Religious conversion and marriage

**Sstashmoo** · May-30-10, 09:53 PM

Catholic religion is not "the church"

Stosh · May-31-10, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

And as far as rites and ritual, one of the purposes of the messiah was to cleanse the Church, in which he did, rituals are no longer necessary and he said so.

Well, you still seem to be around. Maybe some rituals are in order?

**maxx** · May-31-10, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Vatican II did away with the need for interpreters when they allowed the Mass to be celebrated in the colloquial language.

That just eliminated the need to buy a missal.

**Sstashmoo** · May-31-10, 08:46 AM

Is that a nuclear missal?

**maxx** · May-31-10, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Seems like you might want to direct such comments toward members of Protestant and other "Christian" faiths who decided to split from the Church.

Didn't they call that the Reformation? Wasn't it a rather important event in European history? Martin Luther and his 95 theses, etc.. Even "Mad Magazine" did a spoof on it.
As I recall the cartoon had Luther nailing up his 95 feces. "Mad" sometimes indulged in rather low humor.

**maxx** · May-31-10, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Is that a nuclear missal?

A missal was far from a missile. It was a little Bible-thin-paged book that had all the prayers of the Mass on one side in Latin and the other side in English. It also had all the sections of the gospels and epistles as well as any psalms that would be included in any of the Masses for the entire church year. Nowadays churches supply such information free each Sunday.

**maxx** · May-31-10, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

If it isn't in the Bible, not the Word of God, I'm not believing it. I don't care how many history books you want to drag out, if it isn't in the Bible, it's meaningless.

Boy, that leaves out most world history, modern science and modern law. None of this has any meaning for you, eh?

**Sstashmoo** · May-31-10, 12:04 PM

Quote: "that leaves out most world history, modern science and modern law. None of this has any meaning for you, eh?"

Typical, taking things out of context. We were talking about the validity in the claim that Catholicism is the embodiment of Christianity.

Stosh · May-31-10, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "that leaves out most world history, modern science and modern law. None of this has any meaning for you, eh?"

Typical, taking things out of context. We were talking about the validity in the claim that Catholicism is the embodiment of Christianity.

So let's have another go at this.
Who compiled the Bible in it's current form, save for a few books??

The answer is....

**Sstashmoo** · May-31-10, 01:56 PM

The answer is....

The lie you were told.

Stosh · May-31-10, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

The answer is....

The lie you were told.

Lovely answer, but completely wrong, as usual. Consistent, you are.

Try this interesting little study of the subject:
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

**Sstashmoo** · May-31-10, 07:02 PM

One must keep in mind the Roman Catholic religion has been very powerful and influential for the last several centuries and has had great influence in the recording of history. Think the pedophilia or promiscuity within the convents is anything new, find some historical record of it. Like the "shroud of turin" that they revere for the idol that it is. Proven fake by at least a half dozen independent blind tests. Any historical accuracy where catholics were involved should be viewed as suspect. You folks claim the Catholics are responsible for the Bible we know today. Don't you think someone during the assembly of this book would have slipped a verse or two in their mentioning a pope or catholicism? Nothing in the Bible speaks of Catholicism. A good example would be in the distant future, some group claiming they are responsible for Wikipedia.

Stosh · May-31-10, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

One must keep in mind the Roman Catholic religion has been very powerful and influential for the last several centuries and has had great influence in the recording of history. Think the pedophilia or promiscuity within the convents is anything new, find some historical record of it. Like the "shroud of turin" that they revere for the idol that it is. Proven fake by at least a half dozen independent blind tests. Any historical accuracy where catholics were involved should be viewed as suspect. You folks claim the Catholics are responsible for the Bible we know today. Don't you think someone during the assembly of this book would have slipped a verse or two in their mentioning a pope or catholicism? Nothing in the Bible speaks of Catholicism. A good example would be in the distant future, some group claiming they are responsible for Wikipedia.

You didn't read the link, did you?

How can you be so sure that they didn't change a few words to fit their purposes?

**Sstashmoo** · May-31-10, 07:27 PM

Stosh,

I tried to read your link, it's written by an idiot. "We don't know that" " We don't know this" This is not for certain" "But we do know this" Waste of server space.

Stosh · May-31-10, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Stosh,

I tried to read your link, it's written by an idiot. "We don't know that" " We don't know this" This is not for certain" "But we do know this" Waste of server space.

Well, they don't. It's 2000 years ago. The more interesting things come from what is NOT in the historical record, and the things that are KNOWN from the time periods involved.

**Sstashmoo** · May-31-10, 08:24 PM

According to them, what is known, ain't much. We're back to: you believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe. Good luck.

**ghettopalmetto** · May-31-10, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

According to them, what is known, ain't much. We're back to: you believe what you want to believe and I'll believe what I want to believe. Good luck.

Sure. Believe what you want to believe. That's fine. But damn, at least make an effort to UNDERSTAND what you believe.

**Fury13** · May-31-10, 09:15 PM

1054......

Stosh · May-31-10, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Fury13

1054......

You either will have to expand on your comments, or start a numerology page.

I actually looked it up, though. Maybe you can expand on it. Either the schism or the supernova...

**Sstashmoo** · May-31-10, 10:32 PM

Quote: "at least make an effort to UNDERSTAND what you believe."

The sad thing is you probably do understand what you believe and see nothing wrong with it.

**maxx** · June-01-10, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "that leaves out most world history, modern science and modern law. None of this has any meaning for you, eh?"

Typical, taking things out of context. We were talking about the validity in the claim that Catholicism is the embodiment of Christianity.

The context in your sentence was history, not church history. You should try to qualify your statements instead of making sweeping generalizations. You might be criticized less.

**Sstashmoo** · June-01-10, 08:15 AM

Quote: "The context in your sentence was history, not church history."

Lady, I wrote the sentence, I know in what context it was written. If you actually took time to read the thread instead of skimming it looking for something to attack, you would have known that.

Stosh · June-01-10, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

Quote: "The context in your sentence was history, not church history."

Lady, I wrote the sentence, I know in what context it was written. If you actually took time to read the thread instead of skimming it looking for something to attack, you would have known that.

And if you weren't skimming you would realize that maxx was talking about the sentence you quoted, not your own. You didn't write the sentence quoted, nor mention history in YOUR sentence.

Skim the historic record and you will find some curiously missing things. The Romans kept very meticulous records, as did the Egyptians.

**Sstashmoo** · June-01-10, 09:37 AM

The loss of the great library at Alexandria destroyed much of the recorded history. The Dead sea scrolls do not mention Jesus at all, however communication between even close locales was nowhere near what it is globally today, obviously.

I don't buy the "if this doesn't mention it, it didn't exist" reasoning. We know the legacy has continued of the Jesus story, when it could have been quelled by outer influence and simply trend over time as much theology did. Many believed enough to keep the story alive. Even when it was unpopular and even illegal to do so. The story has survived for a reason. Is the Bible a perfect account and retelling? I don't think so. I do think the core message is intact.

Stosh · June-01-10, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Sstashmoo

The loss of the great library at Alexandria destroyed much of the recorded history. The Dead sea scrolls do not mention Jesus at all, however communication between even close locales was nowhere near what it is globally today, obviously.

I don't buy the "if this doesn't mention it, it didn't exist" reasoning. We know the legacy has continued of the Jesus story, when it could have been quelled by outer influence and simply trend over time as much theology did. Many believed enough to keep the story alive. Even when it was unpopular and even illegal to do so. The story has survived for a reason. Is the Bible a perfect account and retelling? I don't think so. I do think the core message is intact.

The library at Alexandria was destroyed in 48 BC. Records kept from that time onward are quite intact. The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing of the New Testament, because they were written after that date anyway.