Inventions/Superstitions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let history speak for itself. The writings exist all the way back.
 
Which tradition is older, the Catholic Church or the LCMS?

Which Church as its founding, recorded in the New Testament as founded by Jesus, and built upon the rock, Peter?

Which tradition took from the other, threw out what they didn’t like and set themselves up as truth?

History should answer this for you.
 
Let history speak for itself. The writings exist all the way back.
I just listened to Tim Staples on CAF Live who said that there were schisms before Luther, though none like what happened after Luther split from the CC.
 
Last edited:
There have been heretics and people breaking away since before the First Council of Jerusalem. Does not change the historical truth of the Church that people have broken away from Her.
 
I wonder what people from the LCMS will do when fossils or something are discovered that prove to hem wrong? I guess some members will leave and some will remain in denial, clinging to what their interpretation is of Scripture.
 
I just find Mass and (my parish) boring.
When my grandparents were still alive, but were elderly and infirm, I used to go visit them. It was boring. I mean, boring!!!

…but, I wasn’t going because I expected disco lights and good music and sparkling conversation. I was going because I loved them, and I wanted to demonstrate my love for them, and I wanted our relationship to grow by virtue of our time together.

The Mass isn’t “entertainment.” If you want entertainment, go to a concert or a good lecture. Go to Mass because Jesus is there in the Eucharist.
 
There are fossils that prove them wrong.
I have a couple thay I use as paper weights.
The Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC is filled with them.
 
I bring this up solely because I find thinking about this fun and not because I think the earth is young:

Did Adam and Even have navels? Because if so, someone could use their navels as proof that they had been born as infants, when in fact they hadn’t been. God may just have created them fully formed as if they had.

Or to put it another way. Sure Adam and Eve are about 20 years old today, but did they even exist yesterday?
 
There are fossils that prove them wrong.
I have a couple thay I use as paper weights.
The Museum of Natural History in Washington, DC is filled with them.
They bring up the rare ones that have soft tissue still inside the bones and say that proves the fossils are young.
 
Last edited:
Did Adam and Even have navels? Because if so, someone could use their navels as proof that they had been born as infants, when in fact they hadn’t been. God may just have created them fully formed as if they had.

Or to put it another way. Sure Adam and Eve are about 20 years old today, but did they even exist yesterday?
I don’t know. I guess it depends on if God created them fully formed or if they evolved like Ed Feser proposes, where they evolved and a God gave Adam and Eve a soul.
 
They bring up the rare ones that have soft tissue still inside the bones and say that proves the fossils are young.
Scientists now know why the minuscule amounts of soft tissue survived and it isn’t because the are less than ten thousand years old. The heme from hemoglobin releases iron micro particles which produce free radicals that bind and rearrange to act like formaldehyde which preserves the surrounding small tissue fragments. For over three hundred years, no one looked for these tissue remnants because it was assumed that the organic tissues wouldn’t survive and you don’t look for things if you assume they aren’t there!

Dr. Mary Schweitzer Was the scientist that first noticed and investigated the discovery and she was extremely upset that creationists made assumptions about this discovery that weren’t true…including that it wasn’t red blood cells…it was remnants from red blood cells. She is a practicing Christian but is not a creationist. Now, since scientists have discovered more instances of these soft tissue remnants…because they now know to look for them…they have solved the puzzle of how it happens and why it survives for millions of years. Chemistry all the way.
 
@Hope1960 I remember your prior posts and your searching. There is a definite difference between the “emotional enthusiasm” you see between Mass and a protestant church service. Have you ever read Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper?https://www.amazon.com/Lambs-Supper-Mass-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591
The visual of what is actually taking place during Mass is absolutely breathtaking! It might change your mind!
 
Scientists now know why the minuscule amounts of soft tissue survived and it isn’t because the are less than ten thousand years old. The heme from hemoglobin releases iron micro particles which produce free radicals that bind and rearrange to act like formaldehyde which preserves the surrounding small tissue fragments. For over three hundred years, no one looked for these tissue remnants because it was assumed that the organic tissues wouldn’t survive and you don’t look for things if you assume they aren’t there!

Dr. Mary Schweitzer Was the scientist that first noticed and investigated the discovery and she was extremely upset that creationists made assumptions about this discovery that weren’t true…including that it wasn’t red blood cells…it was remnants from red blood cells. She is a practicing Christian but is not a creationist. Now, since scientists have discovered more instances of these soft tissue remnants…because they now know to look for them…they have solved the puzzle of how it happens and why it survives for millions of years. Chemistry all the way.
Thanks! And there’s probably answers for all sorts of mysteries they think point to YEC. They just haven’t discovered the answers yet.
 
Dr. Mary Schweitzer Was the scientist that first noticed and investigated the discovery and she was extremely upset that creationists made assumptions about this discovery that weren’t true…including that it wasn’t red blood cells…it was remnants from red blood cells. She is a practicing Christian but is not a creationist.
I found something on Wikipedia that listed all these scientists who were creationists and thought there were a lot. Then as I started reading I found that virtually all of them were disrespected and or quacks in their respective fields.

Then a few days ago I read that there’s something like 97% of scientists don’t believe in creationism. They can’t ALL be wrong.

I’ve heard the argument that Scripture trumps science and when there’s a discrepancy, Scripture wins. Like if you’re not a creationist, it’s akin to atheism.
 
Last edited:
The Lutheran sub forum is peaceful but the Catholic sub forum is brutal.
Hmmm, I wonder why?

It reminds me of something I read recently. Satanists will try to get a consecrated host from a Catholic Church to be used in their “black mass”. Not a Protestant, or otherwise Non-Catholic one, but a Catholic one.

Evil knows the truth and will attack relentlessly. If Satanists know the difference, so should we.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top