GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Sure I heard about Lot's wife being turned to salt (and she supposedly deserved it too );
Even at 8 years old I thought the story was a sad ripoff of "Orpheus and Euridice" (and who knows, there were/are probably older stories with a similar plot).
This one from Deuteronomy 14 is also interesting, and kind of gross for any gentiles living in a jewish community:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 14:21
Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an alien living in any of your
towns, and he may eat it, or you may sell it to a foreigner.
Make sure your accent doesnt give you away when you are at the butcher's!
What the church teaches about "Sacred Scripture" is irrelevant to any discussion of facts other than possibly a discussion on what churches teach.
Irrelevancy isn't an argument. Considering that the Catholic Church has been the preserver of Scripture throughout the ages, and that the Church was given the teaching authority in matters of faith and morals by God, I think what the Church has to say on the subject is quite relevant.
@easuter: The Mosaic laws on cleanliness goes towards demonstrating the existence of God. If you look back at that time - ~2000-500 B.C.- if you look at the various cultures and doctors at that time, the cure was often worse than illness. Maybe eat a bat's head or eye of a crocodile, etc.
But, if you investigate the Mosaic laws, they are very hygienic. If an animal dies, and you don't know what killed it, stay away. If someone is sick, isolate them from the rest of the community. If you have a sore, go wash in running water.
How would they know these things back then when we didn't know them until about 200 years ago. Quarantines, washing wounds, etc. They couldn't possibly of known about germs back then - and their surrounding nations didn't have this level of knowledge either.
God revealed these things to them to protect them.
How would they know these things back then when we didn't know them until about 200 years ago. Quarantines, washing wounds, etc. They couldn't possibly of known about germs back then - and their surrounding nations didn't have this level of knowledge either.
God revealed these things to them to protect them.
Oh puhlease. You don't have to know about the existence of germs to discover that clean is better than dirty. Over time, people noticed that clean people were less sickly than dirty people. Our sense of smell developed as it did because those that didn't smell rot and decay didn't live to carry on the tradition. Etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. It's called evolution.
There is never a reason that there *must* be a god(s) for anything to happen. In spite of that, people continue to find excuses to believe in the existence of a god(s).
Irrelevancy isn't an argument. Considering that the Catholic Church has been the preserver of Scripture throughout the ages, and that the Church was given the teaching authority in matters of faith and morals by God, I think what the Church has to say on the subject is quite relevant.
This is a tautology; a circular self-referent argument. You are arguing both sides of the argument with the presumption that the other is true. If you take away the belief that there is a God, then the church becomes the irrelevant creature it is.
The New Testament is an anthology, carefully selected by Church Councils in the 4th Century from a mass of available documents. Selected and edited to mold the newly adopted religion to the requirements of the Councils' Roman masters.
The actual, historical Jesus was most likely a fundamentalist Jew, a hell-fire preacher and revolutionary, who would never consider starting his own religion.
While you are correct about the Church Councils*, the rest is inaccurate. The nonsense of the Romans inventing Christianity has been stirred up mainly by a certain Dan Brown. But, if you read any credible historian, you find that this is not the case. Historical records clearly show Christians since the very beginning (1st century) - i.e., Josephus and Pliny the Younger.
From the very beginning, it was the same Catholic Church as today - the name Catholic Church (Greek: katholikos ekklesia) being derived from a composite of Acts 9:31 "the Church throughout all" (Greek: ekklesia kath olos). The first time it is used as a name for the Church was by Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (chapter 8).
Starting within the first 30 years after the Resurrection, the Church suffered significantly under the persecution of the Roman Empire. This continued on and off in waves of persecutions and martyrdoms until the 4th century. In 313, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan - which proclaimed that Christianity was no longer outlawed. Then in 325 the First Council of Nicea was convened to combat the heresy of Arianism that cropped up ~319. Christianity didn't become the official religion of the Roman Empire (at that point centered not in Rome, but in Constantinople - modern day Istanbul) until Emperor Theodosius made it the state religion in 380. Even though it was the official religion, the emperors did not control the Church.
* The Canon of Scripture is from the Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the late 4th/early 5th century. Saint Athanasius in the 4th century is the first who had a canon identical to what we now have, though there were early lists that were close to that at Carthage and Hippo. For instance, there were many who thought the First Letter of Saint Clement to the Corinthians should be included, but was left out because it was not written by an Apostle (Pope Saint Clement was of the first/second generation of Christians after the Apostles).
As for the historical Jesus - Jesus was the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Jesus is the Son of God, begotten of the Father from all ages. He is Light of Light and very God of very God. For our sake, in the fullness of time, He took on our humanity and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary. Saint Joseph was His foster-father. After a brief exile in Egypt, they settled and lived in Nazareth in Galilee. There Saint Joseph made a humble living as a carpenter and Jesus would have become his apprentice as He came of age. They were faithful and observant Jews, traveling every year to Jerusalem for the Passover. When Jesus was ~30, He began His public ministry. This lasted for ~3 years until He was arrested, beaten, and finally crucified by Pontius Pilate. Three days later, in fulfillment of the Scriptures, He rose from the dead. 40 days later, He ascended into Heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father. And He will come again some day to judge the living and the dead.
Jesus came to fulfill the Old Covenant and to establish the New and Eternal Covenant. He founded His Church on Saint Peter, who is the visible source and foundation of unity in the Church. By His promise, hell shall not prevail against the Church, no matter how hard the enemy tries. He gave to the Church the authority to bind and loose, to forgive sins and retain sins, and to be the Sacrament of Salvation. Within the Church is the only ordinary means of obtaining salvation.
Through the Church, God bestows upon mankind His grace, primarily via the Sacraments. Baptism is the entry into the Christian life. with it, we die to sin and rise to life in Christ. We are washed of sin and made pure and holy in His sight.
In the Sacrament of Confession, we are forgiven those sins we commit after baptism. Sacramental Confession is the only ordinary means to obtain forgiveness of serious sin.
The Sacrament of Confirmation marks us and bestows on us the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Gift which contains all gifts. In the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick, we are given strength in times of ill health.
In the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the ministerial priesthood is perpetuated. In the Sacrament of Marriage, man and woman are joined in a lifelong union.
And in the Sacrament of Sacraments, the Most Holy Sacrament, the Blessed Eucharist, Jesus comes to us in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity under the guise of bread and wine. He is truly and substantially present and falling down we adore Him.
Oh puhlease. You don't have to know about the existence of germs to discover that clean is better than dirty. Over time, people noticed that clean people were less sickly than dirty people. Our sense of smell developed as it did because those that didn't smell rot and decay didn't live to carry on the tradition. Etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. It's called evolution.
There is never a reason that there *must* be a god(s) for anything to happen. In spite of that, people continue to find excuses to believe in the existence of a god(s).
And yet, only the Chosen People actually employed these 'common sense' practices in the ancient world.
There is never a reason that there *must* be a god(s) for anything to happen. In spite of that, people continue to find excuses to believe in the existence of a god(s).
\
Actually, there isn't any reason to *not* believe in God. The very glory of creation proclaims the splendor of the Creator.
For humans, we are contingent beings, which means we can do nothing without God's permission.
This is a tautology; a circular self-referent argument. You are arguing both sides of the argument with the presumption that the other is true. If you take away the belief that there is a God, then the church becomes the irrelevant creature it is.
We can always start from God. God's very nature is to exist. He is reality (a good working definition of insanity is to be out of touch with reality - that is to be out of touch with God). God is an anchor we can always depend on.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.