Human Ears Evolved from Ancient Fish Gills

[travis2]

Oh, and one more thing...you wouldn't send someone to a neo-Nazi site if they wanted information on the Jewish people...and you wouldn't send someone to a KKK site if they wanted information on African-American culture...so why do so many (including you) have no problem sending us Catholics to bigoted sites like that? And then place the burden on us to prove the site wrong?

[Phenomanul]

First of all, praying to the dead IS in the Bible. The most relevant reference merely happens to be in a portion of the Bible that your human heroes of yesteryear decided to remove because it was too uncomfortable for them (2 Maccabees). How can you expect to fully understand the Bible if you don't have a complete one?

Secondly, praying to the saints is merely asking them to pray for us. Period. If it's wrong, then every time you ask someone to pray for you you're committing sin. Period. It's that simple. If we are alive in Christ when we die, then we are alive in Christ. Alive being the operative word.

Now nobody is forced to pray to Mary or to any of the saints. Doing so is not a matter of our salvation. However, for you or anyone else to claim it is forbidden or somehow an impediment to our salvation is way out of bounds.

Finally, no one...let me repeat that, no one has ever EVER EVER said that Peter holds the keys to my salvation. That is frankly insulting. I can't help the fact that Jesus in the Bible gave the keys to the Church on Earth to Peter (and thereby to his successors)...you'll have to take it up with Him. And Peter's presence in Rome for more than a visit is historical, sorry.

Hmmmm... interesting ..... Peter never established himself in Rome.

I pray to GOD in JESUS' name. No other, no one else. If you pray to others who have passed on... that is your belief and your perogative. As for praying for someone else, read 1 John 5 after the portion where it talks about the 'trinity'. Trust me, supporting each other with prayer is by no means a sin.... CAUSE we are still praying to GOD. We are not praying to each other.... We are praying for each other. "To GOD" is the operative word in that clause. One can't pray for someone who has already passed on because their eternal fate has already been sealed...

Finally, no one...let me repeat that, no one has ever EVER EVER said that Peter holds the keys to my salvation.

So why does the RCC make such a bold statement as to claim that Salvation does not exist outside the Catholic Church... a statement they profess till this day. If the Catholic Church is led by Peter's line of successors it's all the same to me. Irregardless, Salvation exists only through JESUS not any ins ution... It's really not a difficult concept and yet man manages to complicate and convolute GOD's gift of Salvation.

As for the other books... what else can I say.... they really don't add or take away anything from GOD's revelation of JESUS.

[Phenomanul]

Oh, and one more thing...you wouldn't send someone to a neo-Nazi site if they wanted information on the Jewish people...and you wouldn't send someone to a KKK site if they wanted information on African-American culture...so why do so many (including you) have no problem sending us Catholics to bigoted sites like that? And then place the burden on us to prove the site wrong?

The main site has links to other peoples writings....

As for the Catechism, I have one at home... Remember I too was once a Catholic.... and my memory is good but not perfect... those refernces you mentioned were obviously based on a certain edition.... now mind you... I would ask for you to submit a list of all the Catechism passages I have listed that were miswritten...

Geesh Travis2 don't get a heart attack.... My sources are numerous, not just those sites... Stick to my posts not the links.

[travis2]

hmmmm...so it's OK to use hateful sources so long as you have other sources too? Nice to know...

No, you provided those...you need to properly reference them. Then I can address them.

[Phenomanul]

Oh, and by the way...I'm calling your Catechism source a liar.

If you actually knew anything about the Catechism, you would know that it is referenced by paragraph/section numbers...not pages. So...I invite you to find those things you posted as supposedly being from the Catechism. There are several online versions...they're not hard to find.

Already addressed in previous post... however I would point out that you are making rather unsubstantiated claims....

You call my Catechism source a liar... without giving valid evidence. Quit trying to make me look like the bad guy... I'm just pointing out that most Catholic Tradition in fact stems from the Catechism and not GOD's Holy Word. That the Catechism itself dictates the bounds of Tradition... where not implicitly stated in the Bible... giving itself equal worth to the Bible itself...

It's like the Mexican Government writing laws that disallow reacquiring any money that was stolen from the people by any Government official. Basically they write "if we steal and get caught you can't strip us of the money we stole."

The Catechism implies, and I will paraphrase, "Tradition is as important as the Bible because the Catechism says so. To believe any other way is heretical."

[SA210]

I pray to GOD in JESUS' name. No other, no one else. If you pray to others who have passed on... that is your belief and your perogative. As for praying for someone else, read 1 John 5 after the portion where it talks about the 'trinity'. Trust me, supporting each other with prayer is by no means a sin.... CAUSE we are still praying to GOD. We are not praying to each other.... We are praying for each other. "To GOD" is the operative word in that clause. One can't pray for someone who has already passed on because their eternal fate has already been sealed...

Exactly good job hegamboa

[Phenomanul]

hmmmm...so it's OK to use hateful sources so long as you have other sources too? Nice to know...

No, you provided those...you need to properly reference them. Then I can address them.

To have an opposing view does not make the source hateful... I'm sorry. We are en led to our own beliefs.... to each his own.

And I will find an online Catechism... but then you won't like how many more passages I will post about that try to supercede the Bible's authority.

[travis2]

Hmmmm... interesting ..... Peter never established himself in Rome.

I pray to GOD in JESUS' name. No other, no one else. If you pray to others who have passed on... that is your belief and your perogative. As for praying for someone else, read 1 John 5 after the portion where it talks about the 'trinity'. Trust me, supporting each other with prayer is by no means a sin.... CAUSE we are still praying to GOD. We are not praying to each other.... We are praying for each other. "To GOD" is the operative word in that clause. One can't pray for someone who has already passed on because their eternal fate has already been sealed...



So why does the RCC make such a bold statement as to claim that Salvation does not exist outside the Catholic Church... a statement they profess till this day. If the Catholic Church is led by Peter's line of successors it's all the same to me. Irregardless, Salvation exists only through JESUS not any ins ution... It's really not a difficult concept and yet man manages to complicate and convolute GOD's gift of Salvation.

As for the other books... what else can I say.... they really don't add or take away anything from GOD's revelation of JESUS.

1. You can pray to God to release them early from Purgatory into Heaven.
2. You can pray to saints in Heaven asking them to pray for you. Which is exactly the same as asking someone here on Earth to pray for you. No difference. It's not a difficult concept.

Salvation outside the Church...see Catechism (specifically paragraphs 811-870).

"Other books"...well, for a people who decry adding or subtracting anything from the Bible and using it as the ONLY source...removing books seems to me to be a very strange thing to do.

[travis2]

Already addressed in previous post... however I would point out that you are making rather unsubstantiated claims....

You call my Catechism source a liar... without giving valid evidence. Quit trying to make me look like the bad guy... I'm just pointing out that most Catholic Tradition in fact stems from the Catechism and not GOD's Holy Word. That the Catechism itself dictates the bounds of Tradition... where not implicitly stated in the Bible... giving itself equal worth to the Bible itself...

It's like the Mexican Government writing laws that disallow reacquiring any money that was stolen from the people by any Government official. Basically they write "if we steal and get caught you can't strip us of the money we stole."

The Catechism implies, and I will paraphrase, "Tradition is as important as the Bible because the Catechism says so. To believe any other way is heretical."

Ummmm...who's making unsubstantiated claims? You post things that are supposedly from the Catechism...but you (or your source) mis-reference them...and I'm still supposed to bear the burden of proof? No, that's not how it works.

The rest of your post is mere opinion...not fact. You are en led to it, but don't expect me to believe it.

[travis2]

To have an opposing view does not make the source hateful... I'm sorry. We are en led to our own beliefs.... to each his own.

And I will find an online Catechism... but then you won't like how many more passages I will post about that try to supercede the Bible's authority.

Look at the language smeagol posted. That's not "an opposing view".

[Phenomanul]

1. You can pray to God to release them early from Purgatory into Heaven.
2. You can pray to saints in Heaven asking them to pray for you. Which is exactly the same as asking someone here on Earth to pray for you. No difference. It's not a difficult concept.

Salvation outside the Church...see Catechism (specifically paragraphs 811-870).

"Other books"...well, for a people who decry adding or subtracting anything from the Bible and using it as the ONLY source...removing books seems to me to be a very strange thing to do.

Show me Biblical references.... no... write the passages down (so as to eliminate confusion) where these concepts are endorsed or supported.

[Phenomanul]

Look at the language smeagol posted. That's not "an opposing view".

Are you talking about his post where he quoted a passage from a link on the site??? Or Smeagol's posts in general???

Because Smeagol and myself have tried to keep this discussion civil... while having opposing beliefs.

[travis2]

1. 2 Maccabees 12:43-46
2. It would be easier to read this...contains all the Biblical references necessary plus explanatory content...
http://www.catholic.com/library/Pray...the_Saints.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Inte...the_Saints.asp

[Phenomanul]

Ummmm...who's making unsubstantiated claims? You post things that are supposedly from the Catechism...but you (or your source) mis-reference them...and I'm still supposed to bear the burden of proof? No, that's not how it works.

The rest of your post is mere opinion...not fact. You are en led to it, but don't expect me to believe it.

Yes... it is an opinion but it is not unsubstantiated....
Does the RCC try to dictate how to interpret the Bible? YES

Does the RCC speak of Tradition? YES

Does the RCC explicitly state that Mary is our intecessor where the Bible makes no such claim? YES

Anyways I must go... but I'll be back.

[travis2]

Are you talking about his post where he quoted a passage from a link on the site??? Or Smeagol's posts in general???

Because Smeagol and myself have tried to keep this discussion civil... while having opposing beliefs.

I'm talking about where Smeagol posted an example from the site you listed.

I am not being uncivil yet...merely frank and forthright. I am trying to tell you that, while I am in no way trying to convert you to Catholicism, I am also not going to allow you to dictate the rules of the discussion to me. That sounds harsher than I mean it to sound...but it also is a true statement.

I am proud of being a Catholic. And while you may not be one nor have any desire to be one...well, let me put it this way...if I came at you like a Feeneyite and called you a heretic and unclean and yelled that you were going to burn in for leaving the Church, you would be pretty insulted (I would assume). And yet many Fundamentalists think nothing of doing the same to Catholics...with no real knowledge of the Church except the lies they read from people like Jack Chick and Matt Slick (to name two big ones)...who merely regurgitate the lies promulgated by earlier Catholic-haters such as Lorraine Boettner.

So yes...we are keeping it civil. And for my part I still intend to.

[Phenomanul]

I'm talking about where Smeagol posted an example from the site you listed.

I am not being uncivil yet...merely frank and forthright. I am trying to tell you that, while I am in no way trying to convert you to Catholicism, I am also not going to allow you to dictate the rules of the discussion to me. That sounds harsher than I mean it to sound...but it also is a true statement.

I am proud of being a Catholic. And while you may not be one nor have any desire to be one...well, let me put it this way...if I came at you like a Feeneyite and called you a heretic and unclean and yelled that you were going to burn in for leaving the Church, you would be pretty insulted (I would assume). And yet many Fundamentalists think nothing of doing the same to Catholics...with no real knowledge of the Church except the lies they read from people like Jack Chick and Matt Slick (to name two big ones)...who merely regurgitate the lies promulgated by earlier Catholic-haters such as Lorraine Boettner.

So yes...we are keeping it civil. And for my part I still intend to.

I'm back sooner than I thought... though only for a short while....

Let's get something straight.... If you believe in JESUS Christ, that's good enough for me.. never did I make a claim to suggest you would go to cause your doctrine was different from my own.

^^^ I had to make this big just so that we know where we stand.

I am not the voice of fundamentalists... so unless I've said something don't associate me with other views.

Where we differ is that you also believe you need to amend GOD's gift of salvation.... with works and rites and sacraments.... fine. You are en led to serve GOD within those bounds.

I serve GOD without trying to merit the Kingdom of GOD with my own works... I know they would never be sufficient. I do them anyways just because it gives me peace to align myself with the higher calling of GOD's will.

"For by grace are we saved through faith, and not of ourselves. It is the gift of GOD. It is not by works lest any man should boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

Anyways... I will reiterate what I posted earlier....

"Ministries as any credit for good must be attributed to GOD. We believe any preacher or teacher that denies that they too are possibly likewise guilty of error at times does not understand that they are fallible and apt to offend by nature. Mature Christians must strive against allowing themselves to be easily overcome by personal pride which causes them to become unduly offended. We love all of our Roman Catholic, Charismatic, and Pentecostal brothers and sisters. We admonish all to be familiar with their denomination's writings. Our differences and disagreements are not of a personal nature but concern articles of Faith, creeds, doctrinal statements, and the like. We must assume all who claim to believe in Jesus Christ are true members of the body of Christ. Of course, we know that there are "tares", but only God knows who these "false brethren" are. We do not critique any specific person's sincerity, spiritual standing, or worth, and would not dare do so because we believe this is judging one's brother." <--- this is not the same site Smeagol protested about.

[travis2]

I'm back sooner than I thought... though only for a short while....

Let's get something straight.... If you believe in JESUS Christ, that's good enough for me.. never did I make a claim to suggest you would go to cause your doctrine was different from my own.

^^^ I had to make this big just so that we know where we stand.

I am not the voice of fundamentalists... so unless I've said something don't associate me with other views.

Where we differ is that you also believe you need to amend GOD's gift of salvation.... with works and rites and sacraments.... fine. You are en led to serve GOD within those bounds.

I serve GOD without trying to merit the Kingdom of GOD with my own works... I know they would never be sufficient. I do them anyways just because it gives me peace to align myself with the higher calling of GOD's will.

"For by grace are we saved through faith, and not of ourselves. It is the gift of GOD. It is not by works lest any man should boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

Anyways... I will reiterate what I posted earlier....

"Ministries as any credit for good must be attributed to GOD. We believe any preacher or teacher that denies that they too are possibly likewise guilty of error at times does not understand that they are fallible and apt to offend by nature. Mature Christians must strive against allowing themselves to be easily overcome by personal pride which causes them to become unduly offended. We love all of our Roman Catholic, Charismatic, and Pentecostal brothers and sisters. We admonish all to be familiar with their denomination's writings. Our differences and disagreements are not of a personal nature but concern articles of Faith, creeds, doctrinal statements, and the like. We must assume all who claim to believe in Jesus Christ are true members of the body of Christ. Of course, we know that there are "tares", but only God knows who these "false brethren" are. We do not critique any specific person's sincerity, spiritual standing, or worth, and would not dare do so because we believe this is judging one's brother." <--- this is not the same site Smeagol protested about.

That was religioustolerance.org, right? I'm familiar with that site...yeah, that's an OK site. Not particularly one I'd go to for Catholic doctrine......but it is a well put together place with lots of good essays.

OK, I accept your statement. Thank you. And you are welcome to your own faith.

One thing, though...Catholics do not try to "merit the Kingdom of God with {our} own works". Despite what you may have read, the Church does NOT teach that salvation is through works. We merely recognize that without works there is no faith (James 2). You can't have "faith alone".

[smeagol]

travis and hegamboa, good discussion

I agree with travis about the site hegamboa linked. It was blatantly anti-Catholic. But it’s pretty clear from your posts, Hector, that you are not anti-Catholic at all. I simply feel you are not aware or are sometimes mis-informed about some of our beliefs and traditions and where those traditions come from.

Oh, and I've seen travis become uncivil in other threads and I can assure you he has been civil (and passionate) on this one.

[Phenomanul]

That was religioustolerance.org, right? I'm familiar with that site...yeah, that's an OK site. Not particularly one I'd go to for Catholic doctrine......but it is a well put together place with lots of good essays.

OK, I accept your statement. Thank you. And you are welcome to your own faith.

One thing, though...Catholics do not try to "merit the Kingdom of God with {our} own works". Despite what you may have read, the Church does NOT teach that salvation is through works. We merely recognize that without works there is no faith (James 2). You can't have "faith alone".

I will take that gamble (albeit I know that I have strived to be more than a typical "bench warmer" by being an active participant of the ministry... I just don't hinge on this... 'lest I should boast')...

The doctrine I follow believes 'works' are evidence of Salvation.... but not necessarily requirements of Salvation. People who obey GOD's precepts, people who take care of orphans, widows and the meek, people who seek GOD are known as the Children of GOD because they bear good fruit. More importantly because they have accepted JESUS Christ as their personal Saviour.

True... 'faith without works is dead' simply because we rob ourselves of the blessings GOD would otherwise bestow upon us if we truly "sought after His own heart".

The Bible states that "by Grace we are saved through faith" it doesn't add that we are saved through faith and strict adherence to sacraments or rites.

"Grace" is recieving what we don't deserve.

In this case Life and a chance to attain Salvation through JESUS Christ.

"Mercy" is not recieving what we do deserve.

Because we are all sinners, and deserve death, it through GOD's mercy that we are even allowed to live.

[travis2]

travis and hegamboa, good discussion

I agree with travis about the site hegamboa linked. It was blatantly anti-Catholic. But it’s pretty clear from your posts, Hector, that you are not anti-Catholic at all. I simply feel you are not aware or are sometimes mis-informed about some of our beliefs and traditions and where those traditions come from.

Oh, and I've seen travis become uncivil in other threads and I can assure you he has been civil (and passionate) on this one.

Yeah, let me make that clear myself. I AM NOT saying you are anti-Catholic. I AM trying to make a point about using certain sites, that's all. If you don't agree with the Catholic Church, hey that's your choice. Like I said, I don't act to convert. But bigotry is still bigotry, whether it be by skinheads, KKK toads, or virulent anti-Catholics. And I'm sure you've heard the saying "when you sleep with dogs, you're going to get fleas".

If you have serious questions about the Church, ask. I'll answer, smeagol will answer...and we don't have any problem saying "I don't know" if we don't know.

[2centsworth]

Let's get something straight.... If you believe in JESUS Christ, that's good enough for me.. never did I make a claim to suggest you would go to cause your doctrine was different from my own.

The devil believes in Jesus, does that mean he goes to heaven too? I'm not a Catholic, but modern evangelical churchs have screwed up the doctrine. Sincere Repentance is just as much a requirement of salvation as belief in Jesus. True repentance and belief in Jesus are requirements of salvation.

The following is the best explanation that I've read:

The meaning of the word repentance has been twisted in recent years to the point that its biblical meaning is now obscured in the minds of many. The idea that genuine repentance could result in anything but a change of life is completely foreign to Scripture.

What does the Bible teach about the relationship between salvation and repentance? First, it teaches that repentance is essential to salvation. One cannot truly believe unless he repents, and one cannot truly repent unless he believes. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin (but they are not synonymous terms). Acts 11:18 and 2 Peter 3:9 are two of the many verses that teach that repentance is necessary for salvation. Perhaps 2 Timothy 2:25 best sums up the relationship between repentance and saving faith when it speaks of "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (see also Acts 20:21).

Second, the Greek word for repentance, metanoia, while it means "to have another mind," cannot properly be defined to exclude a sense of hatred of and penitence for sin. The biblical concept of repentance involves far more than merely a casual change of thinking. Biblically, a person who repents does not continue willfully in sin. Repentance is a turning from sin, and it always results in changed behavior (Luke 3:8). While sorrow from sin is not equivalent to repentance, it is certainly an element of scriptural repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10).

Finally, despite what is being widely taught today, affirming that repentance and acknowledgement of Jesus' lordship are necessary to salvation does not "add" anything to the requirement of faith for salvation. It is not "faith plus repentance" that saves, but rather a repentant faith. The notion that salvation is possible apart from a genuine, heartfelt repentance, which includes a deep hatred of sin, is a relatively new one, neither believed nor taught by the people of God until the twentieth century.

[Phenomanul]

The devil believes in Jesus, does that mean he goes to heaven too? I'm not a Catholic, but modern evangelical churchs have screwed up the doctrine. Sincere Repentance is just as much a requirement of salvation as belief in Jesus. True repentance and belief in Jesus are requirements of salvation.

The following is the best explanation that I've read:

Yes... you are correct... What I meant to say was "belief in JESUS as your personal Saviour" and then that would encompass true repentance of the person.

To believe in JESUS as your Saviour means to acknowledge that only he can give you remission of sin. His sacrificial atonement was the payment for our sin. We just have to acknowlegde this act, ask for forgiveness of our sins, and then gratefully accept that his sacrifice justifies and sanctifies us before GOD. That order would cons ute repentance.

[smeagol]

Hmmmm... interesting ..... Peter never established himself in Rome.

How do you know? What’s your source?

My source is many early Christian writers which as early as 150 AD, write that both Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome. (Actually, Ignatius, in 110 AD, implies that Peter was in Rome in his letter to the Roman Church).

There is also Peter’s first epistle, where he tells his readers that he is writing from "Babylon" (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome.

Assuming you don’t accept the Church's interpretation of the word “Babylon” in the Bible, do you at least give any credibility to the writings of people who knew the Apostles and therefore had a much broader view of what happened in the period between 30 AD and 65 AD.?

St Irenaeus, who new Polycarp who new the Apostle John says in more than one instance that Peter was in Rome. This is one among many quotes:

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

The amount of evidence found in the early Christian writers’ legacy that attest to Peter evangelizing efforts and his martyrdom in Rome, is overwhelming. Not only Irenaeus, but Ignatius, Dionysius and Gaius (II Century); Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian (early III Century); Eusebius, Peter of Alexandria and Lactanitius (early IV Century); Cyril of Jerusalem, Optatus, Epiphanius of Salamis, Damasus I, Jerome and Augustine (mid to late IV Century).

As you can see, the evidence is overwhelming. The fact that Fundamentalists cannot bare the thought of Peter establishing himself in Rome is that, in their minds, this would be “admitting” to the Apostolic Succession. Furthermore, this would make the case for the Papacy even stronger.

[SA210]

Tradition over Bible, never quite understood that arguement.

[smeagol]

Tradition over Bible, never quite understood that arguement.

Care to explain in the case of Peter being in Rome what is it you are talking about?