his tracks and thwart his will?

What OF my "life lived"? If you knew it, you would lay down and cry. I do some times, and I'm the one that lived it.

OpinionatedB

orangetom1999
OpinionatedB,

If God cannot stand me (because I have sinned) why does He speak with me?

Because he knows you have been chosen by him...a sheep..not a goat. Not necessarily for everything you do..but for the destination..where you will wind up..in the end.

Thanks to all for their posts.
Orangetom

You know, the first split second reaction on the emotional level is to think cool... im special...

But then, I know exactly what I am... if we were having a race to who was the worst of mankind, Id be in the running... I am not anything to be proud of, not anything special, certainly not anything good.

And that is what makes this seem the lie.

Yet, I was in the presence of God. That is something I cannot deny... I know who He is, I was in His presence, and it is still so utterly amazing it brings me to tears, even though it was so many years ago, it was like yesterday.

My husband told me before about the elect, and you say the same words..but.... knowing who I am, exactly, its.... nonsensical.

I know you say blood, but then you read that one persons posting about the zombie apocalypse meets God thing, and the christian desire to be a zombie... and all one can think is that is so wrong, and so evil. You simply have an innate desire to protect yourself from such evil...And even knowing that this extreme is not representative of all of Christianity... its still very frightening... it burns in your brain...

Its just... confusing.

edit on 7-1-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

Opinionated, I guess I am butting in here,

The Catholic teaching is NOT "zombie." God's plan is that we receive Him, you can't think of cannibalism. You have to
think higher as Jesus says, think "spirit and life", do not understand in a human way. Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is supernatural.

The Eucharist is truly Jesus because He says so, you have to take it on faith. When the priest consecrates the bread and wine,
it appears to be the same but it is not, the bread and wine are completely changed into the risen body, blood, soul and
divinity of Christ.


God bless you,


colbe

colbe

1. God's "anointing" is for you and every other Protestant personally to interpret a Catholic book, Holy Scripture? Explain how this can be, the breaking away, why would the Holy Spirit desire you to split from the first non-Catholic Christian teaching you heard and on and and on and on going back to the 16th century? God gave the world an authority to interpret the Bible, the RCC (she canonized it), not every person reading Scripture. Look at the thousands upon thousands of non-Catholic Christians all preaching something different. There is no unity of belief, absolutely not of God the Holy Spirit.

How does this "personal interpretation" (what a concept!) differ from the "prophecy (presonal revelation)" you constantly link to? How do you know that other folks are not getting "prophecy (personal revelation)" that leads them in the way they are to go?

2. Fact, if you are professing things not of the faith, you are a heretic.

Fact, EVERYONE is a "heretic" to someone.

3. Our Lord redeemed mankind by His agonizing death on the Cross. Our Lord opened Heaven. To be saved is life long, with the help of God's grace and our choices. Jesus' death on the Cross justifies no one.

Then it was for nought, and God has been thwarted by his creation - the created has thwarted the Creator.

4. I wasn't speaking of God the Holy Spirit, Jesus is in the Tabernacle of every Catholic Church. Our Lord set it up this way. He will give you grace, go there and speak to Him.

No need. Jesus never entered a Catholic "tabernacle" - he went out to lonely, desolate, deserted places to do his talking to God. I am no better than he. I do not need to enter a Catholic Church to seek the face of God, either.

5. I am sorry you lost your Catholic family, my parents are gone too. You still have the grace of the
Sacraments on your soul. Once Catholic, always Catholic. Remember, okay? For the time ahead.

"Once a Catholic, always a Catholic" sounds precisely like the Catholic version of "once saved, always saved" - but it's not a "heresy" if some guy in Rome claims it, right? It only becomes a "heresy" if some guy not in Rome makes the same claim - am I following this right?

colbe

Your verses from the Douay-Rheims Bible, I like that you read the Douay-Rheims, the footnotes will help you soon. Buy the DR Bible, we will not have the Internet forever.

Hi colbe! Sorry I'm so slow in replies. I'm doing it as I go through the thread, and have only just gotten home from work a little while ago, frozen nearly solid - but not quite. The old fingers still work, just more slowly. I'm thawing as I type over some little heaters, because my Big Heater went kapow last night - which is why I didn't respond then.

Anyhow, some years ago I did a thorough study on the Bible, to find out how we arrived at what we have today. That's why I'm thoroughly convinced that the Bible is not a "Catholic book" - but that is really neither here nor there, as I think we've just about beaten that particular horse to death.

I'm prepared to give you that the Douay-Rheims IS a Catholic book, however. It's even got the Catholic Seal of Approval (i.e. "imprimatur") inside the cover to show ownership. I used to have a physical copy of it years ago. I got it during that research I mentioned above - got a real deal on it, too, because some miscreant had torn the covers off of it, and I had to repair it. Sadly, it got destroyed in a series of disasters that I euphemistically call "life".

HOWEVER - I got a replacement, an electronic version that I can take with me anywhere I go. There is a computer program (free) called "BPBible Pro". The Douay-Rheims is one of the modules that you can download to install in it - probably the only one you would want, but it's available, and I recommend it. It allows one to search, copy verses and paste them, and all sorts of nifty things. You should look into it. The only time you need an internet connection is when you download it. The rest of the time, you just take it with you on a USB drive. It helps to get the "portable" version of BPBible Pro for that, but there is another version you can install on your main computer if you wish.

I recommend looking into it if you do much Bible reading.

colbe

It is THE exact opposite. Our Lord has said in Protestant messages , "I am going to have ONE Church, there are new things to accept, I will have a unity of belief, accept the Ancient."

WHOA! You almost had me there, colbe! That is EXACTLY what i do - I "accept the Ancient" - from long before the RCC establishment. It's why I have to reject the RCC, too. They add too many unscriptural things to "The Ancient". I believe that it's also true that there is and will be but "one Church" - but it is not the RCC, nor indeed ANY of the current denominations. All have fallen short of the Glory of God by injecting too much of their own nonsense.

It is Jesus' gentle loving way of preparing Protestants to accept the faith, Roman Catholicism when they are shown it in the worldwide divine "awakening." The "awakening is in Scripture, read Revelation 6:15-17 and 1 Cor 3:13. Read further in 1 Cor, chapter 3, "like in a mirror", I think is 1 Cor 3:18. God is going to show every soul on the earth their life in review during the "awakening." 1 Cor 3:13 describes the "awakening." And those verses in Revelation, all of us but a few holy people will wish to hide for the rocks to fall on us when we see our soul as God sees it in the "awakening." Prepare for this "awakening" with a daily prayer life and so important, true repentance and confession of your mortal sins to God now!

I looked up those verses, but am still not sure how you arrived at your conclusion from them. It's interesting to note that the passage from Corinthians (the "through a glass darkly" passage) is the only one I've ever taught on inside a church. I don't see how you get some earthly "awakening" out of it - it seemed (and still does) pretty clear to me exactly what it was talking about.

OpinionatedB

But then, I know exactly what I am... if we were having a race to who was the worst of mankind, Id be in the running... I am not anything to be proud of, not anything special, certainly not anything good.

And that is what makes this seem the lie.

I'm proud of you.

One has to remember that God does what God will, and often uses the weak to demonstrate his strength.

Look at the protestations of Moses at being chosen.

Look at the protestations of Gideon at being chosen.

God does what God will. He can make anything out of nothing (literally), and he can bring strength out of weakness. Holy books are chock full of demonstrations of that very thing. God seems to delight in such demonstrations, for whatever reason.

All of Michelangelo's masterpieces started with just a chunk of formless rock. How much more can God do than Michelangelo? The mark of an artist is the ability to see the finished work where others see only a rock. God sees all, from eternity to eternity.

Remember that we are all still works in progress, and NONE of us has reached the finish line while we yet breathe.

My husband told me before about the elect, and you say the same words..but.... knowing who I am, exactly, its.... nonsensical.

We "elect" a president every four years in the US... yet there is always a period of time in each election cycle where the new president is NOT "the president", he is only the "president elect". His time in office is assured, but he is not yet there. He still has some catching up to do, and has to wait it out.

I know you say blood, but then you read that one persons posting about the zombie apocalypse meets God thing, and the christian desire to be a zombie... and all one can think is that is so wrong, and so evil. You simply have an innate desire to protect yourself from such evil...And even knowing that this extreme is not representative of all of Christianity... its still very frightening... it burns in your brain...

Its just... confusing.

Regarding "blood", it says in Leviticus:

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. Leviticus 17:11 (American Standard Version (1901))

"Zombie Apocalypse meets God" is just offensive, and I'd imagine whatever you read there was meant to be offensive. It's kinda like that whole "God begets stuff" thing can be offensive if understood wrong - if you make it into something it is not, then it can become offense in a heck of a hurry, with no redemptive value.

Zombies are for movies and TV shows, not religions.

drivers1492

Not to come across as combative but no. I say that because god created evil, in turn causing or downfall, so no it was not set up in any way so we could all be winners. Like you point out later in your reply "I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." it wasn't set up so we could all be winners.

How is one to know "good" without having "evil" to compare it against for evaluation?

Now the tree in the Garden that is the point of so much contention was specified to be "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" - you see, you can't know one without knowing the other, so both were included in the title. Whether that tree was "real" or allegorical is neither here nor there - the lesson is the same.

It was the knowledge of good and evil that brought "sin" into humanity. If you don't know right from wrong, how can you be responsible for making the choice? Lions do "evil" by human standards, but not by lion standards, because they do not know the difference. They are just being lions.

Likewise, without acquiring the knowledge of good and evil, people would just be people. It is that knowledge, acquired by "people" (whether you believe Adam and Eve to be literal is also immaterial in the long run) that allows for the "sinful nature", which is also the "human nature". Without that knowledge, we would be less than fully human - more like the beasts of the field, knowing neither good nor evil.

We would not be able to "sin", but neither would e be able to soar without our humanity.

Some times, you just have to take the bad with the good in order to take either at all.

nenothtu

Zombies are for movies and TV shows, not religions.

Oh God you will probably never understand just how strongly I agree with you!

reply to post by nenothtu


Good points nenothtu. Let me address a couple with my opinion on them. I want to pull from the middle of your post first as it drew my attention.

It was the knowledge of good and evil that brought "sin" into humanity. If you don't know right from wrong, how can you be responsible for making the choice?

So following the biblical theme man didn't know good from evil before taking this fruit of sorts. Your statement above though causes a bit of issue since we have been cast out and punished for that choice. If it were true that we weren't held responsible if we didn't know right from wrong then there shouldn't have been a punishment for making a choice lacking the knowledge needed to do so appropriately. So again I put forth like in the quote you responded that the deck was not stacked in our favor. It was irrelevant if we had the knowledge or not so you can be responsible for making a choice even if you don't know since the bible starts off pointing that out.

We would not be able to "sin", but neither would e be able to soar without our humanity.

I hear this alot in defense of what portrayed n the bible concerning the fall. While I do understand it I do point out though that this is pure assumption. We have no clue what we could be or how it could have been and the possibilities are limitless. Making the statement that it had to be this way just isn't a valid statement imo. Would you consider it not possible for god to have set it up differently that we didn't have the sin aspect and still have a good existence or do you feel isn't capable of that? That's where I wonder why folks make the statement as it puts a limitation on what god could have done instead of creating the suffering that man has endured.

Some times, you just have to take the bad with the good in order to take either at all.

I agree but when it was never necessary in the first place is when it doesn't make sense to me, such as with the origins and fall of man.

It would seem that people should stop and consider that none of this had to go down like this. If you believe in god then you have to know that the only reason it is like this is because god made it that way. If he is all powerful then he did it by direct choice not because it simply had to be. I left the church because I never have been able to reconcile my questions to give me a peace that any being would simply do this out of love. Outside of the constant responses of "you can't know the ways of god and he works in mysterious ways" I never got anything worthwhile answered. So my initial statement still stands at no, even with the addition of Jesus to the equation, biblical creation does not show that god made this creation with intent on us winning.

Thanks for your response I enjoyed your insight.

nenothtu

colbe

Your verses from the Douay-Rheims Bible, I like that you read the Douay-Rheims, the footnotes will help you soon. Buy the DR Bible, we will not have the Internet forever.

Hi colbe! Sorry I'm so slow in replies. I'm doing it as I go through the thread, and have only just gotten home from work a little while ago, frozen nearly solid - but not quite. The old fingers still work, just more slowly. I'm thawing as I type over some little heaters, because my Big Heater went kapow last night - which is why I didn't respond then.

Anyhow, some years ago I did a thorough study on the Bible, to find out how we arrived at what we have today. That's why I'm thoroughly convinced that the Bible is not a "Catholic book" - but that is really neither here nor there, as I think we've just about beaten that particular horse to death.

I'm prepared to give you that the Douay-Rheims IS a Catholic book, however. It's even got the Catholic Seal of Approval (i.e. "imprimatur") inside the cover to show ownership. I used to have a physical copy of it years ago. I got it during that research I mentioned above - got a real deal on it, too, because some miscreant had torn the covers off of it, and I had to repair it. Sadly, it got destroyed in a series of disasters that I euphemistically call "life".

HOWEVER - I got a replacement, an electronic version that I can take with me anywhere I go. There is a computer program (free) called "BPBible Pro". The Douay-Rheims is one of the modules that you can download to install in it - probably the only one you would want, but it's available, and I recommend it. It allows one to search, copy verses and paste them, and all sorts of nifty things. You should look into it. The only time you need an internet connection is when you download it. The rest of the time, you just take it with you on a USB drive. It helps to get the "portable" version of BPBible Pro for that, but there is another version you can install on your main computer if you wish.

I recommend looking into it if you do much Bible reading.

neno,

Wow, I love that you have a worn out Douay-Rheims Bible! I often share, my mother could speak Latin but I can't
and don't we all wish to read nearest to the words of Our Lord. Hence, the Douay-Rheims Bible. I have a paperback
copy of the Douay-Rheims Bible and check www.drbo.org... online.

I like when you can look at program that has a word search. There are some messages given to two gentleman from God a few years ago. In their messages, all the way through, God speaks, lays out the end time plan and tells you where to look in Scripture for what He is going to explain.

Here is the link to those messages with the word search. I often looked up God's words about the "abomination of
desolation", it is so often discussed. One of the messengers, Cletus, died last year. Verne, received most of
the messages. Two holy men. The messages are entitled ~ God Speaks Will You Listen.

www.scribd.com...

The painting you see at the link, some people have been healed looking at it.

colbe

nenothtu

colbe

It is a fact, for fifteen years of following prophecy (private revelation), the Catholic, a few Orthodox and the Protestant messages from Heaven, Our Lord states in all three over and over the Remnant IS Roman Catholic. If prophecy said something different, I wouldn't be commenting in this thread. I would be going where God's prophets said to go...

Colbe -

This IS an interesting twist of events! Could you be so kind as to point me to these alleged "prophecies" where God delivered a message to protestants through a Protestant "prophet" that everyone needs to convert Roman Catholic?

It just doesn't work for me to have that message delivered to Protestants through a Catholic "prophet" - I'm sure you can see the conflict of interest and agenda that would be involved there.

Thanks.

neno,

I like that you are interested, God's grace is working on you. For a long, long time Our Lord has been
speaking pretty generally in the Protestant messages from Heaven, speaking "one" Church, of "unity" of
belief, of "new" revelation.

But lately, Jesus is speaking about His presence in the Eucharist to non-Catholic Christian prophets
Wow!!

Three Protestant messengers receiving messages about the Eucharist. There are more, time is short. Our Lord can't say the word "Eucharist" because of disbelief, He is getting you ready to accept His presence in the Eucharist. If you can come to believe in His SUPERNATURAL presence in the Eucharist, everything else you wonder about the faith will be answered, will make sense. This is God's plan, how humble.


GBY,

colbe

p.s. I typed the in-parenthesis in Yolanda Ballard's message.

_ _ _ _ _

message/vision to Amanda Leonard


(check her blog, she reposted a 12-4-11 message) Jesus states in a vision He gave her....

"Then He took me to a huge table and I sat beside of Him and ate. He said, “There will always be enough.” For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Anyone who eats
my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in Him.57 I live because of the living Father who
sent me; in the same way, anyone who FEEDS ON ME will live because of me.” John 6:55-57...

www.timeinhispresence.wordpress.com...

+ + +

Yolanda Ballard

November 8, 2013

...For surely this is the day of the great falling away. Do not allow those
things that satisfy your flesh entice you to lose all that I died for
you to have. For I died that you would have an abundant life with peace,
joy and My righteousness flowing freely. Yes, I died that you would
have health and prosperity as your soul prospers.

But what would you give in exchange for your soul? Would it be a piece of
bread (Protestant communion) or would you choose Me, the Bread of Life (Eucharist)?
The choice is yours to make and the time is running out for those to make preparation
for what is coming on the earth. Think wisely on these things for the cost could
cause you your life!...

www.roarnworship.com...

+ + +

message to Jeff Kingshott

October 7, 2013

...NOW FEED from My Tree ALL that it bears !
For this shall Sustain you and be your Wares ,
The BREAD of LIFE That shows ME , ( SHEW BREAD)
My Completeness not just a part of My TAPESTRY ,

I AM bearing My ALL open to VIEW !
Come EAT OF ME so that I might give to others to partake of Me to !
For MY FULLNESS FIRST MUST BE UNDERSTOOD
Or it will drift by as if it is deadwood ,
So do not separate
but Come unto Me ,
For I AM Painting in you My COMPLETE TAPESTRY !

www.openheaven.com...

I am so excited. Another message from Our Lord to a PROTESTANT prophet about His presence in the Eucharist.
Our Lord doesn't say Eucharist because of disbelief and this time with a little humor. The last words in this
excerpt. Look at the link, the entire message is beautiful.


So....4 messages about the Eucharist here given to non-Catholic Christian prophets. Time is short, Jesus is getting
specific. And notice in this message, believe the men (and women) who God speaks through...


www.openheaven.com...

message to Deepak Tadikonda

___________________________
TODAY - January 7, 2013

Today, please listen;
don’t turn a deaf ear as in “the bitter uprising,”
that time of wilderness testing!
Even though they watched me at work for forty years,
your ancestors refused to let me do it my way;
over and over they tried my patience.
And I was provoked, oh, so provoked!
I said, “They’ll never keep their minds on God;
they refuse to walk down my road.”
Exasperated, I vowed,
“They’ll never get where they’re going,
never be able to sit down and rest.”

So watch your step, friends. Make sure there’s no evil UNBELIEF lying around that will trip
you up and throw you off course, diverting you from the living God. For as long as it’s still
God’s Today, keep each other on your toes so sin doesn’t slow down your reflexes. If we can
only keep our grip on the sure thing we started out with, we’re in this with Christ for the
long haul.

These words keep ringing in our ears:
Today, please listen;
DON'T TURN A DEAF EAR as in the bitter uprising.

For who were the people who turned a deaf ear? Weren’t they the very ones Moses led out of
Egypt? And who was God provoked with for forty years? Wasn’t it those who TURNED A DEAF ear
and ended up corpses in the wilderness? And when he swore that they’d never get where they
were going, wasn’t he talking to the ones who turned a deaf ear? They never got there because
THEY NEVER LISTENED, THEY NEVER BELIEVED.

You’re Blessed

When Jesus saw his ministry drawing huge crowds, he climbed a hillside. Those who were
apprenticed to him, the committed, climbed with him. Arriving at a quiet place, he sat down
and taught his climbing companions. This is what he said:

“You’re blessed when you’re at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God
and his rule.

“You’re blessed when you feel you’ve lost what is most dear to you. Only then can you be
embraced by the One most dear to you.

“You’re blessed when you’re content with just who you are—no more, no less. That’s the moment
you find yourselves proud owners of everything that can’t be bought.

“You’re BLESSED when you’ve worked up a good APPETITE FOR GOD. HE'S FOOD AND DRINK IN THE BEST MEAL YOU'LL EVER EAT. ...

drivers1492

So following the biblical theme man didn't know good from evil before taking this fruit of sorts. Your statement above though causes a bit of issue since we have been cast out and punished for that choice. If it were true that we weren't held responsible if we didn't know right from wrong then there shouldn't have been a punishment for making a choice lacking the knowledge needed to do so appropriately. So again I put forth like in the quote you responded that the deck was not stacked in our favor. It was irrelevant if we had the knowledge or not so you can be responsible for making a choice even if you don't know since the bible starts off pointing that out.

I was never IN Eden, and so was not "cast out". That's a bit like saying you were kicked out of England because one of your ancestors was.

Why shouldn't we be "punished" for making choices that we didn't know the results of? When we run a stop sign and pile up in an intersection, that isn't a conscious decision, either - but it has natural consequences all the same. It's not so much a "punishment" as it is the simple natural consequence of action. In this case, that consequence included KNOWING the result, realizing what had been done and the result of it - but realizing also that there is a remedy for it.

The fact that you can even question it shows how effective it was.

I hear this alot in defense of what portrayed n the bible concerning the fall. While I do understand it I do point out though that this is pure assumption. We have no clue what we could be or how it could have been and the possibilities are limitless. Making the statement that it had to be this way just isn't a valid statement imo. Would you consider it not possible for god to have set it up differently that we didn't have the sin aspect and still have a good existence or do you feel isn't capable of that? That's where I wonder why folks make the statement as it puts a limitation on what god could have done instead of creating the suffering that man has endured.

No, it's not assumption. Look at monkeys in the zoo to understand what being human is without humanity. I don't see how God could have made us aware without allowing us to become aware, so no, I don't think there was any other way that would have also allowed us to be fully human with all that entails.

I agree but when it was never necessary in the first place is when it doesn't make sense to me, such as with the origins and fall of man.

Why was it "not necessary"? How do you propose to know without knowing?

It would seem that people should stop and consider that none of this had to go down like this. If you believe in god then you have to know that the only reason it is like this is because god made it that way. If he is all powerful then he did it by direct choice not because it simply had to be. I left the church because I never have been able to reconcile my questions to give me a peace that any being would simply do this out of love. Outside of the constant responses of "you can't know the ways of god and he works in mysterious ways" I never got anything worthwhile answered. So my initial statement still stands at no, even with the addition of Jesus to the equation, biblical creation does not show that god made this creation with intent on us winning.

We love our children, but there comes a day when we have to allow them to stand and become adults. That is the whole point of having kids, as harsh as it is. We hurt in ourselves when they make "bad decisions", but if we never allow them to, they never become adults. In order to "win big", we also have to have the potential to "lose big". No one ever overcomes if there is nothing there to be overcome.

God gave us the potential to either lose big or win big, and the tools to accomplish that potential, but not all will take advantage of those tools. If everyone did, i suppose there would be no real accomplishment to overcoming. It's sort of like the modern proclivity to give trophies to everyone - it makes the value of the trophy much less, because you don't really have to do anything to get one.

Thanks for your response I enjoyed your insight.

No problem. i appreciate the opportunity to exercise my mind. A knife stays sharp when it is constantly honed against coarse stone, and a mind stays sharp when it is honed against questions.

colbe

neno,

Wow, I love that you have a worn out Douay-Rheims Bible! I often share, my mother could speak Latin but I can't
and don't we all wish to read nearest to the words of Our Lord. Hence, the Douay-Rheims Bible. I have a paperback
copy of the Douay-Rheims Bible and check www.drbo.org... online.

I had it - I don't think I do any more, unless it's packed away in a box that I've not opened. I believe, however, that it is gone like so much else. It looked like someone had offered violence to it, torn off the covers and the spine, which I had to re-create. It was an old, old copy, and I got it in the antiquarian bookshop that Orangetom1999 and I were talking about.

I can read Greek, and had a copy of the New Testament in Greek as well. Latin was not close enough to the original to suit me, and the more layers of translation one subjects a book to, the more error and misreading can creep into the translation of translation. That was the purpose I studied Greek for to begin with, although there was also a bit of a rebellious streak. You see, I HAD to have a foreign language to complete my studies, and that was the least useful language offered. The only real use it has is to read the New Testament in the original - there really isn't ANY other practical use for it in the modern world.

I like when you can look at program that has a word search. There are some messages given to two gentleman from God a few years ago. In their messages, all the way through, God speaks, lays out the end time plan and tells you where to look in Scripture for what He is going to explain.

Here is the link to those messages with the word search. I often looked up God's words about the "abomination of
desolation", it is so often discussed. One of the messengers, Cletus, died last year. Verne, received most of
the messages. Two holy men. The messages are entitled ~ God Speaks Will You Listen.

www.scribd.com...

The painting you see at the link, some people have been healed looking at it.

I'm not entirely convinced they are "holy men". Why can one not arrive at the same conclusions simply by studying God's word on his or her own, as they are led by the Holy Spirit? In other words, why do you believe the need for a "messenger" when we already have the message in the Bible and a messenger that lives within us?

The reason I ask is that I'm not a stranger to these modern-day "prophets", and have seen too many of them expose who their father really is in their alleged "messages from God". Those "prophets" have made me leery of all who make that claim, until I can evaluate what they have to say in the light of the Bible. One of the "red flags" = although far from the only one - is an over-use of "thees and thous", reliance on 17th century English in "messages" purported to be for modern people. The more entertaining ones can't even use the old words properly, and only use them to attempt to put a veneer of legitimacy on pronouncements that are anything BUT legitimate.

Usually, however, the big tip off is the content of the alleged messages.

reply to post by nenothtu

Why shouldn't we be "punished" for making choices that we didn't know the results of? When we run a stop sign and pile up in an intersection, that isn't a conscious decision, either - but it has natural consequences all the same. It's not so much a "punishment" as it is the simple natural consequence of action. In this case, that consequence included KNOWING the result, realizing what had been done and the result of it - but realizing also that there is a remedy for it.

I see the correlation your making here but the situations are very different in my eyes. If I were to read the biblical texts and understand them to flow in a consistent manner when it comes to god and the rules set forth we should have garden access from birth until we make error for ourselves. But that isn't the case. We begin life and live it in the punishment given to Adam which is in direct contrast to the sins of the father being passed to the children. God multiplied birth pains as a part of his punishment, my mother wasn't part of this contract with god yet she shares in the result. Yes they were told don't do this or this will happen. So my problem is why he didn't simply do what he said instead of making everyone afterwards party to it as well?

No, it's not assumption. Look at monkeys in the zoo to understand what being human is without humanity. I don't see how God could have made us aware without allowing us to become aware, so no, I don't think there was any other way that would have also allowed us to be fully human with all that entails.

Yes it is. Your own response should show you that it is stating "I don't see how, I don't think there was". And, I concede that I don't with certainty know anything. I base my train of thought on the subject with this, god just basically spoke the universe into existence and "breathed" life into clay, I cannot fathom a being capable of this could not have done a bit of tweaking without any or much effort. For me that's a logic conclusion given the power displayed in biblical texts attributed to god.

Why was it "not necessary"? How do you propose to know without knowing?

It was not necessary imo, because it was purposely set up this way. Unless one makes the admission that god has limitations then I don't see how one can deny it could have been different and even better if god chose to do it. But for some reason god chose to do it the way we are now. I get your comparison to the trophies yet again were talking of supernatural events. Heaven as it's described has no sorrow or worry so I'm not sure applying that logic really works. I do understand the concept of reaping just rewards but in the ideas the bible gives us, we seem to be set into a situation of extremes. That leaves a lot to be desired for someone like myself who can't simply accept that a deity unconditionally loves us yet sets in motion the means for the failure and suffering of so many.

reply to post by colbe


Please understand, this is not a conversation I am able to have.

colbe

chiram
reply to post by drivers1492

 

C: My post was originally meant for Whitewave (below) excuse me, got a little confused, but it would still be relevant to the story

Whitewave:
You say that the sin is on Adam and Eve and that you didn't do anything deserving of Gods' wrath? We are all born of Adam and Eve. Their sin is comparable to a genetic disease. It's passed on to all the descendants. Even if a child is raised well, taught to never lie, steal, deceive or commit any "sins", the child will still sin. Some more than others, some less. But still, ALL have sinned and all will sin. It's in our very makeup as a human. Since one man sinned, bringing the whole world that followed (as his descendants) into sin, it was fair and right that only one man should pay for that sinful nature.

C: Adam and Eve don’t exist; it’s a creation myth, i.e. allegory

Hello chiram,

This is better than I could ever explain, John Martignoni answers the question asked (an excerpt, ATS rules).


Q: I had a theology professor who told me that Adam and Eve were just myths, and that the rest of Genesis was all just legends...is that what the Church teaches?

A: Absolutely not! The Church has always taught that Adam and Eve were real people and were the first human beings from whom all other human beings are descended. In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in Paragraph 37 of an encyclical entitled Humani Generis, states, "...the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from [Adam] as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents." In other words, the Church teaches that all humanity descended from Adam and Eve. They had to be real for that to happen.

Paragraph #38, states: "This [encyclical], in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis...do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense..." Again, Adam and Eve are not myths, and the rest of Genesis is not legend. They are history in a "true sense."

Paragraph #39: "Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things..." Can it be stated any clearer than that?

And listen to what the Catechism says, Paragraph #375, "The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice".250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".251

250 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511.
251 Cf. LG 2.

NO mention of a myth here.

Paragraph #404: "By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin. Someone please tell me, how do myths commit personal sins?...

www.biblechristiansociety.com...



GBY,

colbe

Hi Colbe, thanks for the reply and reference.
It would appear there’s a lot of divided opinion on whether Adam and Eve was a myth. Ah well, it makes for good discussion....

Chiram.

Catholic Cardinal Says Adam and Eve Didn’t Exist:

In comments that may shock some staunch Catholics, Cardinal George Pell has described the biblical story of Adam and Eve as a myth.Cardinal Pell said the existence of Adam and Eve was not a matter of science but rather a mythological account.“It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said. LINK:

reply to post by drivers1492


I see what you're saying, drivers. God, Who was able to supernaturally speak all of existence into being was also able to set up a system whereby we wouldn't have to suffer so much for our actions. I suppose He could have made the consequences of sin something else, like clapping our hands 3 times and saying sorry, sorry, sorry. Why do you suppose He didn't? He's a big meanie?

First, I like to say that God didn't call me to be His lawyer.

I believe God wanted us to understand fully the consequences of disobedience to Him, to see the result of separation from the Source of our Life. Man has tried every form of self-government he can think of; some better than others but all with the same end result. ALL life apart from total obedience to Yahweh is one epic fail. Tribal governments, communism, constitutional republics, asceticism, monarchies, theocracies, ALL of them fall short of the glory of God. Way short.

Have you ever had a traumatic childhood experience that taught you a lesson you'll never forget? One that burned that lesson right into the very fabric of your being? Something that no one could ever talk you into violating your oath to avoid that traumatic action? I think sin is something God wants us to FULLY recognize so we will never, ever choose that again over obedience to Him. We now have a long, long history of being able to look back and say, "no, it's been tried and that doesn't work either".
It was always God's intention to put us in a good place (garden of Eden, land of Canaan, etc) and to be our everything in that place. Because He is the Creator and able to do as He pleases, why would we want to depend on anyone else?

When times are good and things are going our way, we tend to ignore God. We seem to think we've got things well in hand and don't really need God. Suffering brings us right back to seeking our Source. One thing for sure is that by the time this tired old world has played its last hand (end game/one world order), everyone will finally see that we are far, far from where God intended us to be and we will all call out for Him to save us and finally be ready to listen to His instructions.

The consequence of sin is death. In a million large and small ways, death. Everything that is not of Life is death. Without God speaking everything into existence, there wouldn't be any sort of life. I don't think we fully understand that concept yet and so we continue to try to live without God; live without the One Who is LIFE. Kind of ridiculous on the face of it. How can you live without Life?

nenothtu

colbe

1. God's "anointing" is for you and every other Protestant personally to interpret a Catholic book, Holy Scripture? Explain how this can be, the breaking away, why would the Holy Spirit desire you to split from the first non-Catholic Christian teaching you heard and on and and on and on going back to the 16th century? God gave the world an authority to interpret the Bible, the RCC (she canonized it), not every person reading Scripture. Look at the thousands upon thousands of non-Catholic Christians all preaching something different. There is no unity of belief, absolutely not of God the Holy Spirit.

How does this "personal interpretation" (what a concept!) differ from the "prophecy (presonal revelation)" you constantly link to? How do you know that other folks are not getting "prophecy (personal revelation)" that leads them in the way they are to go?

2. Fact, if you are professing things not of the faith, you are a heretic.

Fact, EVERYONE is a "heretic" to someone.

3. Our Lord redeemed mankind by His agonizing death on the Cross. Our Lord opened Heaven. To be saved is life long, with the help of God's grace and our choices. Jesus' death on the Cross justifies no one.

Then it was for nought, and God has been thwarted by his creation - the created has thwarted the Creator.

4. I wasn't speaking of God the Holy Spirit, Jesus is in the Tabernacle of every Catholic Church. Our Lord set it up this way. He will give you grace, go there and speak to Him.

No need. Jesus never entered a Catholic "tabernacle" - he went out to lonely, desolate, deserted places to do his talking to God. I am no better than he. I do not need to enter a Catholic Church to seek the face of God, either.

5. I am sorry you lost your Catholic family, my parents are gone too. You still have the grace of the
Sacraments on your soul. Once Catholic, always Catholic. Remember, okay? For the time ahead.

"Once a Catholic, always a Catholic" sounds precisely like the Catholic version of "once saved, always saved" - but it's not a "heresy" if some guy in Rome claims it, right? It only becomes a "heresy" if some guy not in Rome makes the same claim - am I following this right?

You like to comment on everyone of my posts.

It is so hard to try and reply to each of your divided up replies nino. Couldn't you please keep my post together and then reply in one statement underneath? I use to ask this of others but not many obliged.

I'll say something about one divided, Our Lord is present in the Eucharist and yes He is in every Tabernacle of every Catholic Church, world wide. You only have to believe, ask Him.


take care,

colbe

chiram

colbe

chiram
reply to post by drivers1492

 

C: My post was originally meant for Whitewave (below) excuse me, got a little confused, but it would still be relevant to the story

Whitewave:
You say that the sin is on Adam and Eve and that you didn't do anything deserving of Gods' wrath? We are all born of Adam and Eve. Their sin is comparable to a genetic disease. It's passed on to all the descendants. Even if a child is raised well, taught to never lie, steal, deceive or commit any "sins", the child will still sin. Some more than others, some less. But still, ALL have sinned and all will sin. It's in our very makeup as a human. Since one man sinned, bringing the whole world that followed (as his descendants) into sin, it was fair and right that only one man should pay for that sinful nature.

C: Adam and Eve don’t exist; it’s a creation myth, i.e. allegory

Hello chiram,

This is better than I could ever explain, John Martignoni answers the question asked (an excerpt, ATS rules).


Q: I had a theology professor who told me that Adam and Eve were just myths, and that the rest of Genesis was all just legends...is that what the Church teaches?

A: Absolutely not! The Church has always taught that Adam and Eve were real people and were the first human beings from whom all other human beings are descended. In 1950, Pope Pius XII, in Paragraph 37 of an encyclical entitled Humani Generis, states, "...the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from [Adam] as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents." In other words, the Church teaches that all humanity descended from Adam and Eve. They had to be real for that to happen.

Paragraph #38, states: "This [encyclical], in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis...do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense..." Again, Adam and Eve are not myths, and the rest of Genesis is not legend. They are history in a "true sense."

Paragraph #39: "Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things..." Can it be stated any clearer than that?

And listen to what the Catechism says, Paragraph #375, "The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original "state of holiness and justice".250 This grace of original holiness was "to share in. . .divine life".251

250 Cf. Council of Trent (1546): DS 1511.
251 Cf. LG 2.

NO mention of a myth here.

Paragraph #404: "By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin. Someone please tell me, how do myths commit personal sins?...

www.biblechristiansociety.com...



GBY,

colbe

Hi Colbe, thanks for the reply and reference. It would appear there’s a lot of divided opinion on whether Adam and Eve was a myth. Ah well, it makes for good discussion....

Chiram.

Catholic Cardinal Says Adam and Eve Didn’t Exist:

In comments that may shock some staunch Catholics, Cardinal George Pell has described the biblical story of Adam and Eve as a myth.Cardinal Pell said the existence of Adam and Eve was not a matter of science but rather a mythological account.“It’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world,” he said. LINK:

chiram,

I appreciate your kind reply, at ATS, even if we differ, we love each other. About Pell...

Cardinal Pell dissents from other Catholic teachings too. When the Cardinal said Adam and Even did not exist, I think this took place during a debate with atheist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins grabbed onto the Cardinal's denial and asked him...see below.

Plus, at the end of this excerpt, you'll see why God established an authority, the Holy Father. He is a sinner like all of us but he does NOT error on faith and morals. A gift from God, so we can know.

There's a video in the linked article.

+ + +

Pell admitted that human beings "probably" evolved, which earned him a round of applause from the audience. At this point, Tony Jones, the moderator, asked a very reasonable question: "But you accept that humans evolved from non-humans, so at what point did the soul come about?”
Cardinal Pell responded: “The Soul is the principle of life. Whenever the soul was able to communicate then we had the first human. But if there are humans, there must be a first one.” By the way, this is essentially the position that Benedict XVI took when, as Cardinal Ratzinger, he wrote that "matter signifies a moment in the history of spirit...spirit is created and is not the mere product of development, even though it comes to light by way of development" in a 1973 essay on Creation (see here).

Jones: “Are you suggesting a sort of Garden of Eden scenario with an actual Adam and Eve?”
“Well Adam and Eve are terms that mean ‘life’ and ‘earth’. Like an Everyman. It’s a beautiful, sophisticated, mythological account. It’s not science. But it’s there to tell us two or three things. First of all that God created the world and universe. Secondly that the key to the whole universe is humans. And thirdly it’s a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world….It’s a religious story told for religious purposes.”
Now Richard Dawkins, who proved himself more astute than Pell in seeing the implications of Pell's denial of a historic Adam and Eve, retorted with this question: “Ah, well, I’m curious to know, if Adam and Eve never existed where did Original Sin come from?” It's painful to watch the Cardinal's sullen, silent expression after this question. He is unable to come up with any answer.

Dawkins is spot on here: No original parents, no original sin. No original sin, no explanation for sin in the world. No explanation for sin, no need for a savior. Christianity, apart from the reality of original sin, does not make any sense. It's a shame that Dawkins understands this better than the Cardinal. That is very troubling.
What is equally troubling is that the Cardinal does not seem aware of Pius XII's teaching in Humani Generis. In that encyclical, Pius XII specifically condemns the opinion known as polygenism, which is the belief that Adam "represents a number of first parents." The pope states:

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own" (HG, 37)...


unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com...