Ohh and FYI. Yes I know I'm a Bitch so if someone calls me a Bitch it's not going to be a Shocker or Offend Me.

This thread has quickly gone south...

.

.

I looked at it somewhat, and frankly it is not too big of a deal. Some date fudging (also, some dates he clearly cannot be positive about), and obviously, the first, second and third centuries were a mess, in terms of trying to figure out which books were inspired. That doesn't mean all the books were changed by the Church.

Either way, it is obviously an atheist writing it, (or at least a non-Christian) and I wonder what Christian sources you have on the subject? It does not make much sense to look at it from one side and not the other, which you appear to be doing.

"First of all, Since I'm Jester's WIFE, I don't feel that we need to justify our Marriage to anyone, especially not you."

I apologize if you thought that I was asking Jester to justify your marriage. I just wanted to know what he thought marriage was, the keys to making it work and the foundation of it. I wasn't looking for answers about your marriage.
I want to thank you naked smurf for posting a little bit about yourself. I think it would be hard to tell people some of those things that you told, especially to people you don't even know. Obviously, I have no clue what kinds of things you are going through or have gone through, so I can't say I understand. But I do understand the getting married at a younger age. I got married almost a year ago when I was 20 and my wife was also 20. We got a lot of slack for our age, but we knew that this was right for the both of us. In what I believe, this is what God wanted for us and being together has made us both stronger.
About the sexuallity thing, I believe that a person chooses to be that sexuallity whether it was voluntary or involutary. I have more than a few gay relatives and talking to one of them, he said that he chose to be gay. He was married to a woman for 18 years and then got a divorce and decided to become gay. Also, I was attending a class on homosexuality where they were trying to prove that you are born into homosexuality. The question was then asked about bi-sexuals and the professors said they could not explain that. So that is my opinion about that. I know that a lot of people will disagree, but I think this is an arguement not worth talking about.

Anyway, I was still hoping that either you, Nakedsmurf, or Jester could give me, what you think, are some vital ways to keeping a marriage alive. But more than keeping it alive, but also ways to making it succeed.

.

I know. I'm not sayign the article is crap. But it definitely did not convince me that te Bible has "changed". Yes, it was compiled in the fourth century, but amazingly, I knew that! Plus, the whole "the Bible was created by the Church who WON" thign is absurd. There WAS only one church. Sure, there were heresies, but that didn't make them churches, it made them heresies.

Anyway, cheers

.

i dont know that dude i will check,em out

Yep, and in this eye they were heretics. Luther (and this is a historical fact) was an overly scrupulous headcase, who came up with his "Faith Alone" doctrine because he couldn't handle how guilty he always became for sinning--so he invented an ideology where sinning doesn't matter.

And they are not part of "The Church". They are churches, but not the Church.

Luther and Calvin certainly had their issues I will not argue with that. Luther had an illogical dislike of the Jews whilst Calvin was completely overzealous and fined those who didn't attend church and killed people (just like the catholics did, calvin did eye for an eye basically. I will add however that doctrinally they were MUCH closer to biblical truth than the church leadership of the day ever was ALOT of catholic doctrine is simply unbiblical and is heresy.........

Actually, Catholic doctrine is the only that truly fits the Bible. It contains no such unBiblical (and pecularly Protestant doctrines) such as Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc. Also, the Protestants leave OUT a lot of doctrines, such as the necessity of Baptism, and stuff like that.

.

Wow. That was one absurd post right there.

You know NOTHING about Catholicism, and your ignorance makes me doubt your opinions on other matters. Catholics most certainly do NOT practice idolatry, and anyone who says this is either misinformed, stupid, or a bona fide anti-Catholic. You think praying to Saints is idolatry? How else do you think we are supposed to talk to them? Seeing as you are no Christian, I will have to spell this out for you:

All Christians are part of the Body of Christ. No Christian would deny that. Jesus has only ONE Body, no Christian would deny that. Saints in Heaven are not SEPERATED from the body of Christ, they are made PERFECT in it. As such, it is still good for them to offer intercessory prayer for those who need it, and it is also good for us to ASK THEM for it. Unfortunately, the only way we can do that is by prayer. PRAYER IS NOT WORSHIP.

1 Timothy 2: 1-3, God tells us that offering prayers, petitions and supplications for each other is PLEASING to God. PLEASING. So don't go running your mouth about how we worship Saints. We don't.

And Catholocism has never changed one BIT of Doctrine to fir with the times, DESPITE all of the super liberal Catholics who want us to. The Church still condemns contraception, abortion, cloning, stem cell research etc., despite those being VERY unpopular stances. Has the Church relaxed certain practices? Yes. For instance, one used to be required to abstain from food for three horus before Mass, now only one. THAT IS NOT CHANGING DOCTRINE. I dare you to come up with a SINLGE example of the Catholic Church changing ANY doctrine. EVER. Defined doctrines? Sure. Developing doctrines? Indeed. But not CHANGED.

.

Are you just mentally retarded? Are you a Catholic? Umm, let's see... NO!

I am TELLING you Catholics do not worship Saints, and you don't believe me. Do I need to go find the specific lines in the Catechism that SAY SO?

Look, you can argue about what is RIGHT or WRONG within a religion, but you, a NON-CHRISTIAN, have no business telling me, a DEVOUT CATHOLIC, what I believe in. You have NO experience in Catholicism, and everything you think about it has come from otuside sources obviously. For someone who is so big on researching things, why don't you research the Church before you make absurd claims about her teachings?

And you think I haven't taken a step back and looked at my religion? I am ACTIVELY engaged in Apologetics and do a LOT of research about not only other religions but the reasons behind WHY Catholics believe in things. YOU DON'T.

And you think I'm biased? How so? Biased because I believe the Catholic Church is the one true church established by Jesus Christ? If so, I hope I am the msot biased person on earth.

I hope you discover what it is you are looking for, but I DOUBT you will if you believe something as ludicrous as the Church claiming Mary is on par with Jesus. If you believe that, you will believe ANYTHING.

I'm not a Catholic (the roman catholic i must add) hater but there are many doctrines and practices within that church i have issues with. in roman catholicism mary like jesus is believed to have being born without sin. there is no biblical evidence of this and unlike jesus she was born with "the seed of man". secondly there is one intercessor, jesus christ so why go through these much lower saints?

oh and how bout changing practices around the time of constatine (well before any protestant movement) of bringing in pagan practices that made it easier for the "pagans" to come to christ? where do you think the mistletoe, the christmas tree, easter eggs and such things came from?

.

.

what? is this for real? :laugh: joseph was an honourable man according to the gospel accounts. but mary died a virgin? hahaha jesus had half-brothers and sisters all from mary and joseph. not unless the whole family came about from immaculate conception lol. the infalliablity of popes is another area that dumbfounds me in relation to catholicism.

were evil men like the famous leo infalliable? were the popes who promised the removal of taxes of those who survived (and removal of purgatory for those who died) the crusades infalliable? were the popes who oversaw the famous inquisitions infalliable? it is crazy and in fact heretical to place such faith in mere men, and in some cases very evil men. protesants are also guilty of this (eg calvinists who follow his teachings blindly though he did some very wicked things) but its silly to believe mere men can be infalliable. when a man becomes a pope does he suddenly become this new man who cannot make doctrinal error? yet he could before?

.

Well I certainly can't answer EVERY question, but I will deal with the Popes.

Do you know what infallibility means? It means that Popes cannot teach errors when regarding matters of faith and morals and when teachign to the whole church. Other than that, they are just normal human beings, fully capable of being idiots, even HERETICS, although there haven't been any heretical popes.

Also, Misseltoe is no Catholic dcotrine. What kind of crap is that? I still defy anyone to come up with a doctrine that the Catholic Church has changed. You won't find any,

Constantine was NOT always a heretic, he did many good thigns for the world, but he also did bad things. No doubting that.

Jesus IS the one mediator between God and man but we share in that role. Aussiecreeder, have you never asked someone else for prayers, or prayed for someone else? HOW DARE YOU! You are getting in the way of Christ's role of mediator. Obviously, that is sarcastic and ridiculous. It is the same thign with Saints in Heaven. We ask for their intercession the same way we ask for the oither saints on earth intercession.

Care to give any examples of Jesus brothers? Because the Bible always uses the word adelphos, which means "kin", and two people named as jesus "kin" are elsewhere named as the sons of DIFFERENT people, hence destroyign the theory that the Bible says Jesus had brothers.

YES, even evil popes are infallible. And YES they become infallible when they become Popes, becasue of the HOLY SPIRIT. I again dare you to tell me when a Pope infallibly declared something that was in error. There WERE NO TIMES.

You don't like Christmas trees? Wow, they are pagan. Better not use mine next year. Christmas trees have ntohing to do with doctrine or dogma, your arguments are really strange.

Mary was "Full of Grace" and "all generations shall call [her] blessed". Catholics do, why don't you?

I can't POSSIBLY respond in detail to all of your accusations, but that was my best in the short form.

And you think Apologetics is BS? Well duh, you have no Faith, so of course you think arguing about Faith is silly.

And I have a few questions:

Aussiecreeder, do you believe the Bible is the sole rule of Faith for Christians? If so, how come the Bible never SAYS it is?

Do you believe we are saved by Faith alone? If so, how come the Bible SAYS we aren't?

Do you believe you are in the Church of Jesus Christ, founded by Him two thousand years ago, standing against the Gates of Hell itself? Then why was your church founded sometime in the last couple hundred years?

.

Hey hey hey! The issue is never ever with praying for people, but forgiving sins! We CANNOT have that role and no human should assume that it is ok!

I have talked to catholics that think it is great that they can go to a priest to have their sins absolved or whatever U say, because they cant go to Jesus cos they are too frightened. Catholicism should be encouraging the right that Christians have to "approach the throne of grace" and be "cleansed and washed from a guilty conscience" by the one who interceeds to the Father on our behalf! Why dont they??? Why get others involved when its not necessary and to add, not biblical!

I have heard the argument confess your sins one to another so use something else please. I actually do appreciate your comments so dont think I am provoking you to anger or anything. Though I might piss U off a little, hehe.

Cos the gospel was chained up in a basement somewhere by the Catholic church, unable to be distributed, preached to the world [translated], and supplied to the poor who needed it, and the truth was governed by a religious group, which is sort of a backslide big time, cos the Pharisees Aural law was abolished by Jesus and now the catholic church were bringing it back! Insanity!

Rather amusing:suave:........BUT NO name calling Mr!

lol :lolsign:

Once again, NO EVIDENCE!!! Bibles were never "chained up in a basement" and that is clear prejudicial nonsense to think so.

They WERE chained in some areas, want to know why? So that people could READ THEM!! Amazingly, unlike today, not everyone HAD A BIBLE, so they were put in Public places, CHAINED THERE to keep them from being stolen, and people could read them. THAT IS A FACT.

As for Confession, Catholics who say they confess to a priest because they are afraid to go to God are being ridiculous. Confessing sins to a Priest IS CONFESSING THEM TO GOD. It is GOD who forgives the sins, it is the Priest standing in for Jesus, JUST LIKE JESUS TOLD HIM TO DO.

Jesus tell the Apostles "whose sins you forgive they are forgiven; whose sins you retain they are retained".

It does not get much more obvious than that. Not to mention the various times Christ tells them to do as HE HAS DONE, and what has Christ done? Forgiven sins, constantly.

Also, Jester, you continue to show your utter lack of knowledge in these matters. We are saved THROUGH GOD'S GRACE by Faith and Good Works. God's Grace is the most important part because without it, Faith and Works are useless. But a Protestant would tell you we are saved by God's grace through Fatih, even though James 2:14-26 explicitly condemns that notion.

And as for Augustine, I missed your comments on him because you comment on everything. He was a heretic. SO?! St. Ambrose converted Augustine, and over the thirty years of his life as a converted Christian, he wrote some of the Church's most beautiful works of that period, or any period in time.

And I would definitely appreciate it if you stopped insulting me. If your arguments are so weak that you rely on insults, stop posting anyway.

And also, Sincirr and AussieCreeder, you haven't answered my questions yet.

Can't you all just argue one topic at a time instead of slinging multiple things at Uncertaindrummer and expecting him to answer them all? Pick one until it's exhausted and then move on to another one. Don't bring up 60 different things all at once. They are not all related and most of them are misconceptions.

Good point rabidgopher04. At last, someone realized it! I was reading this trhead and noticed the EXACT thing. :eek:

.

Hmm, that is funny. I don't notice any jumping around. You have raised several objections, I have answered them, and you have not been able to further attack them.

And for someone who thinks apologetics is BS, you sure have engaged in quite a bit of it in this thread.

.

Well first, I have seen many people converted or at least prfoundly affected or at least gained SOMETHING positive out of apologetics. For instance, Sncirr and I, while not agreeing on just about everything, have great respect for each other and enjoy speaking on these matters.

You have not kept me at bay, I have defeated every single one of your arguments when they come from the Bible. As for History, I am NOT a historical guru, but the onus is NOT on me to prove that the Gospels were written when they were. I BELIEVE THEY WERE, and if you don't, FINE. It is up to YOU to convince ME, and you have no produced ANYTHING that even remotely pointed to that fact that the Gospels were written 300 years after Jesus. That is especially interesting in lgiht of the multitude of early Church Father refernces TO the Gospels, all written before 330.

You say you think Apologetics are worthless, you say you don't believe in Christ, you say Christians are stupid for doing so--frankly, I have little left to talk to you about in a FAITH AND RELIGION DISCUSSION BOARD.

.

Well, actually, this argument has been YOU trying to disprove the authenticity of the Bible. I don't CARE if you believe in its authenticity, so I don't need to convince you of anything.

.

You are just so profoundly obscene it scares me. I have absolutely no intent to follow this discussion any further. I will finish it with one last statement.

I don't NEED to prove anything about the Bible to you, I don't CARE if you believe in the Gospels. If you don't want to, that is your problem. I SAID you should read Founding of Christendom Volume 1, as well as other Christian sources, just to get a more balanced view. If you don't want to, fine, that is your decision. I don't NEED to argue to the validity of the Gospels. YOU are the one trying to disprove them.

You don't HAVE to argue against the Gospels if you don't care to prove it, but if you do, then YOU are the one that has to furnish the evidence, not me. And make no mistake about it. You have furnished NO evidence, all you have done is whine about "I have studied this for a zillion years, my dad is a professor" over and over.

Cheers, have a good life.