B
Benadam
Guest
I think the degree of healthy individuation may have a role in it.
- Status
J
Jerusha
Guest
How can you assume that Catholics started these threads?
R
ralphinal
Guest
It is an issue that I have with this forum. Too many people use it to attack others and not discuss other systems of faith. I stay on it because I get more upset at Catholics who argue against the CHurch than non-Catholics who do the same.
Why not try to help lead this forum back to what it should be: a learning and discussion tool, not one to fling dung.
T
teancum79
Guest
(Much clapping)
I think your right. Simply attacking others beliefs really serves no one. Many of us have different views and thats why discussion forums can be so useful in helping us to understand each other. When are are so busy attacking and defending rather than sharing and learning these sort of places are not of much use.
T
teancum79
Guest
The teaching is that many of the plain and precious parts have been removed or lost. How much was by evil people and how much by accident bad transcription etc. I’ll not speculate.
R
ralphinal
Guest
When did this occur? What was removed or changed and by whom? Why? I know that you may not know, but does your faith?
T
teancum79
Guest
sure.
Baptism by any form other than full immersion. The very word it self and all biblical reference I’ve seen indicate full immersion.
praying to saints. While this is common in the CC and I’ve heard some reasonable ideas for why its okay. It’s not a practice I can find supported anywhere in the Bible.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
I agree. People can have a reasoned discussion, and even disagree on key points, and still remain respectful. It requires a degree of self-control and maturity, of course. If I were to post “there is no scientific evidence for the Book of Mormon story” it’s not an attack on a Mormon or their beliefs, it’s just a statement from which there can be a legitimate discussion of the science that tends to support/disprove the book.
On the other hand, if I were to post that someone was an idiot for believing in all the fairy tales in the Bible, that would be both uncharitable and unproductive, as it does not serve to promote reasoned discussion.
Some of this comes from the anonymity of the internet. I have heard people say that THEY are not the “person” who posts a message ~ that’s just a “screen name” to them, separate and apart from their “real” life. By viewing themselves this way ~ sort of a technological multiple personality ~ they give themselves permission to become whoever they choose to be. People who post invective on the internet do not always feel responsible for it because, in their minds, it’s not “them” ~ it’s just a screen name.
It’s all nonsense of course, as you are responsible for everything you do ~ you can’t really hide behind a screen name and pretend it wasn’t “you” ~ but that is how many seem to excuse themselves for their bad behavior ~ they don’t think THEY are doing anything wrong ~ only the “screen name” is ~ BAD SCREEN NAME!!
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
R
ralphinal
Guest
The place reported to be where Jesus was baptised has water that is rarely more than knee deep, usually less. It says that he came up from the water, but that could mean that he came up the bank from the river.
In Acts 2:41, we find that three-thousand people were baptized in Jerusalem in a single day. Those who are familiar with the topography of ancient Jerusalem will scarcely find it credible to pretend that such a multitude was baptized by immersion! Similarly, Paul baptized the Philippian jailer and his household at night while in jail; once again, it is all but impossible that these baptisms were performed by immersion under such austere circumstances (Acts 16:33).
What’s more, many of the New Testament baptisms were performed in houses, in a time and place wherein neither bathtubs nor swimming pools were common fixtures! Paul was baptized in a house (Acts 9:17-18), and was in fact baptized while standing up! When Ananias came to baptize him, he said: “And now why do you wait? Stand up and be baptized, and wash away your sins calling on his name” (Acts 22:16). So too, Peter performed baptisms in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:47-48).
Paul and Christ both told us to pray for each other. We are also taught by Jesus that God is the God of the living and not the dead. Scripturally, those who are baptised into Christ though physically dead are alive in Christ. Jesus also teaches us that the dead are aware through parable. There is no difference between asking you to pray for me and asking St. Thomas. The word prayer means request. Do not confuse prayer, praise and worship.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
We don’t pray to saints. We ask them to pray for us, just as I might ask you to pray for me, or you might ask a friend to pray for you. This is a common misconception.
Have you ever told someone that you would keep them in your prayers? If so, then you have done the same sort of thing. Where in the Bible does it say you can do that? It doesn’t. But does that mean it’s prohibited or wrong? No. Sometimes it’s just common sense.
R
ralphinal
Guest
With baptism, i forgot to mention that the word can also mean to draw water or wine out as well as to dip, so the definition argument is moot.
Most significantly, however, we have in the New Testament a crystal clear use of the verb ‘baptizo’ in a context that signifies only a partial washing of the body, as opposed to full immersion. In Luke 11:38 the verb ‘baptizo’ refers to a ritual washing of one’s hands before eating: Jesus went to dine with a Pharisee and “the Pharisee was astonished to see that he had not first washed ‘ebaptisthe’] before dinner.” With this Biblical proof-text as our guide, we can readily see that in the New Testament the verb ‘baptizo’ signifies a ritual cleansing without any necessary reference to the idea of full immersion
Even the famous example of Philip and the Eunuch is highly problematic (Acts 8:36). We are told that they found some water along the desert road between Jerusalem and Gaza, but anyone who is familiar with high deserts such as this will immediately understand that the water, even if it was from a spring, was likely to be far too shallow for a full immersion; surely Phillip baptized the faithful Eunuch by infusion or pouring.
All of the baptism stuff is on this website.
Most significantly, however, we have in the New Testament a crystal clear use of the verb ‘baptizo’ in a context that signifies only a partial washing of the body, as opposed to full immersion. In Luke 11:38 the verb ‘baptizo’ refers to a ritual washing of one’s hands before eating: Jesus went to dine with a Pharisee and “the Pharisee was astonished to see that he had not first washed ‘ebaptisthe’] before dinner.” With this Biblical proof-text as our guide, we can readily see that in the New Testament the verb ‘baptizo’ signifies a ritual cleansing without any necessary reference to the idea of full immersion
Even the famous example of Philip and the Eunuch is highly problematic (Acts 8:36). We are told that they found some water along the desert road between Jerusalem and Gaza, but anyone who is familiar with high deserts such as this will immediately understand that the water, even if it was from a spring, was likely to be far too shallow for a full immersion; surely Phillip baptized the faithful Eunuch by infusion or pouring.
All of the baptism stuff is on this website.
I
ibkc
Guest
teancum, I have a question. I have asked this of Mormons before but I do not ever get an answer. If the Bible we have is incomplete and/or corrupt, and since you guys believe it was assembled by evil apostates, and if it doesn’t reflect Jesus’s real teachings, why does the LDS church still recognize it at all? The LDS church occasionally gushes over the existence of gnostic manuscripts that were left out of the canon as proof of how Christian beliefs are incomplete and deficient. Why then don’t Mormons embrace those old gnostic manuscripts? Why do you guys give any credence to the Bible at all?
T
teancum79
Guest
Yeah it’s sad. I’ll confess I’ve almost sad several unkind things on here. Screen names are handy though particularly on political topics as some professions (like the one I’m going into) have people who are all to happy to discriminate if you don’t share their political views.I agree. People can have a reasoned discussion, and even disagree on key points, and still remain respectful. It requires a degree of self-control and maturity, of course. If I were to post “there is no scientific evidence for the Book of Mormon story” it’s not an attack on a Mormon or their beliefs, it’s just a statement from which there can be a legitimate discussion of the science that tends to support/disprove the book.
On the other hand, if I were to post that someone was an idiot for believing in all the fairy tales in the Bible, that would be both uncharitable and unproductive, as it does not serve to promote reasoned discussion.
Some of this comes from the anonymity of the internet. I have heard people say that THEY are not the “person” who posts a message ~ that’s just a “screen name” to them, separate and apart from their “real” life. By viewing themselves this way ~ sort of a technological multiple personality ~ they give themselves permission to become whoever they choose to be. People who post invective on the internet do not always feel responsible for it because, in their minds, it’s not “them” ~ it’s just a screen name.
It’s all nonsense of course, as you are responsible for everything you do ~ you can’t really hide behind a screen name and pretend it wasn’t “you” ~ but that is how many seem to excuse themselves for their bad behavior ~ they don’t think THEY are doing anything wrong ~ only the “screen name” is ~ BAD SCREEN NAME!!
T
teancum79
Guest
Yes we do value the Bible a lot. Aside from the general history and teachings of the OT the Life of Christ is found in the NT. Thats way valuable to us. As with any group people are always excited to find proof that they where right. It’s kind of sad I suppose Religion should be about bring souls to Christ not like sports with “my team won”.
We believe that the bible is a collection of the Words of Gods prophets. We believe that it has errors and omissions, but that there is so much good in it that we need to study it and learn all we can. If you had a math book and 5% of the information was wrong, but the rest of it was right and about half of what was there could not be found in any other book would you read it?
Z
zerinus
Guest
T
teancum79
Guest
Much of this comes down to the way a verse is read. For example in Acts it says that the 3k believed and where baptized, but the wording could easily mean that they where baptized in the near future. As to the availability of water I suppose that if God can part the red sea he could help some faithful people find a few extra gallons. Remember that Christ was baptized in the river Jordan.
John 3
23 ¶ And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
If a small amount puring over someones head would work John could have baptized people at wells or even packed a large watter skin, but he is at the river.
T
teancum79
Guest
If it is a misconception its one held by many faithful catholics I’ve known. Not to mention strongly implied in the little pamphlets I’ve had given to me.
I agree that common sense is helpful, but one persons common sense and another’s don’t always agree.
T
teancum79
Guest
I’ve been doing what bothers me all the time. This forum has gone why off topic. so I’m going to start a new one for the differing interpretations of bible teachings.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
It IS a misconception. There is no “if” about it. Those that conclude or advocate that we pray to saints misunderstand the nature of intercessory prayer. It is as I have described to you ~ no different than asking a friend to pray for you.
We do not pray to saints in the same sense that you pray to the person you call Heavenly Father. We do not pray TO saints, nor do we worship them. Similarly, we do not pray TO Mary, nor do we worship HER. We do venerate Mary and the Saints, that is not the same as worship, it’s more like admiration.
If a Catholic says they are going to “pray to St. Catherine” for example, that’s just “shorthand” for asking for St. Catherine’s prayers on their behalf. It doesn’t mean that they are praying TO St. Catherine in place of praying to God or Jesus.
This is not a matter of “if”. We do not pray to saints. Any person who tells you that we do is misinformed, misguided, or worse.
- Status