PDA

View Full Version : Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution


atomdanger
05-29-2009, 08:58 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826552/
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In _New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_ Mans_Earliest_Ancestor


The search for a direct connection between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom has taken 200 years - but it was presented to the world today at a special news conference in New York.

The discovery of the 95%-complete 'lemur monkey' - dubbed Ida - is described by experts as the "eighth wonder of the world".

They say its impact on the world of palaeontology will be "somewhat like an asteroid falling down to Earth".

Researchers say proof of this transitional species finally confirms Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, and the then radical, outlandish ideas he came up with during his time aboard the Beagle.

Sir David Attenborough said Darwin "would have been thrilled" to have seen the fossil - and says it tells us who we are and where we came from.


Wow, pretty interesting!!!

Crisco
05-29-2009, 09:10 PM
Everything I have read just keeps repeating it's the missing link..

But it never exaclty says why...

I don't get it. I wish I was born with a brain for science sometimes. My mind is mostly built for history.

TexasRN
05-29-2009, 09:59 PM
"The experts concluded Ida was not simply a lemur but a 'lemur monkey', displaying a mixture of both groups, and therefore putting her at the very branch of the human line (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Missing-Link-When-Fish-First-Walked/Article/200604113517635?lid=ARTICLE_13517635_Missing%20Lin k:%20When%20Fish%20First%20Walked&lpos=Home_0)."

This is taken from the second link. They found a 'lemur monkey'.....:laugh: Makes me think of that Madagascar movie....


~Amy

sasquatch
05-30-2009, 12:05 AM
So what's the big deal?:huh:

It's like a monkey and a lemur... that connects it to us how?:unsure-1:

atomdanger
05-30-2009, 12:53 AM
So what's the big deal?:huh:

It's like a monkey and a lemur... that connects it to us how?:unsure-1:

*insert scientific babble*

Hughes_GOAT
05-30-2009, 01:25 AM
so does this mean Earth is billions of years old or only 10,000?

logrus
05-30-2009, 02:09 AM
so does this mean Earth is billions of years old or only 10,000?

Well Astronomy class puts the universe at around 12.5 -14 billion years old. Another thing is if you ask astronomers they will tell you that we are Star people due to the fact we are made up of the same stuff that stars are made of.

I also learned that since other galaxies are gradually moving away from our solar system, that at one point everything must have had a center thus theoretically the Big Bang did happen.

Science vs God, I see this thread being closed lol.

HI MOM!

DevonFoxy
05-30-2009, 03:55 AM
I have never understood to be honest most of these missing link claims. We need in a sum probably about 500,000 at the very least in transitional fossils to make a sea dwelling animal to live on land. How can one thing be a "missing link"?

Hughes_GOAT
05-30-2009, 04:43 AM
speaking of fossils, some people believe dinasaur fossils aren't real or they are less than 10,000 years old.

atomdanger
05-30-2009, 06:04 AM
speaking of fossils, some people believe dinasaur fossils aren't real or they are less than 10,000 years old.

indeed.

That would mean that our idea of carbon dating is completely false and the majority of people in the scientific community are full of crap.

NateR
05-30-2009, 06:23 AM
indeed.

That would mean that our idea of carbon dating is completely false and the majority of people in the scientific community are full of crap.

Actually that's true. When compared against tree rings, carbon dating is only accurate to 1000 years. There are other methods of dating, like uranium dating, but even those require information that we will never have and they are based on unproven assumptions about how the universe works. Primarily "uniformitarianism" which basically means that the natural processes that we see at work today have remained unchanged since the beginning of time. It's impossible to prove or disprove that, so science just assumes that it's true.

NateR
05-30-2009, 06:26 AM
Well Astronomy class puts the universe at around 12.5 -14 billion years old. Another thing is if you ask astronomers they will tell you that we are Star people due to the fact we are made up of the same stuff that stars are made of.

I also learned that since other galaxies are gradually moving away from our solar system, that at one point everything must have had a center thus theoretically the Big Bang did happen.

Science vs God, I see this thread being closed lol.

HI MOM!

Well the Big Bang is just short of being a well-established fact. The only reason we can't be sure that it happened is because no human being was alive to witness it. However, there is ONE who witnessed it and actually caused it. When GOD said, "Let there be light," that was most likely the Big Bang.

Read Genesis and the Big Bang: A Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible, by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.

NateR
05-30-2009, 06:35 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30826552/
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Missing-Link-Scientists-In-New-York-Unveil-Fossil-Of-Lemur-Monkey-Hailed-As-Mans-Earliest-Ancestor/Article/200905315284582?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15284582_Missing_Link%3A_Scientists_In _New_York_Unveil_Fossil_Of_Lemur_Monkey_Hailed_As_ Mans_Earliest_Ancestor



Wow, pretty interesting!!!

In reality, it's just a skeleton. It's not really evidence of anything until it is interpreted. That interpretation depends greatly upon the worldview of the scientists doing the interpreting. So if they are looking for links in the "Evolutionary chain" then that is most likely what they are going to find, regardless of whether that interpretation is factual or not.

So, we're basically asked to take these scientists at their word and assume that they have all the facts, are competent in their fields, and are not deliberately deceiving us (read about the Piltdown man hoax). That's just too many assumptions for a cynical guy like to me believe that any of this is fact.

logrus
05-30-2009, 03:54 PM
Well the Big Bang is just short of being a well-established fact. The only reason we can't be sure that it happened is because no human being was alive to witness it. However, there is ONE who witnessed it and actually caused it. When GOD said, "Let there be light," that was most likely the Big Bang.

Read Genesis and the Big Bang: A Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible, by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.

Actually they pretty much did away with the Big Bang Theory. When taught and lectured they refer to it as The Big Bang, since they have established that at 1 time there was 1 point of origin and that all matter in the universe is the same. Really the universe is a strange work on itself, a vast recycle plant lol

At one point teachings of the Bible and Theorys of the Big Bang were like two prize fighters. Funny to see how since the Big Bang has become a proven fact that Religion would happily step in and now claim God created the Big Bang because all my years in Cath school and all my years in Christian youth groups and bible studies I was lead to believe God had nothing to do with it.

NateR
05-30-2009, 05:16 PM
Actually they pretty much did away with the Big Bang Theory. When taught and lectured they refer to it as The Big Bang, since they have established that at 1 time there was 1 point of origin and that all matter in the universe is the same. Really the universe is a strange work on itself, a vast recycle plant lol

At one point teachings of the Bible and Theorys of the Big Bang were like two prize fighters. Funny to see how since the Big Bang has become a proven fact that Religion would happily step in and now claim God created the Big Bang because all my years in Cath school and all my years in Christian youth groups and bible studies I was lead to believe God had nothing to do with it.

Well, your comments reveal just how closed-minded on this topic you really are. They also reveal how little you really know; but just the fact that you attended Catholic school would explain why your view of religion is so skewed.

The Big Bang is actually a nail in the coffin for Evolutionary theory since it sets a very definite starting point for the origin of the universe. So when we look at how much time has passed since that event and then estimate how much time would be required for life to have evolved from natural process to the level we see today; we realize that the Big Bang makes Evolution mathematically impossible. The odds of complex life arising from random chance in only 16 billion years are just so astronomically high that only those who take Evolution on blind faith could possibly believe it is true.

Anyways, I still recommend you read Dr. Gerald Schroeder's book. He's an astro-physicist who helped test nuclear weapons in the 1960s. He also believes in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. In fact, he believes that the 6-days laid out in the Bible and the 12-20 billion years described by science are actually the same period of time, just observed from different perspectives (which I think is actually a topic for one of his other books).

Also, he's not a Christian, he was born and raised Jewish.

J.B.
05-30-2009, 05:21 PM
Anyways, I still recommend you read Dr. Gerald Schroeder's book. He's an astro-physicist who helped test nuclear weapons in the 1960s. He also believes in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. In fact, he believes that the 6-days laid out in the Bible and the 12-20 billion years described by science are actually the same period of time, just observed from different perspectives (which I think is actually a topic for one of his other books).


That sounds pretty interesting. I will have to check that out.

NateR
05-30-2009, 05:56 PM
That sounds pretty interesting. I will have to check that out.

I've read a few of his books and watched a couple of his video lectures and it's very interesting, eye-opening stuff. Most people don't realize that time is not a constant in the universe. It flows differently in different parts of the universe and is affected by things like gravity and speed of travel. So, while we sit here on Earth and wait for 5 minutes to pass, there might conceivably be another point in the universe where hundreds or thousands of years have passed within that five minutes.

Schroeder's idea is that Genesis 1 is told from GOD's point of view and is written in the present tense, not the past tense. In other words, it's like GOD taking notes of His actions while creating the universe. So, from GOD's perspective, the events only took 6 days, from our perspective the events appear to have taken billions and billions of years.

There is another aspect of his theory called "time dilation" which factors in how the expansion of the universe would affect how we view events in the past. The basic idea is that, as the universe expands, events in the past become more and more distorted. The further back we look the more distortion we observe.

Anyways, I'm piecing together different stuff from different books, so you probably won't find all of these theories in Genesis and the Big Bang.

logrus
05-30-2009, 06:43 PM
Well, your comments reveal just how closed-minded on this topic you really are. They also reveal how little you really know; but just the fact that you attended Catholic school would explain why your view of religion is so skewed.

The Big Bang is actually a nail in the coffin for Evolutionary theory since it sets a very definite starting point for the origin of the universe. So when we look at how much time has passed since that event and then estimate how much time would be required for life to have evolved from natural process to the level we see today; we realize that the Big Bang makes Evolution mathematically impossible. The odds of complex life arising from random chance in only 16 billion years are just so astronomically high that only those who take Evolution on blind faith could possibly believe it is true.

Anyways, I still recommend you read Dr. Gerald Schroeder's book. He's an astro-physicist who helped test nuclear weapons in the 1960s. He also believes in a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. In fact, he believes that the 6-days laid out in the Bible and the 12-20 billion years described by science are actually the same period of time, just observed from different perspectives (which I think is actually a topic for one of his other books).

Also, he's not a Christian, he was born and raised Jewish.

Actually point out my close mindedness, because I never once went into what I personally believe is the truth Bang vs God. There for anything you said to me at 1/3 of the quote is haha at best and could best be described as a Logrusism.

I did Cath school from 84 to 89. From 92 to 99 I was more in the teaching of Christi, that was youth group, church services and bible study. So really if you want to blame close mindedness on anything you really could argue it was the later years that influenced me.

I actually know a lot more then I bring to the table, don't base it on the random fact that I managed to quote a teacher, a NASA geek and a putz of a Pastor all in a quick small paragraph. I guess from now on when I argue something I will have to go into a long drawn out 2 page post on the reasons I tend to argue then base that arguments with quotes, graphs, reference material and power point.

Anyways feel free to point out how I was wrong that it is said that the big bang is the origin of the universe and that under the right conditions spawned from one center point and then was spread out and is still doing so to this day.

Feel free to explain to me that the universe doesn't recycle everything. You know black holes were never once stars, stars were never once other stars

NateR
05-30-2009, 08:03 PM
Feel free to explain to me that the universe doesn't recycle everything. You know black holes were never once stars, stars were never once other stars

Well, it's an interesting theory, but it's absolutely impossible to prove scientifically. Unless we can actually observe something, then it's outside the realm of empirical science. So anything that happened before human beings were alive is simply outside the scope of science to explain. In fact, anything that's not happening right now is outside the realm of science as well. Since empirical science requires us to be able to observe the phenomena with at least one of our five senses.

Anything outside of that is postulation, speculation and guesswork.

logrus
05-30-2009, 11:43 PM
Well, it's an interesting theory, but it's absolutely impossible to prove scientifically. Unless we can actually observe something, then it's outside the realm of empirical science. So anything that happened before human beings were alive is simply outside the scope of science to explain. In fact, anything that's not happening right now is outside the realm of science as well. Since empirical science requires us to be able to observe the phenomena with at least one of our five senses.

Anything outside of that is postulation, speculation and guesswork.

Actually this is where your wrong in regards to space. Stars, nebula's, galaxies are all being viewed how they were in the past. This is due to how long for its Ly to reach the earth. So if a star light takes 10million years to reach earth. Then we are in fact viewing that star as it looked 10 million years ago. As for galaxies we view one thru hubble that would calculate to being 2.5million years into the past.

A star goes through a few stages til it becomes a main sequence star, after the star burns through its various layers of gases, and is near the end of its cycle one of a few things can change the stars fate. The main deciding factor is the stars mass, if we have a star with lower mass it usually will become a white dwarf, which already makes up 3/4 of the stars. This star will due a few things, it will still radiate heat, when it nears the end of that cycle which has not happened yet, it will either become a black dwarf or if another star is close enough it will steal its admitted gases and become a britter dwarf, but it will be buring the surrounding gas off instead of its core.

Medium sized Dwarfs will continue to burn its gases but because of its greater mass it will expend more of its core and gases til it becomes a p. nebula. This is the boring of the 3

Stars that are labeled high mass are the most interesting of all. These stars will end up becoming something completely different from the other 2 stages. These stars can produce Supernovas, neutron stars or black holes. Super Novas are known to have its discarded matter along with other matter in space to form the very first stage of a new star.

Tyburn
05-31-2009, 01:21 PM
I would repeat, what ive always said about Evolution and how Science and Christianity are saying the same thing...about how BOTH could be true from the HUMAN perspective, at the same time. But noone has ever taken much interest in it before, and as its quite complex. I dont think I'll bother this time

jason2130
05-31-2009, 07:54 PM
the thing i seen on discovery channel wasnt that is was a link between primate and man but that its the link showing the evolution of the original primate (along long time ago there was 1 branch in the primate tree and it split into apes and lemurs) this skeleton has features from both apes and lemurs and fills the gap they couldnt prove of when the branch split

its a missing link in the evolution theory, but not the missing link of man and ape

Tyburn
05-31-2009, 08:14 PM
its a missing link in the evolution theory, but not the missing link of man and ape
:laugh: then its not really important is it :laugh:

NateR
05-31-2009, 11:13 PM
Actually this is where your wrong in regards to space. Stars, nebula's, galaxies are all being viewed how they were in the past. This is due to how long for its Ly to reach the earth. So if a star light takes 10million years to reach earth. Then we are in fact viewing that star as it looked 10 million years ago. As for galaxies we view one thru hubble that would calculate to being 2.5million years into the past.

A star goes through a few stages til it becomes a main sequence star, after the star burns through its various layers of gases, and is near the end of its cycle one of a few things can change the stars fate. The main deciding factor is the stars mass, if we have a star with lower mass it usually will become a white dwarf, which already makes up 3/4 of the stars. This star will due a few things, it will still radiate heat, when it nears the end of that cycle which has not happened yet, it will either become a black dwarf or if another star is close enough it will steal its admitted gases and become a britter dwarf, but it will be buring the surrounding gas off instead of its core.

Medium sized Dwarfs will continue to burn its gases but because of its greater mass it will expend more of its core and gases til it becomes a p. nebula. This is the boring of the 3

Stars that are labeled high mass are the most interesting of all. These stars will end up becoming something completely different from the other 2 stages. These stars can produce Supernovas, neutron stars or black holes. Super Novas are known to have its discarded matter along with other matter in space to form the very first stage of a new star.

I've heard all this before and it's all an interesting theory, but again it's not provable scientifically. Besides, do those timeframes even factor in the expansion of the universe?

Neezar
06-01-2009, 02:33 AM
I would repeat, what ive always said about Evolution and how Science and Christianity are saying the same thing...about how BOTH could be true from the HUMAN perspective, at the same time. But noone has ever taken much interest in it before, and as its quite complex. I dont think I'll bother this time

:happydancing:

logrus
06-01-2009, 03:28 AM
I've heard all this before and it's all an interesting theory, but again it's not provable scientifically. Besides, do those timeframes even factor in the expansion of the universe?

Ohh your right a light year is nothing but scientific theory. There is no such thing as an Astronomical Unit. A star will never burn out because its filled with all that God good stuff. Black holes dont exist, Neutron Stars is nothing but Sci Fi and a super Nova never happens.


An yes they do equate the expansion of the universe, the speed at which each object moves, distance it travels, the velocity of its movements and the angle it drifts. From a few years of data retrieved they can then take all these goofy numbers and back track to previous years, and even calculate where it will be years from now.

NateR
06-01-2009, 03:44 AM
Ohh your right a light year is nothing but scientific theory. There is no such thing as an Astronomical Unit. A star will never burn out because its filled with all that God good stuff. Black holes dont exist, Neutron Stars is nothing but Sci Fi and a super Nova never happens.


An yes they do equate the expansion of the universe, the speed at which each object moves, distance it travels, the velocity of its movements and the angle it drifts. From a few years of data retrieved they can then take all these goofy numbers and back track to previous years, and even calculate where it will be years from now.

No, I'm just a skeptic. I don't take something as truth just because it's prefaced by "Scientists believe..." or "Experts say..." Of course they can measure the speed of light, but there is so much that we don't know about the universe that I don't believe modern science can be sure about anything at this point. Claiming that the light from distant stars and galaxies is proof that the universe is billions of years old is really just jumping to conclusions and irresponsible science.

logrus
06-01-2009, 04:19 AM
No, I'm just a skeptic. I don't take something as truth just because it's prefaced by "Scientists believe..." or "Experts say..." Of course they can measure the speed of light, but there is so much that we don't know about the universe that I don't believe modern science can be sure about anything at this point. Claiming that the light from distant stars and galaxies is proof that the universe is billions of years old is really just jumping to conclusions and irresponsible science.

When we first started to pay attention to the skies it was the Church who pushed and punished anyone who thought that we lived in anything other the a geocentric world. We know today this is not the case and that we live in a heliocentric world.

You can be skeptic and thats fine, but we been studying, observing and recording since before the second century. The only thing thats changed is the matter in which we receive the data, and how we have improved upon them.

As for light years we been using that unit of measurement for about 26 years now. Before that it was known as something else.

NateR
06-01-2009, 04:24 AM
When we first started to pay attention to the skies it was the Church who pushed and punished anyone who thought that we lived in anything other the a geocentric world. We know today this is not the case and that we live in a heliocentric world.

Actually, that's not an entirely accurate account of what happened. That's the popular revisionist version, but it's not historically true.

Besides, any persecuting back then was done by the Catholic Church and you'll find that many of us don't believe that Catholics are true Christians.

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 08:09 AM
Besides, any persecuting back then was done by the Catholic Church and you'll find that many of us don't believe that Catholics are true Christians.
you'll find that many of us are wrong :rolleyes: :laugh:

NateR
06-01-2009, 04:05 PM
you'll find that many of us are wrong :rolleyes: :laugh:

I'm just tired of being held accountable, by non-believers, for the actions of Catholics, a religion I don't even believe in.

Obviously, liberals have no trouble discerning between regular Muslims and the radical Muslims. So why don't Christians get the same courtesy?

Crisco
06-01-2009, 04:08 PM
I'm just tired of being held accountable, by non-believers, for the actions of Catholics, a religion I don't even believe in.

Obviously, liberals have no trouble discerning between regular Muslims and the radical Muslims. So why don't Christians get the same courtesy?

Because this is America.

It's all about political correctness unless your talking about "stupid right wing Christian nut jobs"

NateR
06-01-2009, 04:23 PM
Because this is America.

It's all about political correctness unless your talking about "stupid right wing Christian nut jobs"

Agreed, the most closed-minded, intolerant bigots in America today are the left-wing liberals.

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 04:43 PM
I'm just tired of being held accountable, by non-believers, for the actions of Catholics, a religion I don't even believe in.

Obviously, liberals have no trouble discerning between regular Muslims and the radical Muslims. So why don't Christians get the same courtesy?
There is no such thing as a "catholic religion" Catholicism is the largest part of The Christian Church.

You need to keep your opinions, and your facts separate.

I recognise that some parts of Catholic Dogmatism, and some thing the Catholic Church has done in the past are most dissagreeable, If you want to disown them for their fallen state, that is your perogative. But you cant categorically say that all Catholics Arent Christians...anymore then half the Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, and any generically named Christian is. I would think a lot of those claiming to be Christians are not, I would say to pretend they are all Roman Catholic is just blind prejudice.

As for Extremists...I can almost assure you Nathan that Roman Catholics are now far to busy in ceremonial to be radical beyond their own church walls. The Radicals of this day and age are all Evangelicals, or Pentecostals, the type you see on Street Corners, or the type you see supposedly healing the masses, supposedly throwing their invokation services, which really frighten me....but we dont have Extremists very often anymore..we dont have people going on Crusades against the Islamists...we dont even have people who will put up much of a fight against things like the US Military Burning Bibles...or whatever they did with those Bibles they conviscated

...and FYI...Half this forum cant tell the difference between a Muslim and a Radical Muslim either, not so long ago I might have pegged you within that very bracket.

NateR
06-01-2009, 04:46 PM
There is no such thing as a "catholic religion" Catholicism is the largest part of The Christian Church.

You need to keep your opinions, and your facts separate.

I recognise that some parts of Catholic Dogmatism, and some thing the Catholic Church has done in the past are most dissagreeable, If you want to disown them for their fallen state, that is your perogative. But you cant categorically say that all Catholics Arent Christians...anymore then half the Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, and any generically named Christian is. I would think a lot of those claiming to be Christians are not, I would say to pretend they are all Roman Catholic is just blind prejudice.

As for Extremists...I can almost assure you Nathan that Roman Catholics are now far to busy in ceremonial to be radical beyond their own church walls. The Radicals of this day and age are all Evangelicals, or Pentecostals, the type you see on Street Corners, or the type you see supposedly healing the masses, supposedly throwing their invokation services, which really frighten me....but we dont have Extremists very often anymore..we dont have people going on Crusades against the Islamists...we dont even have people who will put up much of a fight against things like the US Military Burning Bibles...or whatever they did with those Bibles they conviscated

...and FYI...Half this forum cant tell the difference between a Muslim and a Radical Muslim either, not so long ago I might have pegged you within that very bracket.

You need to learn a little more about the separation between Catholics and Protestants. A vast majority of Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christian. They have no part of the Christian Church, that was what the Protestant Reformation was all about.

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 05:08 PM
You need to learn a little more about the separation between Catholics and Protestants. A vast majority of Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christian. They have no part of the Christian Church, that was what the Protestant Reformation was all about.
You need to learn a little bit about the CURRENT view of the Protestant Church is...you also need to learn a bit about the Demographics of the Church.

Firstly...the United States doesnt hold a "majority" of any kind in the Christian Church, because its too sparsely populated. The Majority of the Church is Roman Catholic, which covers a Great Deal of Europe, A Great Deal of Africa, and a Great Deal of Latin America, it also has sections of the United States, Canada, and Asia. After that comes the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Church is the Largest United Body of Protestant Churches in the World...and it includes much of The United States, Much of Africa, Much of the Far East, and parts of Europe. So before you even think to mention a "majority" of Protestants dont view Catholics as Christian, you must first understand that the problem with the Reformation was never about saying the Roman Catholics were not Christian...it was about ending the tyrany and abuse of Power that Rome had, and it was largely spearheaded by nothing more then the selfish desire of an English King...who had no problem with the Catholics...he just wanted to get devorced. Secondly, as the Anglican Communion...which I hasten to add, you are not a member of, is the Majority in terms of the Protestant Church, and England is its First amoung Equals...I can tell you without a Shadow of a doubt, that the VAST Majority of Protestants...which equates to several denominations that are mainly European, and Anglicanism (which includes half the US) would tell you, that you are WRONG

A small number of Pentecostal Churches, A small number of Free Evangelic Style Churches, and a load of Southern Baptists...possibly, the Presbyterians...but I think thats not a certainty, would be the ONLY ones who aggree with you and they all happen to reside in the United States, almost exclusively.

Now, The Roman Catholic Church is not exactly in communion with the Protestant Church, that is True, Conservatives feel the same way about you, that your not really a Christian, because your whole denomination is nothing but a rebellion against them, or a sect they tried to crush at one time for insubordination...but WE accept them! THATS RIGHT...when they come to us, they may Receive Holy Communion...when we go to them, we are told that we may listen but not Receive.

They might have an appauling attitude, but they ARE Christian none the less. If you dissagree, I'm sure I could start to bring you some numbers and some policies of the Majority Protestant, to proove my point.

Again...you are entitiled to your opinion. But please try not to state that as fact, when its nothing more then opinion, and certainly dont try and lecture me about a large part of the foundations of the Church of England, which decides Policy of the majority Church in Protestantism, when I worked in one of its Premiers for several years :rolleyes:

NateR
06-01-2009, 05:20 PM
You need to learn a little bit about the CURRENT view of the Protestant Church is...you also need to learn a bit about the Demographics of the Church.

Firstly...the United States doesnt hold a "majority" of any kind in the Christian Church, because its too sparsely populated. The Majority of the Church is Roman Catholic, which covers a Great Deal of Europe, A Great Deal of Africa, and a Great Deal of Latin America, it also has sections of the United States, Canada, and Asia. After that comes the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Church is the Largest United Body of Protestant Churches in the World...and it includes much of The United States, Much of Africa, Much of the Far East, and parts of Europe. So before you even think to mention a "majority" of Protestants dont view Catholics as Christian, you must first understand that the problem with the Reformation was never about saying the Roman Catholics were not Christian...it was about ending the tyrany and abuse of Power that Rome had, and it was largely spearheaded by nothing more then the selfish desire of an English King...who had no problem with the Catholics...he just wanted to get devorced. Secondly, as the Anglican Communion...which I hasten to add, you are not a member of, is the Majority in terms of the Protestant Church, and England is its First amoung Equals...I can tell you without a Shadow of a doubt, that the VAST Majority of Protestants...which equates to several denominations that are mainly European, and Anglicanism (which includes half the US) would tell you, that you are WRONG

A small number of Pentecostal Churches, A small number of Free Evangelic Style Churches, and a load of Southern Baptists...possibly, the Presbyterians...but I think thats not a certainty, would be the ONLY ones who aggree with you and they all happen to reside in the United States, almost exclusively.

Now, The Roman Catholic Church is not exactly in communion with the Protestant Church, that is True, Conservatives feel the same way about you, that your not really a Christian, because your whole denomination is nothing but a rebellion against them, or a sect they tried to crush at one time for insubordination...but WE accept them! THATS RIGHT...when they come to us, they may Receive Holy Communion...when we go to them, we are told that we may listen but not Receive.

They might have an appauling attitude, but they ARE Christian none the less. If you dissagree, I'm sure I could start to bring you some numbers and some policies of the Majority Protestant, to proove my point.

Again...you are entitiled to your opinion. But please try not to state that as fact, when its nothing more then opinion, and certainly dont try and lecture me about a large part of the foundations of the Church of England, which decides Policy of the majority Church in Protestantism, when I worked in one of its Premiers for several years :rolleyes:

I simply don't care enough to argue with you. You put your faith in human institutions, I put my faith in GOD.

logrus
06-01-2009, 05:46 PM
I simply don't care enough to argue with you. You put your faith in human institutions, I put my faith in GOD.

The same GOD Catholics do =P :tongue0011:

You know history has the C.C as a pretty evil entity. At one time anything said or done had to have the blessing from the C.C.

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 05:55 PM
I simply don't care enough to argue with you. You put your faith in human institutions, I put my faith in GOD.

You care enough to abandon the arguement but attack my personal faith though...


This has nothing to do with Faith In GOD, it has to do with recognising what is your opinion, and what is factual.

The truth is, the largest part of the Christian Church is either Catholic, or recognises that Catholics are Christian, and there is no "majority" in America that you speak of.

There is nothing to argue. I recongise you have an opinion on the matter, but dont try passing that off as fact. There will be some Roman Catholics who are not Christian, as there are in any denomination, but aside from that, its a Valid Denomination of the Church according to the Majority (Nathan Rosarios objection is noted I'm sure :) )

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 05:59 PM
The same GOD Catholics do =P :tongue0011:

You know history has the C.C as a pretty evil entity. At one time anything said or done had to have the blessing from the C.C.
:laugh: It still does, according to them...but they no longer have that kinda power, and have recently...changed their minds on quite a lot of things.

At one time it was thought if you didnt have a Roman Catholic Burrial, even as a Christian, you wouldnt be going to Heeaven. That was the first trick the Pope pulled on Henry when Henry started to be naughty and ignore Rome. The Pope ordered his Priests to stop funerals, and to cease with burrials, and thus the whole population of England would be cut off from Heaven...

...honestly, they were SO up themselves :laugh: :laugh:

Crisco
06-01-2009, 06:35 PM
You care enough to abandon the arguement but attack my personal faith though...


This has nothing to do with Faith In GOD, it has to do with recognising what is your opinion, and what is factual.

The truth is, the largest part of the Christian Church is either Catholic, or recognises that Catholics are Christian, and there is no "majority" in America that you speak of.

There is nothing to argue. I recongise you have an opinion on the matter, but dont try passing that off as fact. There will be some Roman Catholics who are not Christian, as there are in any denomination, but aside from that, its a Valid Denomination of the Church according to the Majority (Nathan Rosarios objection is noted I'm sure :) )

In all fairness he never said the majority don't consider them Christians.. He said many and if you took stock of the born agains here many would agree with Nate.

I believe they are pretty fallen and definately need a wake up call but many of them are still Christians.

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 06:40 PM
In all fairness he never said the majority don't consider them Christians..
many of them are still Christians.
:laugh:

A vast majority of Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christian.

I think that they can be called a Christian Denomination...I dont think that means everyone of them is a Christian :ninja:

Crisco
06-01-2009, 06:43 PM
:laugh:



I think that they can be called a Christian Denomination...I dont think that means everyone of them is a Christian :ninja:


Missed that one.. my bad lol

County Mike
06-01-2009, 06:49 PM
What's all this talk about? The link was found quite some time ago.

http://www.buyingjerseys.com/nba/patrick_ewing.jpg

Crisco
06-01-2009, 06:53 PM
What's all this talk about? The link was found quite some time ago.

This is a funny post

logrus
06-01-2009, 06:54 PM
:laugh: It still does, according to them...but they no longer have that kinda power, and have recently...changed their minds on quite a lot of things.

At one time it was thought if you didnt have a Roman Catholic Burrial, even as a Christian, you wouldnt be going to Heeaven. That was the first trick the Pope pulled on Henry when Henry started to be naughty and ignore Rome. The Pope ordered his Priests to stop funerals, and to cease with burrials, and thus the whole population of England would be cut off from Heaven...

...honestly, they were SO up themselves :laugh: :laugh:

What are you doing, you can't agree with me or acknowledge my intelligence, for you will only anger him... :frantics:

It's kinda sad to back track through history in different areas like science and history to find just how strong the C.C influence was. Not only that but just how ruthless they actually were.

Nate you make it sound like Catholics:scared0015: are devil worshipers sometimes lol.

Josh
06-01-2009, 07:02 PM
What are you doing, you can't agree with me or acknowledge my intelligence, for you will only anger him... :frantics:

It's kinda sad to back track through history in different areas like science and history to find just how strong the C.C influence was. Not only that but just how ruthless they actually were.

Nate you make it sound like Catholics:scared0015: are devil worshipers sometimes lol.
Well Christ said you are either with Him or against Him so if a person believes that Catholics are not saved (I belive some may be but most are not) than they believe that they are devil worshippers.

NateR
06-01-2009, 07:10 PM
Nate you make it sound like Catholics:scared0015: are devil worshipers sometimes lol.

Well, look at the true origins of the Papacy, the worship of the Virgin Mary, holidays like Christmas and Easter, the Rosary, and even the symbol of the cross and you're not far from the truth.

NateR
06-01-2009, 07:15 PM
Well Christ said you are either with Him or against Him so if a person believes that Catholics are not saved (I belive some may be but most are not) than they believe that they are devil worshippers.

Pretty much yes.

And for the record, I believe that there are many true Christians trapped in the Catholic faith, just like there are probably Christians trapped in Mormonisn or the Jehovah's Witness cult. Usually they are either stuck there because of tradition or just plain ignorance. However, that doesn't change the fact that those branches of the religion are too far from the truth to be anything but heresy.

I don't care how the world classifies and categorizes the Christian Church. The world is of Satan, not of GOD, so you can't expect truth and accuracy there.

logrus
06-01-2009, 08:11 PM
Well, look at the true origins of the Papacy, the worship of the Virgin Mary, holidays like Christmas and Easter, the Rosary, and even the symbol of the cross and you're not far from the truth.

Elaborate on all this because I never heard a Christian talk about such things. I can understand the 2 holidays if my memory of it is correct, why anti Mary and Anti cross and rosary?

Crisco
06-01-2009, 08:15 PM
Elaborate on all this because I never heard a Christian talk about such things. I can understand the 2 holidays if my memory of it is correct, why anti Mary and Anti cross and rosary?

The reverence shown to Mary is misplaced. She is called the mother of God and she is not she is the mother to the Human form Jesus Christ. It's technical but she is now prayed to and asked for help and forgiveness. It is idolatry. She is also believed by most catholics to be without sin and that is why God chose her but this is a biblical impossibility as the only Human to ever be sinless was Christ and he was in fact God. So to begin to consider that a human woman was without sin is in itself blasphemy.

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 08:18 PM
Well, look at the true origins of the Papacy, the worship of the Virgin Mary, holidays like Christmas and Easter, the Rosary, and even the symbol of the cross and you're not far from the truth.
and the origins of the Protestant Church is any better????

Rome does not support the worship of Mary, the Holidays were planned to aid the pegan conversion. Whilst I dont believe in Apostolic Succession, in terms of Natural Succession, Benedict does run the same Church that Saint Peter was...I mean the position of Head of the Church of Rome...I just dont believe that the Sucessors carry the same spiritual gifts as Peter.

Like I say...Until you give up your Roman Catholic Scriptures, what your saying is just stupid. If they are wrong, reject the Testament THEY compiled :ninja: but no...you wont...so quit it with the hate :rolleyes:

Crisco
06-01-2009, 08:22 PM
and the origins of the Protestant Church is any better????

Rome does not support the worship of Mary, the Holidays were planned to aid the pegan conversion. Whilst I dont believe in Apostolic Succession, in terms of Natural Succession, Benedict does run the same Church that Saint Peter was...I mean the position of Head of the Church of Rome...I just dont believe that the Sucessors carry the same spiritual gifts as Peter.

Like I say...Until you give up your Roman Catholic Scriptures, what your saying is just stupid. If they are wrong, reject the Testament THEY compiled :ninja: but no...you wont...so quit it with the hate :rolleyes:

They may not say they worship Mary but their actions speak differently.

I attended a catholic wedding recently and before the couple was married they where made to bow before a statue of Mary and place flowers before her statue. If that is not idolatry I don't know what it.

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 08:23 PM
I don't care how the world classifies and categorizes the Christian Church. The world is of Satan, not of GOD, so you can't expect truth and accuracy there.
What you mean is, you choose to believe YOUR categorization over thousands of years of the Majority of the Church.


:laugh:

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 08:26 PM
They may not say they worship Mary but their actions speak differently.

I attended a catholic wedding recently and before the couple was married they where made to bow before a statue of Mary and place flowers before her statue. If that is not idolatry I don't know what it.
Firstly, Rome hasnt got control over all Catholic Churches

Secondly, its a fine line between reverance and worship, left unchecked things can go awry

Josh
06-01-2009, 08:26 PM
and the origins of the Protestant Church is any better????

Rome does not support the worship of Mary, the Holidays were planned to aid the pegan conversion. Whilst I dont believe in Apostolic Succession, in terms of Natural Succession, Benedict does run the same Church that Saint Peter was...I mean the position of Head of the Church of Rome...I just dont believe that the Sucessors carry the same spiritual gifts as Peter.

Like I say...Until you give up your Roman Catholic Scriptures, what your saying is just stupid. If they are wrong, reject the Testament THEY compiled :ninja: but no...you wont...so quit it with the hate :rolleyes:
Dave the origins of the Protestant church happened before the Reformation. The Reformers were simply trying to bring back the truth to the Church. Martin Luther was not even trying to seperate himself from the Catholic church. He was endeavoring to return to the Truth of God as taught in His word.

CAVEMAN
06-01-2009, 08:30 PM
Actually, Catholics also pray in the name of Mary which is not biblical. There is only one mediator between GOD and man and that mediator is the LORD JESUS CHRIST! For a catholic to pray to Mary or any other "said" saint is an pointless, GOD will not hear their prayer!

Crisco
06-01-2009, 08:31 PM
Firstly, Rome hasnt got control over all Catholic Churches

Secondly, its a fine line between reverance and worship, left unchecked things can go awry

Bowing and presenting offering to a statue of Mary sounds to me a LOT like worshipping idols David.

How about this little gem

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen[7] "

All of these things are questionable when it comes to Biblical Christian practice.

Placing the word holy onto any human being is blasphemus.

Crisco
06-01-2009, 08:33 PM
Actually, Catholics also pray in the name of Mary which is not biblical. There is only one mediator between GOD and man and that mediator is the LORD JESUS CHRIST! For a catholic to pray to Mary or any other "said" saint is an pointless, GOD will not hear their prayer!

I disagree with you. God hears all prayer because God knows and see's all. The prayer is misguided but not unheard in my opinion.

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 08:35 PM
Dave the origins of the Protestant church happened before the Reformation.
The majority of it Didnt :laugh:

Like I said, half those reformers wanted to stop Romes abuse of Power, they didnt want to cast Rome off as Unchristian.

Some had theological dissagreements with Rome, fine, thats Church Tradition, and its interpretation. Some people wanted simply to be left alone and to wroship as Christians away from Rome, thats emphasis and freedom. Some people wanted to rid Rome of her abuse of power, Thats an earthly fault in Rome, not a challenge to a pagen institution, Some were simply born out of Revival, and others were created on the whims of a sinner (the latter being the majority of the Protestant Church, Anglicanism of course) :)

In all those circumstances Rome isnt considered as unchristian...just overbearing, abusive, oppressive, dogmatically wrong sometimes, and people were sick of it.

CAVEMAN
06-01-2009, 08:36 PM
Actually, Catholics also pray in the name of Mary which is not biblical. There is only one mediator between GOD and man and that mediator is the LORD JESUS CHRIST! For a catholic to pray to Mary or any other "said" saint is an pointless, GOD will not hear their prayer!

I disagree with you. God hears all prayer because God knows and see's all. The prayer is misguided but not unheard in my opinion.

Look at the LORD'S prayer given by Jesus to his disciples. The prayer begins with OUR FATHER who art in heaven. Not mother mary or saint paul or saint peter etc.....

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 08:38 PM
Actually, Catholics also pray in the name of Mary which is not biblical. There is only one mediator between GOD and man and that mediator is the LORD JESUS CHRIST! For a catholic to pray to Mary or any other "said" saint is an pointless, GOD will not hear their prayer!
No they dont. They ask Mary to pray for them.

Its the SAME as you putting up a prayer request and asking me to pray for you. Except the person your asking, is already departed. Its about the fact that "the Church" includes the departed aswell as those on Earth, they call it "the Communion of saints" again, the Christian Creed includes a statement of belief in "the communion of saints" :rolleyes:

Is it pointless? I believe so. But then they say that there is power in getting other people to pray for you, so perhaps its not pointless

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 08:39 PM
[QUOTE=Crisco]

Look at the LORD'S prayer given by Jesus to his disciples. The prayer begins with OUR FATHER who art in heaven. Not mother mary or saint paul or saint peter etc.....
So you only ever say the Lord prayer?

you never pray anything else???? :huh:

CAVEMAN
06-01-2009, 08:41 PM
No they dont. They ask Mary to pray for them.

Its the SAME as you putting up a prayer request and asking me to pray for you. Except the person your asking, is already departed. Its about the fact that "the Church" includes the departed aswell as those on Earth, they call it "the Communion of saints" again, the Christian Creed includes a statement of belief in "the communion of saints" :rolleyes:

Is it pointless? I believe so. But then they say that there is power in getting other people to pray for you, so perhaps its not pointless

Which is totally unbiblical, Mary is not the mediator between GOD and man. And they do pray to Mary, I have heard the prayer before. My wife used to be catholic.

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 08:41 PM
Bowing and presenting offering to a statue of Mary sounds to me a LOT like worshipping idols David.

How about this little gem

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen[7] "

All of these things are questionable when it comes to Biblical Christian practice.

Placing the word holy onto any human being is blasphemus.

Really?

then perhaps you should see what Mary says of herself in the Scriptures?? The Magnificat in the Gospel she says of herself

"All generations shall call me blessed"

thats where prayers like that originated from. Scripture, its called The Liturgy. You going to dissagree with the Gospel that clearly states "All Generations shall call me blessed" :huh:

Josh
06-01-2009, 08:42 PM
The majority of it Didnt :laugh:

Like I said, half those reformers wanted to stop Romes abuse of Power, they didnt want to cast Rome off as Unchristian.

Some had theological dissagreements with Rome, fine, thats Church Tradition, and its interpretation. Some people wanted simply to be left alone and to wroship as Christians away from Rome, thats emphasis and freedom. Some people wanted to rid Rome of her abuse of power, Thats an earthly fault in Rome, not a challenge to a pagen institution, Some were simply born out of Revival, and others were created on the whims of a sinner (the latter being the majority of the Protestant Church, Anglicanism of course) :)

In all those circumstances Rome isnt considered as unchristian...just overbearing, abusive, oppressive, dogmatically wrong sometimes, and people were sick of it.
Are you kidding?? Have you read the reformers much Dave? I mean on your own without influence? Many believed the pope to be the anti-Christ. They believed Rome to be a satanic cult. Christianity and Catholicism are so different one has to be headed for Hell.

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 08:43 PM
Which is totally unbiblical, Mary is not the mediator between GOD and man. And they do pray to Mary, I have heard the prayer before. My wife used to be catholic.
They ask Mary to pray for them. Or do you want to post the "prayer" TO Mary for us all to read?

No Mary is no more a mediator then I am...but if you put a prayer request on the Forum, I would mediate anyway. When Two or more are gathered in my name.... :ninja:

CAVEMAN
06-01-2009, 08:44 PM
[QUOTE=CAVEMAN]
So you only ever say the Lord prayer?

you never pray anything else???? :huh:

No sir. I'm just saying we need to pray to the Father, not Mary or any of the saints. The LORD'S Prayer was given a guide to prayer. The acronym ACTS = Adoration, Confession, Thankfulness, Supplication.:)

Crisco
06-01-2009, 08:45 PM
Really?

then perhaps you should see what Mary says of herself in the Scriptures?? The Magnificat in the Gospel she says of herself

"All generations shall call me blessed"

thats where prayers like that originated from. Scripture, its called The Liturgy. You going to dissagree with the Gospel that clearly states "All Generations shall call me blessed" :huh:

Indeed she did say she was blessed. So are we all. She cannot be anymore blessed by God then the next woman.

Mary was indeed correct she is blessed but the prayer however over states Mary's importance IMO. I read somewhere that Mary worshipping like actions where instituded in order to make Christianity more palatable to the easterner who where more accustomed to their faith including some form of female Goddess.

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 08:45 PM
Are you kidding?? Have you read the reformers much Dave? I mean on your own without influence? Many believed the pope to be the anti-Christ. They believed Rome to be a satanic cult. Christianity and Catholicism are so different one has to be headed for Hell.
Are you up to date on those Reformers and the current view of the Protestant Church?

We wont confuse things with Vatican Two...but needless to say neither Denomination is what it was 400 odd years ago :laugh:

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 08:48 PM
Indeed she did say she was blessed. So are we all. She cannot be anymore blessed by God then the next woman.

Mary was indeed correct she is blessed but the prayer however over states Mary's importance IMO. I read somewhere that Mary worshipping like actions where instituded in order to make Christianity more palatable to the easterner who where more accustomed to their faith including some form of female Goddess.
well the prayer is standardized for practical reasons.

The Roman Church had to use standardization in order to make sure everyone was doing the same thing. Think of it less like a Prayer, and more like a Memo from the Vatican.

It is also true that the Church did try and do everything within their power to try and make conversion of pagens to Christian as easy as possible...now of course Rome has no control over the world, and all those Catholics...well...its so diverse...with nothing making sure that everything is as it should be...you get huge variations...I will admit that....but better that then a power hungry Rome I think.

CAVEMAN
06-01-2009, 08:49 PM
They ask Mary to pray for them. Or do you want to post the "prayer" TO Mary for us all to read?

No Mary is no more a mediator then I am...but if you put a prayer request on the Forum, I would mediate anyway. When Two or more are gathered in my name.... :ninja:

Look at the prayer Crisco posted. They are clearly praying to Mary as if she has some sort of power to mediate between GOD and man. That is unbiblical.

It also unbiblical to speak or pray to the dead!

Crisco
06-01-2009, 08:52 PM
well the prayer is standardized for practical reasons.

The Roman Church had to use standardization in order to make sure everyone was doing the same thing. Think of it less like a Prayer, and more like a Memo from the Vatican.

It is also true that the Church did try and do everything within their power to try and make conversion of pagens to Christian as easy as possible...now of course Rome has no control over the world, and all those Catholics...well...its so diverse...with nothing making sure that everything is as it should be...you get huge variations...I will admit that....but better that then a power hungry Rome I think.

The Mary rituals are almost universal in the catholic church. Every church I have attended has shown worship like reverence to the "holy mother".

I once asked my girlfriends grandmother who has been a zealous catholic her entire life whether she considered herself a catholic or a christian first and she said a catholic because she felt the other faiths did not pay enough homage to Mary.

Mind you I'm sure among devout catholics that this sentiment is shared.

Josh
06-01-2009, 08:58 PM
Are you up to date on those Reformers and the current view of the Protestant Church?
We wont confuse things with Vatican Two...but needless to say neither Denomination is what it was 400 odd years ago :laugh:
Yes we are probably due for another Reformation. The question really comes down to if a person is going to tow the party line for whatever church they pay homage to or if they are going to love and obey God and His word. Do you think that if you had come to know The Lord on a deserted island by studying God's word you would believe as you do now?

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 09:08 PM
Look at the prayer Crisco posted. They are clearly praying to Mary as if she has some sort of power to mediate between GOD and man. That is unbiblical.

It also unbiblical to speak or pray to the dead!
No, its forbidden to summon up the dead.

But they are simply asking the Church both living (their firends) and departed, to pray with them and for them. I wouldnt do it myself, but I dont think its wrong. And the prayer that Crisco Posted clearly is a request for prayer, not a prayer to "pray for us sinners now, and at the time of our death" or something like that. Sure they pomp up her title a little bit...but the Established Church has always done that...and sometimes GOD thinks that is beautiful...after all, you should read what he wanted the Jews to do to make a person Holy...their priest...so whoever said that a person cant be holy, is wrong aswell. A person can be consecrated, items can be consecrated, and people who come into contact with those items can become consecrated aswell....and what the Priest had to wear...simply for "the beauty" of it.

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 09:09 PM
The Mary rituals are almost universal in the catholic church. Every church I have attended has shown worship like reverence to the "holy mother".

I once asked my girlfriends grandmother who has been a zealous catholic her entire life whether she considered herself a catholic or a christian first and she said a catholic because she felt the other faiths did not pay enough homage to Mary.

Mind you I'm sure among devout catholics that this sentiment is shared.
The Irony is that a True Catholic would probably tell you that if you are not Catholic you are not Christian.

They are wrong aswell :laugh:

CAVEMAN
06-01-2009, 09:11 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

This thread has been totally hijacked!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 09:11 PM
Yes we are probably due for another Reformation. The question really comes down to if a person is going to tow the party line for whatever church they pay homage to or if they are going to love and obey God and His word. Do you think that if you had come to know The Lord on a deserted island by studying God's word you would believe as you do now?
it happened once

To King Tutankhamuns Father...Achnatum I believe....and no, it wasnt quite Rome...but he did creat his own City in the desert Dedicated to the One GOD...when he died, after naming his Son, Tut-ankh-amun (Eternal Life in ONE GOD) the Egyptians went back to their pagen gods...and his Son got murdered :ninja:

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 09:14 PM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

This thread has been totally hijacked!!!!!!!!!!!!
:ashamed: I think that was my fault :ashamed:

CAVEMAN
06-01-2009, 09:14 PM
No, its forbidden to summon up the dead.

But they are simply asking the Church both living (their firends) and departed, to pray with them and for them. I wouldnt do it myself, but I dont think its wrong. And the prayer that Crisco Posted clearly is a request for prayer, not a prayer to "pray for us sinners now, and at the time of our death" or something like that. Sure they pomp up her title a little bit...but the Established Church has always done that...and sometimes GOD thinks that is beautiful...after all, you should read what he wanted the Jews to do to make a person Holy...their priest...so whoever said that a person cant be holy, is wrong aswell. A person can be consecrated, items can be consecrated, and people who come into contact with those items can become consecrated aswell....and what the Priest had to wear...simply for "the beauty" of it.

Praying to the dead is strictly forbidden in the Bible. Deuteronomy 18:11 tells us that anyone who “consults with the dead” is “detestable to the Lord.” The story of Saul consulting a medium to bring up the spirit of the dead Samuel resulted in his death “because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance” (1 Samuel 28:1-25; 1 Chronicles 10:13-14). Clearly God has declared that such things are not to be done.

Consider the characteristics of God. God is omnipresent—everywhere at once—and is capable of hearing every prayer in the world (Psalm 139:7-12). A human being, on the other hand, does not possess this attribute. Also, God is the only one with the power to answer prayer. In this regard, God is omnipotent—all powerful (Revelation 19:6). Certainly this is an attribute a human being—dead or alive—does not possess. Finally, God is omniscient—He knows everything (Psalm 147:4-5). Even before we pray God knows our genuine needs, and knows them better then we do. Not only does He know my needs, but He answers my prayers according to His perfect will.

So in relation to the attributes of God, in order for a dead person to receive prayers the dead individual has to hear the prayer, possess the power to answer it, and know how to answer it in a way that is best for the individual praying. Only God hears and answers prayer because of His perfect essence. This perfect essence includes what some theologians call “immanence.” Immanence is the doctrine that affirms God is directly involved with the affairs of mankind (1 Timothy 6:14-15), which includes answering prayer.

Even after a person dies, God is still involved with that person and his destination. Hebrews 9:27 says so: “…man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment.” If a person dies in Christ, he goes to heaven to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:1-9, especially verse 8); if a person dies in his sin, he goes to hell, where eventually everyone in hell will be thrown into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14-15).

A person suffering in agony will not be able to hear or answer a prayer, nor will a person who is living in heavenly bliss with God. If we pray to someone and they are in eternal agony, should we expect them to be able to hear and answer our prayers? Likewise, a person in heaven has no concern for that which is on earth, so should I expect him to be concerned for my temporal problems? God has provided His Son, Jesus Christ, to be the mediator between man and God (1 Timothy 2:5). Since Jesus Christ is the mediator between the two parties, we can go through Jesus to God. Since we can go through the Son of God, why would we want to go through a sinful dead individual, especially when doing so risks the wrath of God on us?

Crisco
06-01-2009, 09:15 PM
it happened once

To King Tutankhamuns Father...Achnatum I believe....and no, it wasnt quite Rome...but he did creat his own City in the desert Dedicated to the One GOD...when he died, after naming his Son, Tut-ankh-amun (Eternal Life in ONE GOD) the Egyptians went back to their pagen gods...and his Son got murdered :ninja:

Actually his son was infact still very much a pagan and was the one who brought egypt back into the fold.

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 09:41 PM
1)So in relation to the attributes of God, in order for a dead person to receive prayers the dead individual has to hear the prayer, possess the power to answer it, and know how to answer it in a way that is best for the individual praying.

2)A person suffering in agony will not be able to hear or answer a prayer, nor will a person who is living in heavenly bliss with God. If

Likewise, a person in heaven has no concern for that which is on earth, so should I expect him to be concerned for my temporal problems?

1) Noone prays to the saints...they ask the Saints to pray to GOD with them/for them

2) I dont think you can know that

Question for you. If you were in need would you ask other people to pray for/with you? :huh:

Tyburn
06-01-2009, 09:44 PM
Actually his son was infact still very much a pagan and was the one who brought egypt back into the fold.
Probably so...he also go murdered though didnt he...and...well...His name says it all.

Remember in Ancient Times your name was considered sorta sacred and His Father gave him a very special name :laugh: People miss it because they mis pronounce his name as Tutan-khamun. But it is infact supposed to be Tut-Ankh-Amun. Ankh is the Egyptian for Eternal Life, Amun is often the singualr used for an overall diety. :ninja: :laugh:

logrus
06-02-2009, 01:06 AM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

This thread has been totally hijacked!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thats because I already won the argument in terms of space. Notice it then switched to a religion debate and since I know brief religion, I just let the few bible nuts at it, and in the end I will stand alone..

So yes I already took my victory trophy into the next forums to dominate.