Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

IRQ Conflict wrote:Gal 5:2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Gal 5:3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
Gal 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
Gal 5:6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.


God Bless

Exactly my point, IRQ. Need I really quote the other side of scripture that clearly shows works? Ok, here we go. Since you quoted 5, I could quote 10. Then you'll probably come back with 20, at which time I will respond with 40. And so on it goes. What will we have proven in the end? Is it that the bible is contradictory? Of course not. Like I said, it only means that scripture needs to be taken in its totality, rather than pick and choose what supports a particular point of view versus another.

Here are just a few:

Matthew 28:19 wrote:Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

James 5:16 wrote:Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

Matthew 19:17 wrote:17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

Revelation 14:12 wrote:This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.

Acts 2:38 wrote:Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

I think you missed what I was trying to say.

(1) You fall from grace if you think your works in the law will avail anything. You make Christ and His sacrifice of no effect to you. In other words you are not saved by your works.

And further:
(2) It goes on to tell how the faith in Christ "works". "but faith which worketh by love"

There are no for or against arguments in the Bible. They compliment each other. As I stated above, faith without works is dead, works without Christ is vain.

Paul further writes:

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Gal 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.

That said, God alone is able to dicern the intentions of our heart, no one else. Here man can go seriously wrong and is why it is written "judge not".

I disagree that this leads to salvation by faith plus. This is probably the crux of the misunderstanding between the RCC and the reformation. The RCC is mistakenly believed to advocate salvation by faith and works. That is totally wrong. Pope John Paul II himself unequivocally stated in the second council that salvation is by grace alone, which is a free gift from God; nothing a person can do to earn it. This teaching is unmistakable and I believe that with all my heart and soul.

Fair 'nuff, but you have to accept that your version of "faith alone" is very different from ours. You have to work to maintain your salvation. So, salvation is by faith plus works to maintain . . .

Where we differ in opinion as well as understanding of scripture is in the process of salvation itself. You believe that salvation is a one-time event that occurs the moment a person is born again. I'm not sure where you stand on Once saved, always saved but I tend to think you agree with it wholeheartedly.

Stated well and correctly.

Catholics, on the other hand, we believe that salvation is not a one-time process but a continuous one. It starts with baptism, then confirmation, all the way through the 7 sacraments. It does not stop until death and even after. God bestowed upon us his grace of salvation freely through Jesus Christ. But that gift must be MAINTAINED, otherwise we can fall out of grace. Like any other gift, it is given free but what the person does with it is up to them. They can nurture it, cherish it, make it grow and blossom. Or they can neglect it or toss it in the garbage.

I'm familiar with the idea. Would you agree that, from our perspective, this can be rightly labeled "faith plus"? I can see how you would reject the label youself, but again, in contrast with what we understand things to be . . .

Truth of the matter is that there's ample evidence in scripture to support this point of view. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. It reconciles judgement based on works with salvation by grace alone. It makes me look at scripture in its totality, rather than try to defend bits and pieces that conform to a certain ideology.

Needless to say, I argue that I have taken Scripture as a whole, and will continue to do so. But, I am not going to add to the Gospel what the Gospel doesn't add to itself. When Jesus says, "He who believes in me has eternal life" I believe that.

That is why in the beginning of this thread I asked the question regarding judgment. You adequately answered your point of view by arguing the different types of judgement and the fact that one must consider the audience when reading scripture and trying to interpret who is going to be judged, when, and based on what. You see to me, that line of thinking simply makes no sense. If we are to interpret scripture related to judgement solely based on who the audience was then we must interpret all scripture that way as well. I'm sure you know the consequences of doing so.

I'm not sure why this makes no sense. As you said, you have to take the totality of Scripture into consideration. Besides, of course we have to consider the audience. We have to consider the occasion, the date, etc. All of this goes into our understanding.

Would you agree with the idea that Scripture was written to a particular people at a particular place in a particular time for a particular purpose to convey a particular message? If so, then would you agree that in order to understand that message, we need to understand the above mentioned particulars?

For the record, that is the way I interpret all of Scripture. So, I'm not sure what "consequences" you are talking of?

No, when scripture says all will be judged then I take it to mean all will be judged. Whosoever heard those words a couple of millennia ago, would not have stopped to look around and see who's listening, to determine if what he's hearing applies to him or not. It applied to all then and it applies to all now.

Again, I agree that all will be judged, as I said before. But, that doesn't mean that all will be judged at the same time in the same way. Daniel makes it clear that there is a resurrection of the righteous and another of the wicked. The Sheep and Goats judgment clearly isn't the same as the Great White Throne Judgment, and it would be hard to make either of these the same as the Judgment Seat of Christ.

Anyway, I think you may have missed what I was saying a little bit. When I say determine the audience, that's really a bit misleading. It is true that in very general terms, that can apply, but the Revelation was written to Christians, and none of them will find themselves in the GWTJ. Rather, I was actually referring to identifying who the party was to be judged in each account. All men are judged, yes. But, not all men take part in all judgments.

I don't really want to take up a massive debate to prove anything here. If the convo. I'm having with Dan goes much further, we'll have to break it into another thread. But, so far as clarification goes, I'm fine with anything along those lines.

On the lines of clarification, then: if salvation is by grace through faith alone, but we have to work to maintain salvation, then how is it that we cannot boast in our works? Why couldn't John Paul "brag" about staying faithful until the end? It seems to me that Paul did this very thing in 2 Timothy. If this is so, how is this reconciled with the idea that we cannot boast in our salvation?

Jac3510 wrote:

I disagree that this leads to salvation by faith plus. This is probably the crux of the misunderstanding between the RCC and the reformation. The RCC is mistakenly believed to advocate salvation by faith and works. That is totally wrong. Pope John Paul II himself unequivocally stated in the second council that salvation is by grace alone, which is a free gift from God; nothing a person can do to earn it. This teaching is unmistakable and I believe that with all my heart and soul.

Fair 'nuff, but you have to accept that your version of "faith alone" is very different from ours. You have to work to maintain your salvation. So, salvation is by faith plus works to maintain . . .

It is different only in the sense that our respective fundamental understandings of salvation are different. However (and this is a big HOWEVER), I believe the end result is the same.

Jac3510 wrote:

Where we differ in opinion as well as understanding of scripture is in the process of salvation itself. You believe that salvation is a one-time event that occurs the moment a person is born again. I'm not sure where you stand on Once saved, always saved but I tend to think you agree with it wholeheartedly.

Stated well and correctly.

Catholics, on the other hand, we believe that salvation is not a one-time process but a continuous one. It starts with baptism, then confirmation, all the way through the 7 sacraments. It does not stop until death and even after. God bestowed upon us his grace of salvation freely through Jesus Christ. But that gift must be MAINTAINED, otherwise we can fall out of grace. Like any other gift, it is given free but what the person does with it is up to them. They can nurture it, cherish it, make it grow and blossom. Or they can neglect it or toss it in the garbage.

I'm familiar with the idea. Would you agree that, from our perspective, this can be rightly labeled "faith plus"? I can see how you would reject the label youself, but again, in contrast with what we understand things to be . . .

Maybe from your perspective but you see correctly that we certainly do reject the label. Yet another glaring example of the subjective interpretation of scripture.

Jac3510 wrote:

Truth of the matter is that there's ample evidence in scripture to support this point of view. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. It reconciles judgement based on works with salvation by grace alone. It makes me look at scripture in its totality, rather than try to defend bits and pieces that conform to a certain ideology.

Needless to say, I argue that I have taken Scripture as a whole, and will continue to do so. But, I am not going to add to the Gospel what the Gospel doesn't add to itself. When Jesus says, "He who believes in me has eternal life" I believe that.

Of course I believe that too. But what do we do when Jesus, Peter, John and James say 'obey the commandments', or 'do this in memory of me' or 'repent and be baptized' or 'baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit'. Are we to disregard them?

Jac3510 wrote:

That is why in the beginning of this thread I asked the question regarding judgment. You adequately answered your point of view by arguing the different types of judgement and the fact that one must consider the audience when reading scripture and trying to interpret who is going to be judged, when, and based on what. You see to me, that line of thinking simply makes no sense. If we are to interpret scripture related to judgement solely based on who the audience was then we must interpret all scripture that way as well. I'm sure you know the consequences of doing so.

I'm not sure why this makes no sense. As you said, you have to take the totality of Scripture into consideration. Besides, of course we have to consider the audience. We have to consider the occasion, the date, etc. All of this goes into our understanding.

Would you agree with the idea that Scripture was written to a particular people at a particular place in a particular time for a particular purpose to convey a particular message? If so, then would you agree that in order to understand that message, we need to understand the above mentioned particulars?

No, I would not agree with the above. I would tend to think scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit to be ageless and to pertain to all peoples everywhere. That is what made it endure throughout the ages and that's what will make it endure forever more.

Jac3510 wrote:For the record, that is the way I interpret all of Scripture. So, I'm not sure what "consequences" you are talking of?

The consequences of each person interpreting scripture differently as evidently has occurred.

Jac3510 wrote:

No, when scripture says all will be judged then I take it to mean all will be judged. Whosoever heard those words a couple of millennia ago, would not have stopped to look around and see who's listening, to determine if what he's hearing applies to him or not. It applied to all then and it applies to all now.

Again, I agree that all will be judged, as I said before. But, that doesn't mean that all will be judged at the same time in the same way. Daniel makes it clear that there is a resurrection of the righteous and another of the wicked. The Sheep and Goats judgment clearly isn't the same as the Great White Throne Judgment, and it would be hard to make either of these the same as the Judgment Seat of Christ.

Anyway, I think you may have missed what I was saying a little bit. When I say determine the audience, that's really a bit misleading. It is true that in very general terms, that can apply, but the Revelation was written to Christians, and none of them will find themselves in the GWTJ. Rather, I was actually referring to identifying who the party was to be judged in each account. All men are judged, yes. But, not all men take part in all judgments.

I don't really want to take up a massive debate to prove anything here. If the convo. I'm having with Dan goes much further, we'll have to break it into another thread. But, so far as clarification goes, I'm fine with anything along those lines.

Not an issue. I'm quite satisfied with your explanations and to an extent I understand your position.

Jac3510 wrote:On the lines of clarification, then: if salvation is by grace through faith alone, but we have to work to maintain salvation, then how is it that we cannot boast in our works? Why couldn't John Paul "brag" about staying faithful until the end? It seems to me that Paul did this very thing in 2 Timothy. If this is so, how is this reconciled with the idea that we cannot boast in our salvation?

It is really very simple. It all depends on what was meant by 'boasting'. Did it mean boasting that our salvation was purchased by works or did it mean boasting that certain people were selectively picked by God due to their works? Big difference. The way I see it, I have nothing to boast about because God freely gave me, as well as anyone else, his gift of salvation. I cannot boast because I'm not so different from anyone else. God's gift is ours to keep if we so choose. There's nothing boastful, however, in working to keep this precious gift. Hope this clears up my position (though I'm sure you will disagree with it).

Always in Christ,

Byblos.

SUGAAAAA wrote:I agree that Catholics are Christians, and although I come from a Catholic backround, I really havent studied the scriptures enough to really comment upon their beliefs and doctrines... But I believe Catholics are saved, but you dont necessarily have to be one to be saved.


Also, Catholics do not pray to Saints, let alone pray to them instead of Jesus...

How can you know that catholics are saved when you haven't read what Jesus has to say about it? Do you think people are authorities on heaven and hell or Jesus?

Sorry, but I've been on several forums where catholics themselves defend their practice of praying to saints. So I'd suggest you become more informed about your beliefs instead of just making them up from youre imagination.

Carico wrote:

SUGAAAAA wrote:I agree that Catholics are Christians, and although I come from a Catholic backround, I really havent studied the scriptures enough to really comment upon their beliefs and doctrines... But I believe Catholics are saved, but you dont necessarily have to be one to be saved.


Also, Catholics do not pray to Saints, let alone pray to them instead of Jesus...

How can you know that catholics are saved when you haven't read what Jesus has to say about it? Do you think people are authorities on heaven and hell or Jesus?

Sorry, but I've been on several forums where catholics themselves defend their practice of praying to saints. So I'd suggest you become more informed about your beliefs instead of just making them up from youre imagination.

Carico,

There are uninformed and misguided souls in every religion, denomination or sect. The fact that you've known Catholics who defend the practice of praying to saints does not in any way make them the authority on Catholicism nor you an eyewitness to the truth about it. I've said this many times and will say it again, the practice of praying to the saints, or to Mary for that matter, is in no way an act of worship. It is for the request of intercessory prayers due to the special relationship Mary and the saints have with Jesus. It is no different than you asking for your mother to pray for you. Ignorance is much worse than an active imagination. Please do not condemn or stereotype an entire denomination because of the ignorance of the few (and yes, there are many 'few' considering there are more than a billion Catholics).

God bless,

Byblos.

considering there are more than a billion Catholics

Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

the practice of praying to the saints, or to Mary for that matter, is in no way an act of worship. It is for the request of intercessory prayers due to the special relationship Mary and the saints have with Jesus.

Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Where in the Bible does it command us to pray to saints for anything?

Job 5:1 Call now, if there be any that will answer thee; and to which of the saints wilt thou turn?

Job 15:4 Yea, thou castest off fear, and restrainest prayer before God.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 15:15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.

Mat 6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

I in no way condemn based on denomination, only God knows the heart. But from what I see catholics practice is against the Word of God and should be put away. Praying in spirit, The Holy Spirit is our intercessor not any saints!

IRQ Conflict wrote:

considering there are more than a billion Catholics

Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

the practice of praying to the saints, or to Mary for that matter, is in no way an act of worship. It is for the request of intercessory prayers due to the special relationship Mary and the saints have with Jesus.

Rom 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Rom 8:27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Where in the Bible does it command us to pray to saints for anything?

Job 5:1 Call now, if there be any that will answer thee; and to which of the saints wilt thou turn?

Job 15:4 Yea, thou castest off fear, and restrainest prayer before God.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?
Job 15:15 Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.

Mat 6:8 Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Mat 6:11 Give us this day our daily bread.
Mat 6:12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
Mat 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.

I in no way condemn based on denomination, only God knows the heart. But from what I see catholics practice is against the Word of God and should be put away. Praying in spirit, The Holy Spirit is our intercessor not any saints!

So are you saying because our Father knows our needs there's no need for prayer at all then? In any case, I do not fault you for seeing it the way you do. You are not familiar with the doctrine nor the practice. There's absolutely nothing unbiblical about it. I've had this discussion many times and have no intention of having it again. What makes me chuckle is every time I mention there are a billion Catholics someone feels the need to mention Mat 22:14 as if somehow numbers are a source of condemnation. How many Protestants are there, a few hundred million? Do you think only a few of them are chosen? If not, then why not? Suffice it to say I am Catholic and at times I ask Mary and the saints to pray for me in the same manner I ask my 80-year old mother to pray for me. And guess what, I believe with all my heart and soul that Jesus Christ is my Lord and my Saviour and nothing will distract me from that belief; somehow I manage to hold on to it. Go figure!

Always in Christ (always),

Byblos.

So are you saying because our Father knows our needs there's no need for prayer at all then?

No.

In any case, I do not fault you for seeing it the way you do. You are not familiar with the doctrine nor the practice.

More to the point, I am not catholic, and the Scriptures do not support this 'doctrine'.

There's absolutely nothing unbiblical about it.

If you cannot back it up by Scripture, I would say there is nothing biblical about it.

I've had this discussion many times and have no intention of having it again.

Ok, point me to the relevant post(s) so I (and others) may see where it is you feel justified in the doctrine.

What makes me chuckle is every time I mention there are a billion Catholics someone feels the need to mention Mat 22:14 as if somehow numbers are a source of condemnation.

Not at all, it's you that seems to think that the numbers can dictate who is right and who is wrong. If everytime you mention the superior numbers of catholicism is rebuked by quoting Mathew 22:14 it should be telling you something.

How many Protestants are there, a few hundred million? Do you think only a few of them are chosen? If not, then why not?

I in no way condemn based on denomination, only God knows the heart.

However the actions and deeds we can discern through the Word of God. I believe a great many from many denominations will make it to heaven, and many more still will not.

Suffice it to say I am Catholic and at times I ask Mary and the saints to pray for me in the same manner I ask my 80-year old mother to pray for me.

Will you continue to ask your mother to pray for you after she goes home to the Lord? Or will you obey the Lord and pray to the Father?

And guess what, I believe with all my heart and soul that Jesus Christ is my Lord and my Saviour and nothing will distract me from that belief; somehow I manage to hold on to it. Go figure!

Wonderful! for if you didn't you would not see the Kingdom of heaven. Only God knows your heart Byblos. God is the only one qualified to do that. However as believers we are commanded to test the spirits and to use the Word to discern right action from wrong, if we did not, then anything goes right?

Mar 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
Mar 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mar 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

So are you saying because our Father knows our needs there's no need for prayer at all then?

No.

In any case, I do not fault you for seeing it the way you do. You are not familiar with the doctrine nor the practice.

More to the point, I am not catholic, and the Scriptures do not support this 'doctrine'.

There's absolutely nothing unbiblical about it.

If you cannot back it up by Scripture, I would say there is nothing biblical about it.

I've had this discussion many times and have no intention of having it again.

Ok, point me to the relevant post(s) so I (and others) may see where it is you feel justified in the doctrine.

Apparently you did not read this thread from the beginning. Please do so.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

What makes me chuckle is every time I mention there are a billion Catholics someone feels the need to mention Mat 22:14 as if somehow numbers are a source of condemnation.

Not at all, it's you that seems to think that the numbers can dictate who is right and who is wrong. If everytime you mention the superior numbers of catholicism is rebuked by quoting Mathew 22:14 it should be telling you something.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. Where did I use numbers to indicate superiority? That is simply false. What I said was there are few among many who are misguided. And since there are so many Catholics a few could be a large number. That's what I meant.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

How many Protestants are there, a few hundred million? Do you think only a few of them are chosen? If not, then why not?

I in no way condemn based on denomination, only God knows the heart.

However the actions and deeds we can discern through the Word of God. I believe a great many from many denominations will make it to heaven, and many more still will not.

And I agree.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Suffice it to say I am Catholic and at times I ask Mary and the saints to pray for me in the same manner I ask my 80-year old mother to pray for me.

Will you continue to ask your mother to pray for you after she goes home to the Lord? Or will you obey the Lord and pray to the Father?

I pray to the Lord every chance I get. And if my mother is canonized a saint (a prospect not too far off from reality by the way (who doesn't think of their mother as a saint, right?)) you bet your bottom dollar I will continue to ask her to pray for me.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

And guess what, I believe with all my heart and soul that Jesus Christ is my Lord and my Saviour and nothing will distract me from that belief; somehow I manage to hold on to it. Go figure!

Wonderful! for if you didn't you would not see the Kingdom of heaven. Only God knows your heart Byblos. God is the only one qualified to do that.

Yes, I know. And I'm grateful for and very mindful of that. That is precisely why I don't give much weight for friendly discussions like this, as the intention is simply to enlighten rather than to change.

IRQ Conflict wrote: However as believers we are commanded to test the spirits and to use the Word to discern right action from wrong, if we did not, then anything goes right?

Well, we already know what happened after the reformation. Anything did go, didn't it? Just look at the staggering number of Christian denominations, each one of which professes to understand scripture better than the other.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. Where did I use numbers to indicate superiority? That is simply false. What I said was there are few among many who are misguided. And since there are so many Catholics a few could be a large number. That's what I meant.

Sorry Byblos, I messed the quote up, at any rate there are a large number of catholics that need to know a lot of what comes from papal authority is straight from the pits of hell.

I know that some may not subscribe to the whole thing, but if it were me I would denounce that denomination altogether.

Here is a site that points to the many flawed beliefs of the RCC.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Now you're putting words in my mouth. Where did I use numbers to indicate superiority? That is simply false. What I said was there are few among many who are misguided. And since there are so many Catholics a few could be a large number. That's what I meant.

Sorry Byblos, I messed the quote up,

No sweat.

IRQ Conflict wrote:at any rate there are a large number of catholics that need to know a lot of what comes from papal authority is straight from the pits of hell.

Hmm, you seem to be very fond of the source you site below. You quoted them almost verbatim.

IRQ Conflict wrote: I know that some may not subscribe to the whole thing, but if it were me I would denounce that denomination altogether.

No offense, IRQ, but I guess I should thank the Lord it is not up to you, considering the sources you site.

IRQ Conflict wrote:Here is a site that points to the many flawed beliefs of the RCC.

Yes, I'm familiar with this site and many others. You could almost feel the love, don't you? According to the site if you don't read the KJB then don't even bother calling yourself a Christian. It is so wrong on so many levels it's not even worth a nanosecond of anyone's time, Catholic or otherwise.

Stay well, IRQ. I do rather enjoy reading your posts and look forward to many more.

God bless,

Byblos.

I know that site seems a bit harsh, and I thought it had more of a tabloid feel to it.

But as I read their articles it seems to be right on track for the most part. I didn't get the feeling they were KJV or death? What did you read that made you feel that way?

Do you disagree with what they say about catholic beliefs? Do you not believe what God say's about catholicism?
Mary Queen of Heaven

Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Look into the "Ustachi"
The rabbit hole goes very deep with the RCC.

Byblos wrote: Hmm, you seem to be very fond of the source you site below. You quoted them almost verbatim.

Truth is Truth friend.

IRQ Conflict wrote: I know that some may not subscribe to the whole thing, but if it were me I would denounce that denomination altogether.

No offense, IRQ, but I guess I should thank the Lord it is not up to you, considering the sources you site.

What I meant was If I were in that denomintation I would leave it. Everything I have read and checked with either scripture or secular sources has been confirmed.

Yes, I'm familiar with this site and many others. You could almost feel the love, don't you?

All I see are Christians trying to expose the RCC and their heresies trying to warn the good catholics of it so they might not be damned with the papacy they blindly follow. There is love there. Do not take it as a personal attack Byblos. Take it for what it is, a warning.

I know it might sound harsh Byblos, but I'd rather offend you and see you saved than not try at all.

It's interesting to note that the word Bible stems from Byblos.

Byblos is located on the Mediterranean coast of present-day Lebanon, about 26 miles (42 kilometers) north of Beirut.

During the Roman period, the temple of Resheph was elaborately rebuilt, and the city, though smaller than its neighbours such as Tyre and Sidon, was a centre for the cult of Adonis. In the 3rd century, a small but impressive theatre was constructed. The coming of the Byzantine Empire resulted in the establishment of a bishop's seat in Byblos, and the town grew rapidly.

Further study of the Cult of Adonis reveals some interesting facts.

His cult belonged to women: the cult of dying Adonis was fully-developed in the circle of young girls around Sappho on Lesbos, about 600 BCE, as a fragment of Sappho reveals.

Regarding Sappho

She was one of the canonical nine lyric poets of archaic Greece

more likely that her work belongs in a long tradition of Lesbian poetry, and is simply among the first to have been recorded in writing.

Because of its eroticism and of the difficulties posed by its dialect, her work was not included in the Byzantine school curriculum.

Some of her love poems were addressed to women. The word lesbian itself is derived from the name of the island of Lesbos from which she came.

Island of Lesbos

The word "lesbian" is derived from the island. This developed from the poems of Sappho of Lesvos, in which love between women was celebrated in song. Because of this association, Lesbos has today become a frequent travel destination of lesbians. This has been met with skepticism from Lesvonian authorities, and passenger ships were earlier denied entry. Today, the heart of the lesbian scene is located in the town of Eressos, the birthplace of Sappho.

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but from now on I will never refer to the Word of God as 'bible'.

I am a fairly unedjucated man (grade 6 elementary started working very early in life), so I'm glad I looked up your name Byblos, I had no idea....

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Byblos wrote: Hmm, you seem to be very fond of the source you site below. You quoted them almost verbatim.

Truth is Truth friend.

My friend, truth is in the eye of the subjective interpreter, no more and no less. Your truth is different than mine. There's but one absolute truth and you know that's beyond both of our reaches. And please do not tell me the bible is the absolute truth. While it is in and of itself, when interjecting human subjectivity we get the multitude of diverging biblical interpretations we see today.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

IRQ Conflict wrote: I know that some may not subscribe to the whole thing, but if it were me I would denounce that denomination altogether.

No offense, IRQ, but I guess I should thank the Lord it is not up to you, considering the sources you site.

What I meant was If I were in that denomintation I would leave it. Everything I have read and checked with either scripture or secular sources has been confirmed.

That's ok, there's a lost sheep in every family. No matter what though, we'd always consider you a son and a brother.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Yes, I'm familiar with this site and many others. You could almost feel the love, don't you?

All I see are Christians trying to expose the RCC and their heresies trying to warn the good catholics of it so they might not be damned with the papacy they blindly follow. There is love there. Do not take it as a personal attack Byblos. Take it for what it is, a warning.

Thanks for the warning but really, there's no need for you to be concerned. What we believe, we believe freely and with conviction. Contrary to popular belief, we're not all brainwashed you know. This fascination with the RCC is to the point of obsession; it's just beyond me. Are people really that threatened with the RCC that much? I don't get it.

IRQ Conflict wrote: I know it might sound harsh Byblos, but I'd rather offend you and see you saved than not try at all.

IRQ, you did not offend me in any way. You're being honest in voicing your opinion. I welcome that a thousand times more than some insincere person trying to appease me. At least I know full well where you stand vis a vis my beliefs, though you are greatly misguided and don't know the first thing about it.

IRQ Conflict wrote: It's interesting to note that the word Bible stems from Byblos.

That is correct. 'Byblos' is the origin of the word 'bible' or the book.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

Byblos is located on the Mediterranean coast of present-day Lebanon, about 26 miles (42 kilometers) north of Beirut.

Correct again. I was born and raised there, until I was 18 (hence my screen name). Most of my family is still there including my mother. I Still have a house in the mountains of Byblos and visit almost every year.

IRQ Conflict wrote:

During the Roman period, the temple of Resheph was elaborately rebuilt, and the city, though smaller than its neighbours such as Tyre and Sidon, was a centre for the cult of Adonis. In the 3rd century, a small but impressive theatre was constructed. The coming of the Byzantine Empire resulted in the establishment of a bishop's seat in Byblos, and the town grew rapidly.

Actually the legend of Adonis was a little south of Byblos in what is currently called the river of dogs. That's where it is said that Adonis was slain by a wild boar and his blood spilt into the river and turned it crimson red. Not sure who classified it as a cult, or even that it was back then when. But I assure you there's nothing called the cult of Adonis today.

IRQ Conflict wrote: Further study of the Cult of Adonis reveals some interesting facts.

His cult belonged to women: the cult of dying Adonis was fully-developed in the circle of young girls around Sappho on Lesbos, about 600 BCE, as a fragment of Sappho reveals.

Regarding Sappho

She was one of the canonical nine lyric poets of archaic Greece

more likely that her work belongs in a long tradition of Lesbian poetry, and is simply among the first to have been recorded in writing.

Because of its eroticism and of the difficulties posed by its dialect, her work was not included in the Byzantine school curriculum.

Some of her love poems were addressed to women. The word lesbian itself is derived from the name of the island of Lesbos from which she came.

Island of Lesbos

The word "lesbian" is derived from the island. This developed from the poems of Sappho of Lesvos, in which love between women was celebrated in song. Because of this association, Lesbos has today become a frequent travel destination of lesbians. This has been met with skepticism from Lesvonian authorities, and passenger ships were earlier denied entry. Today, the heart of the lesbian scene is located in the town of Eressos, the birthplace of Sappho.

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but from now on I will never refer to the Word of God as 'bible'.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying because of what you read, the word 'bible' is now offensive to you? If that is the case I feel very sorry for you as you clearly did not understand what you read. I also don't know how you made the leap from Byblos to Lesbos. One is in Lebanon, the other in Greece and they have absolutely no relation to one another, at least not in the last thousand years. The Greeks named the city Byblos because of the multitude of papyruses they found in the city where the Phoenicains were busy inventing the first alphabet. 'Byblos', books, the book, bible. That's the origin of the word. You should have done a little more research, or simply asked.

IRQ Conflict wrote: I am a fairly unedjucated man (grade 6 elementary started working very early in life), so I'm glad I looked up your name Byblos, I had no idea....

Formal education is not an indication of intelligence. My mother is functionally illiterate but she can take apart and rebuild a sewing machine (and she has on numerous occasions). I'm also glad you looked up my screen name, but really IRQ, there was no need to go to all that trouble. All you had to do was ask. I would've been more than happy to give you an accurate account. Wikipedia is not exactly a reliable source you know. In any case, I do thank you for taking an interest in my personal data. Please do not hesitate to ask if you are still in need of additional information.

Byblos wrote:I also don't know how you made the leap from Byblos to Lesbos.

Byblos was the center of the cult of Adinos.

During the Roman period, the temple of Resheph was elaborately rebuilt, and the city, though smaller than its neighbours such as Tyre and Sidon, was a centre for the cult of Adonis.

Adonis, an annual vegetation life-death-rebirth deity, imported from Syrian into Greek mythology, always retained aspects of his Semitic Near Eastern origins and was one of the most complex cult figures in classical times. He had multiple roles and there has been much scholarship over the centuries of his meaning and purpose in the Greek religious beliefs. His Semitic counterpart is Tammuz. His Etruscan counterpart was Atunis. (Some mythologists believe he was later exported to Germania, and his counterpart in Germanic mythology is Baldr.) He is an annually-renewed, ever-youthful vegetation god, a life-death-rebirth deity whose nature is tied to the calendar. His cult belonged to women: the cult of dying Adonis was fully-developed in the circle of young girls around Sappho on Lesbos, about 600 BCE, as a fragment of Sappho reveals.

Under the domination of the Egyptian Pharaohs in the 3rd and 2nd millennium BC, Byblos was a commercial and religious capital of the Phoenician coast.

Byblos was also the center of the Adonis cult, the god of vegetation who dies in winter and is renewed each spring.

not wiki link

The latter view is supported by Lucian's notice that Byblian women performed their mourning ritual for Adonis "through the whole countryside," and by a similar detail in the description of the Adonis festival at Seville circa 287 CE, as reported in the Martyrology of Saints Justa and Rufina. The center of Adonis's worship was at Aphaca in Mount Lebanon, a single day's journey from Byblos. At the site of the famous spring, the main source of the Adonis River or Nahr Ibrahim, stood a temple, where the cult of Adonis was maintained until the time of Emperor Constantine the Great, who ordered the destruction of the shrine.

another non wiki link Note that just because they (the Byblians) journyed to a mountian to perform some of their worship does not mean that the city itself wasn't a center of that cult.

If Melqart was associated with Tyre, Adonis, though worshipped in many places, was especially connected with Byblos

Richard S. Hess, Ph.D. Professor of Old Testament Denver Seminary (I'm assuming he is not affiliated with wiki either)

We know now that the worship of Adonis, which enjoyed among the Greeks a popularity extending to our own day, was originally of Phoenician origin, its principal centres being the cities of Byblos, and Aphaka.

YANWL

The Greeks named the city Byblos because of the multitude of papyruses they found in the city where the Phoenicains were busy inventing the first alphabet. 'Byblos', books, the book, bible. That's the origin of the word. You should have done a little more research, or simply asked.

I see the correlation to "Book" but knowing the history of the city and naming a city "Books" is ridiculous! Were the Greeks in the habit (pun intended) of naming foreign cities after their main export?

Maybe I am a touch paranoid, but after all the studying I've done on this little town it gives me the willies.

Some other things I found out about this 'cult' is that it is a "Mystery religion" The myth goes he was born out of incest. And was based on the ancient cult of Tammuz.

2Th 2:7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.

Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH

Eze 8:14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

references:
Burkert, Walter (Burkert, Walter: walter burkert (born neuendettelsau (bavaria), february 2, 1931), the most eminent...
[follow hyperlink for more...]) , 1985.Greek religion, "Foreign gods" p 176f
Detienne, Marcel, 1972. Les jardins d'Adonis, translated by Janet Lloyd, 1977. The Gardens of Adonis, Harvester Press.
Kerenyi, Karl (Kerenyi, Karl: more facts about this subject) , 1951 The Gods of the Greeks pp 75 — 76,