Christianity Has Lost Its Fundamental Principle!!!

If it was just a local flood why do many cultures have a flood legend?

 

JoA: Sin is sin. It is a moral evil. When we are not honest with ourselves is it no lesser or equal to a sin of omission?
You admit right here. Sin is Sin. No rank, all sins are equal. If all sins are equal, all sinners are equal. Only logical conclusion. If you have a different conclusion, feel free. As I stated above, each has to come to their own terms.
I will continue to call out hypocrisy when I see it.

 

Right because getting to heaven has to be very very difficult.
I guess heaven will be a lonely place.
Is hell large enough for everyone that will be there?

 

5:24 He was not, for God took him - That is, as it is explained, Heb 11:5, he was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him.

In your opinion or fact, where did God move enoch to?

 

Funny how modern people use modern minds to think.

 

Is harming others for the sheer enjoyment of it acceptable to you? My displeasure of such an event was directed toward an atheist who wronged a large number of people.

On the issue of homosexuality, neither the RC Church condones or accepts it. However, the Church does embrace the homosexual providing he/she realizes such behavior is sin and avoids the same sin in the future. I needn't remain silent about it. It is a social issue which is a disgrace to the sacrament of marriage, no less a slap in God's figurative face.

Besides, isn't it about time you practice what you preach?

 

So it seems JA and BF have exactly the vision of how people enter after life with God.
But I bet those two disagree on the vision.


Yes or no? IMO from just a few posts in this one thread is the conclusion I get.

 

What about divorce and remarrying.
Who has never committed a sin, any sin, more than once in their lives.

 

Your statement only proves your ignorance in regards to the Bible. Imagine that.

 

OK, christian like. NOT. I see others have pegged your posts well. I may have ignorance in your mind to the bible, but I assure you, I'm not alone.
Not everyone can be above the rest of human kind.

 

Here you go.

http://www.newadvent.org/

I'm a firm believer in showing someone how to fish so said person can sustain his/herself. The tools are at your disposal.

 

Whatever. I'm done indulging you. Find someone else to troll.

 

Just because it says God took him does not mean he went to Heaven........often we are too presumptuous. Jesus was born long long after Enoch and He said no man has entered into Heaven.

John 3:13 (ASV)
13 And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, even the Son of man, who is in heaven.

If you took the time and read verse 13 you would see that it says all died (which includes Enoch) and did not recieve the promise......so Enoch is dead.

Hebrews 11:13 (ASV)
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them and greeted them from afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.

 

1. If there is no such God then why are you harping on it and condemning something that you dont even believe happened. Do i understand you correctly? You believe God enjoyed drowning millions of innocent people? they weren't innocent. And your remarks were directed to an atheist who wronged a number of people? No clue what you mean there.

2. If you're interested, the fallen angels as per satan's plan, came down to earth and mated with the daughters of men. The progeny was half human/half fallen angel. They had a reason for this. it's in the book. God had become so disgusted at the fallen nature of man that he determined to rid the world of bestial peoples. You know. God doesn't view death the same way we do. He put his hope and plan for continuing humanity in Noah and his family and they survived. God was neither pleased by this calamity nor did he enjoy it. I'm sure he was pleased with his servant Noah and Noah's family.

What am i supposed to practice do you think? Am i preaching at you to do something?

 

I understand. I did not say he went to heaven. The verse says he was translated so he would not see death.
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
13These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

So he would not see death, but died. Makes sense?

 

As a man of God Enoch was the minority in a word of wicked men, and as such he would be hated and no doubt they would want to kill him.....so rather than allow that to happen God simply took him. This means that God took his life in the most gentile way and spared him from a violent death. A righteous man in a world surrounded by wicked men can be a very lonely thing.

 

Excuse me? Where exactly did I state there is no God? WOW! Friend, let me suggest you need a decent Bible commentary & concordance, too. You're reading stuff out of context.

I cannot make your decisions for you. You need to make your own choices. Pray on it.

 

whatever

 

Did I miss this answer? If the flood was local, why the need for God's covenant to all mankind?

 

Figures. I am not trolling you. You have made some big claims that most normal christians never heard or don't believe. In my case, never heard. I'm asking you questions and you refuse to answer.
Have a good day.

 

Traditionally, Judaism supported young earth creationism.[28] In addition, a majority of the early church fathers supported the young earth creationist view.[29] While Young Earth Creationism is prominent in many conservative Protestant denominations, theologically liberal Protestant and Jewish denominations generally reject it.[30][31][32] The post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church has a cautiously positive view of the theory of evolution, while the majority of traditionalist Catholics strongly support the view of a young earth and a literal creation. [33][34]—but in 2005 Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, said that he found evidence of design in nature and that attempts to ignore such evidence amounted to an abdication of the intellect.[35]Orthodox Judaism currently has diverse opinions regarding young earth creationism.[36] Ultra-Orthodox Judaism accepts young earth creationism.[37] Atheists do not believe in young earth creationism.[38] While agnostics do not believe in young earth creationism there have been some notable statements of skepticism regarding the theory of evolution from agnostics.[39][40] On the other hand, Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley both staunch proponents of the theory of evolution stated that they were agnostics.[41][42]

http://www.nwcreation.net/ageyoung.html

So it seems RC may have a different opinion on age of earth. However, I can't find any formal views by RC.

 

Catholics believe the book of Genesis tells religious truth, and not necessarily historical fact. We view the story of Creation as symbolic i.e. not literal. The Church teaches about God and love, not science. While the Vatican supports science, the Church believes science should be left to the scientists. Catholics are free to support evolution & the story of Noah's Ark or not but we certainly believe God created within every human a soul.

Theistic vs. atheistic theories of evolution

The theory of evolution just stated rests on a theistic foundation. In contradistinction to this is another theory resting on a materialistic and atheistic basis, the first principle of which is the denial of a personal Creator. This atheistic theory of evolution is ineffectual to account for the first beginning of the cosmos or for the law of its evolution, since it acknowledges neither creator nor lawgiver. Natural science, moreover, has proved that spontaneous generation—i.e. the independent genesis of a living being from non-living matter—contradicts the facts of observation. For this reason the theistic theory of evolution postulates an intervention on the part of the Creator in the production of the first organisms. When and how the first seeds of life were implanted in matter, we, indeed, do not know. The Christian theory of evolution also demands a creative act for the origin of the human soul, since the soul cannot have its origin in matter. The atheistic theory of evolution, on the contrary, rejects the assumption of a soul separate from matter, and thereby sinks into blank materialism.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05654a.htm

The Catholic Church has no official position on the age of the earth. The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ on earth, commissioned to go out to all the nations, baptizing them, and preaching the Word of God (Jesus). The Catholic Church is not concerned with government, physical sciences, etc. per se, but is concerned with getting people to heaven. The Bible addresses the creation of the world, and Catholics are obliged to believe that God created the world out of nothing. How, or when, God did that is neither addressed nor important to our eternal salvation...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_old_is_the_earth_according_to_Catholics

The great flood having been local is my theory shared by various geologists & physical earth scientists. I continue to study science, philosophy, mythology, & religion focusing on ancient cultures, Biblical writing styles, and the point the human authors were attempting to make to their respective audience.

The RC Church's view:

...Suffice it to remark that the text of Genesis 8:4 mentioning Mount Ararat is somewhat lacking in clearness, and that nothing is said in the Scripture concerning what became of the Ark after the Flood. Many difficulties have been raised, especially in our epoch, against the pages of the Bible in which the history of the Flood and of the Ark is narrated. This is not the place to dwell upon these difficulties, however considerable some may appear. They all converge towards the question whether these pages should be considered as strictly historical throughout, or only in their outward form. The opinion that these chapters are mere legendary tales, Eastern folklore, is held by some non-Catholic scholars; according to others, with whom several Catholics side, they preserve, under the embroidery of poetical parlance, the memory of a fact handed down by a very old tradition. This view, were it supported by good arguments, could be readily accepted by a Catholic; it has, over the age-long opinion that every detail of the narration should be literally interpreted and trusted in by the historian, the advantage of suppressing as meaningless some difficulties once deemed unanswerable.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01720a.htm

Now, I hope the above answers your questions.

 

For any who missed it, the above demonstrates how the biblical writers borrowed from their "pagan" neighbours. It's not a widely taught fact today, but the ancients based a lot of myths around the stars. One big thing was telling stories about the sun's journey from one solstice to the next, as many of the constellations were incorporated in various ways, along with certain other elements of ancient astronomy/astrology.

In the case of Christianity, even the gospels are actually about the sun's apparent course through the heavens, with Jesus (Iesus) being the solar hero of that particular story. It is amazing how this old, clever story was eventually worked up into the huge religion that it is today, though I suppose that is also a testimony to what a good job those ancient writers did.

Jesus was born at solstice, in the dark. Other solar heroes like himself were born likewise in dark places, and of a miraculous, asexual origin, such as Mithras in the cave. Jesus followed his course, ascending, growing, until he reached spring equinox and was ready to begin his ministry, at which point the sun was passing through Aquarius the Water Bearer, hence his baptism by "Aquarius the Baptist". Through the summer, he rose to his glory, gathering many followers and so on, but darkness began to rise again towards autumn. When autumn came and the Sun Jesus reached the Scorpion, he was betrayed by the scorpion's kiss, and he continued to descend towards death, with the darkness gaining power over the light as winter came on and the days continued to grow shorter. Eventually we come back to December and the solstice, and it is here where the sun finally "dies" for 3 days, when it reaches its nadir and the days are at their shortest. But then the miracle - resurrection! The sun begins to ascend again, the light gains in strength as darkness is conquered and our solar hero is with us again for a little while. Then we come back to spring equinox, Easter and the Ascension. At this time, the sun again crosses the ecliptic and winter is all but gone. The sun rises into heaven to its glory.

I only wonder whether the story's writers actually believed what they were writing. Perhaps if there was a Jesus, or if they at least thought there was, then it may not have been a simple lie on their part. Anyway, that's a skeleton outline of the whole thing, but there's a great website for reading up on this and related information, such as the Old Testament's starry connections (one of which I've already illustrated with David & Perseus):

http://www.usbible.com/astrology/bible_astrology.htm

From there:
Wisdom, in biblespeak, comes from knowledge of astrology. God's plan is written in the stars. He reveals his plan by the way he moves the stars and planets, not by mental telepathy.

 

There are five characters named "Jesus" in the Bible. Four are regarded as wise. One, Bar-Jesus, is regarded as a con man.

 

That's the first I've heard that one..

Anyhoo, the Freemasons are also able to shed some light on the matter:

http://www.deism.com/paine_essay_masonry_1.htm

...

"We trace," continues he, "its footsteps in the most distant, the most remote ages and nations of the world. We find it among the first and most celebrated civilizers of the East. We deduce it regularly from the first astronomers on the plains of Chaldea, to the wise and mystic kings and priests of Egypt, the sages of Greece, and the philosophers of Rome."

From these reports and declarations of Masons of the highest order in the institution, we see that Masonry, without publicly declaring so, lays claim to some divine communications from the Creator, in a manner different from, and unconnected with, the book which the Christians call the Bible; and the natural result from this is, that Masonry is derived from some very ancient religion, wholly independent of and unconnected with that book.

To come then at once to the point, Masonry (as I shall show from the customs, ceremonies, hieroglyphics, and chronology of Masonry) is derived and is the remains of the religion of the ancient Druids; who, like the magi of Persia and the priests of Heliopolis in Egypt, were priests of the sun. They paid worship to this great luminary, as the great visible agent of a great invisible first cause, whom they styled "Time without limits."

The Christian religion and Masonry have one and the same common origin: both are derived from the worship of the sun. The difference between their origin is, that the Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the sun, as I have shown in the chapter on the origin of the Christian religion.

In Masonry many of the ceremonies of the Druids are preserved in their original state, at least without any parody. With them the sun is still the sun; and his image in the form of the sun is the great emblematical ornament of Masonic lodges and Masonic dresses. It is the central figure on their aprons, and they wear it also pendant on the breast of their lodges, and in their processions. It has the figure of a man, as at the head of the sun, as Christ is always represented.

...

Leave it to good old Thomas Paine to spell it out plain as day