mobile21

Ughh !!!! Servant_of_ALL_(_but_catholics_) turned out to be more anti-catholic than Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain and Arthur Durnan (all putted together!!! :wow: ). Since this is no longer a safe place for me because I don't want to accidentally ran into another anti-catholic post, I guess I'll just turn the computer off and watch some T.V. instead............ oooh wait, there's lots of coverage about the "gay weddings" in Saint Frisco............ I better not do that either, I'll just crawl into bed and dream about a world where people get fined for every anti-catholic post, yep I think I'll do that :tongue: :dove:

That is not true. In 1562 the Council of Trent issued the dogmatic definition about the Canon, meaning that the issue of the Canon is closed now, however that doesn't mean that the resolutions of 393 and 397 about the Canon were not binding, what it means is that the defined Canon is irrevocable now. An example of this would be what's going on now with the "gay marriage" thing right now, even before the DOMA, it was legally valid the definition about marriage being between one man and one woman only but the DOMA made it "official" for all the States and a constitutional amendment would make it irrevocable.

I'm afraid I can't help you Tygra because I don't understand much of it either but, for what I've seen and experienced during my time in here, I think it has something to do with Shadow_To_Be throwing pies at my face and the so-called "christian right" slandering my name and throwing mud at it

You can't separate the profession of faith from the visible sign of the sacrament (water in baptism, bread and wine in the eucharist, chrism in confirmation and so on) so nope, if you were to drop a massive amount of water over Iraq what you would do is not massive biblical salvation but a flood of biblical proportions instead

Of course baptism didn't save Jesus, what Jesus did is to institute the sacrament of baptism and to demonstrate the true action of the Holy Spirit in it. Mobile21: Physical baptism was being performed by John before Jesus approached him. It was already instituted. Jesus did not require John to change anything in the manner in which he was previously baptizing. John distuinguished between the baptizing he was performing and the baptism that Jesus would perform. " And I knew Him not: but that He sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." John 1: 33. Jesus had already instituted physical water baptism through John. From the above verse, would you agree that it reveals that Jesus provides a seperate baptism in the Holy Ghost? If you can agree with that, since it is what the scriptures state, then a question ...If salvation came through baptism, then why would Christ have to provide a seperate baptism in the Holy Ghost? If the first water baptism caused the one being baptized to receive the Holy Ghost, then there would be no need for the second. Since it would save the one being baptized. They would already be indwelt with the Holy Ghost. But yet John distuinguishes between water baptism and a baptism into Jesus. " And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coast came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? and they said unto Him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance. Saying unto the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues , and prophesied. " Acts 19:1-6. This reveals that believing on Jesus preceeded baptism, and that water baptism in itself was not enough to receive the Holy Ghost. Would you agree that receiving the Holy Ghost is an integral part of salvation? Keep in mind that they did not have the Holy Ghost beforehand, but afterwards. Let's see what the scriptures say about the Holy Ghost. " But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. " Romans 8:9. So what do you think? Rick The Father sent the Son and the Son sent the Holy Spirit to us. Indeed John the Baptist used the water baptism as the rite of iniciation of believers but he did not institute it as a sacrament quite simply because he was not Jesus, the Son of God (hence John 1:33) so, in a way, Jesus took John's tradition and elevated it to the category of sacrament. One detail that is very important about the sacrament of baptism is that the Holy Spirit descends when Jesus is out of the water: "At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove." (Mk 1:9-10) so this confirms what John said in Jn 1:26, that he baptized with water only but it is Jesus the one who sends the Holy Spirit to us when we are baptized under the visible sign of water.

I believe you are twisting the facts -or lack of- in order to slander the Catholic Church. The sect, if any involved in this, would be the Lefevbrist sect which was founded by an excommunicated Archbishop (Marcel Lefvebre) in 1988. This means that particular religious community is no longer in spiritual communion with the Catholic Church just like all the other christian churches or sects (example of churches: orthodox, anglican ; example of sects: jehovah witnesses, mormons). Now, what we know of Mel Gibson is that he is a christian and that he often participated in mass during the shooting of the film so the assuption is that he is a catholic BUT actually, like I've said before, everything points in the lefevbrist direction because of what has been reported about him.

Of course baptism didn't save Jesus, what Jesus did is to institute the sacrament of baptism and to demonstrate the true action of the Holy Spirit in it.

Servant of ALL: Who will snag the Democratic Nomination????? And one more thing: Will George aWol Bush ever be tried for his crimes......???? ( :mobil_ducks_4cover: ) Thanks

Let's suppose He performed that miracle just for you. You might believe but would future generations believe?. If they would just believe in what "they can see" and they would just have to take your word for it, the conclusion would be that they would not believe neither in God nor in your word. After all, isn't this the same thing that has happened over and over again???? The Bible contains your very same doubts and proposals: God freed the jews from slavery and they believed in Him for a while, but after a few years they started to worship an idol made of gold.............. so much for human faith. That's why Jesus Christ addressed this issue during another episode of "human disbelief": Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (Jn 20:29) God made huge miracles at first because the faith of the early jews was like the faith of a little child: it needed a whole lot of guidance, but now that we live even after the Messiah came to Earth to redeem mankind, we ought to behave like adults and that's exactly what God expects from us. His revelation has matured and so have we.

I believe the christian God is real and I don't believe in the other gods for a reason: those pagan gods -like Comte explained in 1853- were either invented to explain forces of nature or they were an idealized version of human beings but still with the very same human characteristics and properties. On the other hand, the God of christianity never explained natural forces because He is explained in the OT as separate entity of this material universe (Zeus lived in Mt. Olympus and Thor in Valhalla....) and the physical appearance of God (Jesus Christ) was hardly the archetype of any human ideals (He was executed in the company of 2 criminals). This is a very peculiar God, isn't He?. So peculiar it is proof He was never invented by any human but that He revealed to us.

That is not my point at all: precisely because humans can only know what their senses tell their brains, there are no ideas we never learned. Like Fovezer said, God is indeed taught and that's why we have to read the Bible and learn the doctrine and so on but the point is that God at some point revealed those truths to several individuals (the prophets of the OT) and that's why we know concepts about God that don't exist in nature and therefore can't be learned by the observation of nature (like the example I gave before about the difference between the concept of immortality of pagan gods and the concept of eternal of the revealed God of christianity).

Uh but you did!: "You are right, you can't prove a negative. Atheism is not a negative. I don't say "there is no god." I say "I lack the belief in a god." Big difference. The first one is a positive statement, the second one is neither. Your point is null. Saying definitaly there is or isn't a god is very foolish and rather arrogant. That is why the burden of proof lies on the affirmative, or the one that claims there is/isn't a god." Those abstract statements don't explain what's your rationale for judging God's existence -or lack of-. This is no rebuttal to my point. My point is that prior to God's revelation to a specific individual, there was no belief in "Yahweh" nor any knowledge about his biblical characteristics so indeed there was a beginning to those specific beliefs whereas your answer explains an "infinite chain" of teachings. Remember that "infinite chains" prove nothing . What do you mean by this?.

Yep, baptism is the 1st sacrament and it is necessary for salvation.

Like I said, I'm not 100% sure he is a lefvebrist but everything points in that direction, the thing is that lefevbrists don't openly say what they are, they always say the are "catholics" just to deceive more people. If by the "word of God" you mean "the word of Martin Luther", you are wrong.

Nice try................ Just as a man can only learn what an apple is by knowing one, the men of the Bible talk about God because He revealed Himself to them. Saying otherwise is asserting something impossible, remember that humans as material beings can only acquire abstract concepts through the information the senses gather.

One more thing, why you are not 100% sure God doesn't exist????????. After all, if you don't believe in God because "you can't see Him", then what would that 1% of doubt be???? Did you see one time something that resembled God.........?.

Wait a sec, so far you have engaged in ZERO religious debate. The only thing you've done is to ask: "can you prove me God?" which is the wrong question to ask to begin with because the God of christianity has only a physical identity for a very specific purpose and you won't see Him until the Final Judgement so, that question would only be valid for a religion that accepts that: 1) a deity can have a physical existence 2) that deity can appear for whatever reasons Asking the question you ask it's like if I go to a board about hinduism and ask: can you explain me monotheism?.

They don't have documented miracles the way christianity does. An important thing is that in christianity many testimonies of the miracles come from non-believers. I remember right now a miracle that happened to St. Benedict: he was someone very famous for his sanctity so when the abbot of a nearby religious community died, the monks asked him to be their new abbot. He refused many times but the monks kept insisting and begging him so he finally accepted. Anyway, because he established harder, tougher rules about how the monks should live, they started to hate him and one day they were so fed up of St. Benedict that they decided to kill him: they poisoned his wine but when they were about to dinner, St. Benedict said the usual blessing of the food and at this very moment the poisoned cup of wine exploded. All the monks involved in the conspiracy to kill him confessed and obviously acknowledged it as a miracle. It's clear that for St. Benedict, God did make a difference in his life but this was not out of the blue because he had dedicated his life to serve God. This is just a reminder that God can directly intervene in our lives as much as we want to but we have to ask for it. There are older religions but because christianity is God's full revelation, it keeps being renewed by the grace of the Holy Spirit unlike any other religion. The thing is this is not an argument, this is my testimony of God's presence in my life. For me it is not "a poor argument" because it is the reality I have lived. I'd be lying if I would say that I have never seen God's true intervention in my life. I never read one of those messages where you said you are not 100% sure God doesn't exist, I just logically assumed it because you defend the "atheist position" just like I assume those who are against it believe 100% percent in God and not in some chance of "God existing". Anyway, I think you are the arrogant here because you want others to prove to you that God exists when others can't do that for you, they can just offer (their own or other's) testimony about Him. Only you can prove for yourself if God exists or not. Have you ever prayed a rosary on your knees and asked God to restore or increase your faith in Him?. No one ever said that God would just prove Himself to you "just because", you have to show your willingness to Him by sacrificing and dedicating Him some of your time. If you have never done it then that's like wanting to learn "how to paint" and never being willing to take a brush and a canvas.

*sigh* You are right, you can't prove a negative. Atheism is not a negative. I don't say "there is no god." I say "I lack the belief in a god." Big difference. The first one is a positive statement, the second one is neither. Your point is null. Saying definitaly there is or isn't a god is very foolish and rather arrogant. That is why the burden of proof lies on the affirmative, or the one that claims there is/isn't a god. So, since you cannot prove there is a god, you would have to agree that Christianity is therefore a "long lost cause" also, correct? I know its not a negative, but the reasoning is the same. But there is proof. Only christianity has genuine, documented miracles, that's why christianity has survived 2000 years of history despite the odds, because it actually works and God does make the lives of christians better. Anyway, why do you show that much interest in debating this issue Fovezer if you are not willing to believe in any of this, ever ?. Since we are 100% sure of the presence of God in our lives and you are 100% sure God doesn't exist, I don't see any point to this...

Atheism is a long lost cause because you can't prove a negative fact, just positive facts, for example: If I say that you shot JFK, you can't prove you didn't do it, however, you can prove that you did something else like you being in Hawaii on vacation by the time he was shot, so you didn't prove you didn't do it, what you proved is that you did something else instead (a positive fact). That's why atheism is such a long lost cause.

Ready !

This makes me giggle like a school girl!!!!!!!! :LoL_trollz:

I believe you are confused about what a "charisma" is Petri: The word "charisma" comes from the greek word charis that basically means love, so the charismas are gifts from God's love to us and the only true charismas are the ones you can receive from the Holy Spirit through the sacraments (baptism, eucharist, marriage and so on).