[silversx80]

Same thing as every year, heroin.

 

[silversx80]

I was raised in a Roman Catholic family. Every year it's the same crap: give up something for lent. Problem is, everyone gives up a vice or something else that would benefit their health and/or well being to give up. My grandfather give up drinking, some of my uncles give up smoking, a few others give up candy, TV, yelling, etc. At the end of those 40 days everyone is a bit healthier for their so called sacrifices. When their time is up, they go right back to it and in greater quantities. It's like a crash diet.

I told my grandfather once (whom I refer to as the Super Catholic) that I don't have any vices to give up. He said, "why don't you start drinking? I did it so I'd have something to give up for lent." Obviously he was being sarcastic bu the point still stood. I told him I was going to start seeing hookers.

I figure that if it's worth giving up, just continue to live without for the rest of the year. If you think you're going against the grain and making a commitment to DO something for lent, then do it all year (like exercising).

In all seriousness though, I'm going to lighten up on my soda and sweets. It has nothing to do with lent and my body will benefit from it.

 

[silversx80]

As long as I'm that deity.

Something's amiss here, have you ever been with a virgin?

 

[silversx80]

Actually, no, and I don't want to be. What the hell do I want a girl that's nervous, scared, and with absolutely no clue what's going on?

I said that in jest.

Just checking

 

[silversx80]

:thumbsup:

good for you. I started smoking cigs after I quit smoking something else.

Pole?

 

[silversx80]

I'm disappointed nobody has offered up "hookers & blow" yet. :'(

Who would want to give THAT up?

 

[silversx80]

The reason for my reaction is the fact that the majority of "Christian sects" do not follow what is written in the text of the Holy Bible. The pick and chose what they want to believe and disregard the rest (what the God of the bible commands His believers NOT to do), yet they run around saying they believe God and quote scripture out of context.

Even if "Christianity" is wrong, they are wrong to claim to be "Christian" if they don't even follow the requirements clearly listed in scripture. It's hypocrisy! And some of them run around "da-mning" people to hell, like "LOL Im 'saved' and your not, you is going to hell!" even though they are not much different from most "unbelievers". WTF?


Sigh... why am I even talking about this? Anyways, as you were before my comment.

The bible is the formation of a list of approved texts for reading called a canon. That canon was in place at the official formation of the church (with Peter recognized as the head of the Roman or the West). That canon was also finalized into the Holy Bible during the Council of Trent in the mid 1500s. That council was of Catholic formation.

I've come to the realization that the bible was the original book used to support the early christian church when Peter was placed in charge (bishop of Rome - later called the Pope) and when Constatine supported it with the edict of toleration. Since the early church needed a document to enforce their leaders AND doctrine, they had their canon. Anything that was not in the canon was not accepted as scripture and hence, the Word of God.

Each early sect of Christianity had their own canon or shared one with another sect. There were THOUSANDS of Christ's deciples yet the HOLY BIBLE only points out 12 in particular and a later 13th. It also lists Simon (Peter) as being favored by Christ, the Rock and the Shepherd of the Church. This could be true or it may just be a big ploy to gain power by the greedyness of man.

So you follow the bible as the Word of God, the teachings of God and the only Holy Scripture yet are not Catholic? I don't mean to call anyone out on this but it is what it is. If you're going to read the bible as the Holy Word of God then you must be in agreement with those who decided that's what it was during the First Council of Nicaea (hashed out christian theology and Christology) to the Council of Trent.

If you do not feel that the originating source of validation for that book is correct in their theology and doctrine then you must be open to the option that the Bible is just a book.

[/banter]

 

[silversx80]

Lent isn't about giving up a vice. It's about giving up something that you enjoy. It's a time of sacrifice, not a time of self improvement.

Unfortunately most cat-licks see it as the ladder or giving up a vice. The intentions behind the history of it are fair but it has been distorted. Make a sacrifice for 40 days and 40 nights to reflect on the 40 days and 40 nights Christ spent in the desert.

 

[silversx80]

Brad, I'm not trying to disprove anyone's belief but the mere progression of logic. If I'm running a lab test, get my results and publish those results, that's one thing. If it is later proved that my validation methods for those lab results were not up to par, then I must re-run the test or prove that the vaildation had no effect on the results.

I'm also not saying that you must be Catholic but rather in agreement with them and their formation of the Bible. The Church at the time was not formed around the Bible because it existed before that book. the Bible was formed to support the Church.

The bible as we know it was essentialy formed in 325 AD during the Council of Nicea. The Council of Trent (c. 1545 - 1563) essentially reaffirmed it (with a few minor corrections - or edits).

The First Crusade occured around the time of the East-West Schism when "at the Council of Piacenza, ambassadors sent by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for help with defending his empire against the Seljuk Turks." The Turks essentially invaded the Byzantine empire which was home to the East Christian Church (Eastern Othodox). "Later that year, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II called upon all Christians to join a war against the Turks, promising those who died in the endeavor would receive immediate remission of their sins." I'm guessing this has something to do with subsequent crusades.

The intention of my statements is not to support the Catholics but to breifly point out the history of the book so many Christians hold to be 100% complete.

 

[silversx80]

One more note on confession:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confession (easy to link but can be found in Britannica)

In Catholic teaching, the sacrament of Penance (commonly called confession but more recently referred to as Reconciliation, or more fully the Sacrament of Reconciliation) is the method used by the Church by which individual men and women may confess sins committed after baptism and have them absolved by a priest. This sacrament is known by many names, including penance, reconciliation and confession (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sections 1423-1442). While official Church publications always refer to the sacrament as "Penance", "Reconciliation" or "Penance and Reconciliation", many laypeople continue to use the term "confession" in reference to the sacrament.
The intent of this sacrament is to provide healing for the soul as well as to regain the grace of God, lost by sin. Catholics believe that priests have been given the authority by Jesus and God to exercise the forgiveness of sins here on earth and it is in Jesus' Holy Name by which the person confessing is forgiven. The Council of Trent (Session Fourteen, Chapter I) quoted John 20:22-23 as the primary Scriptural proof for the doctrine concerning this sacrament, but Catholics also consider Matthew 9:2-8, 1 Corinthians 11:27, and Matthew 16:17-20 to be among the Scriptural bases for the sacrament.

Not that I side with them but they do have a point. "Jesus isn't here so he had to place someone here to speak for him."

 

[silversx80]

Can't we all just get along?

Phuck off dick-lick.

 

[silversx80]

(at least that's what I am able to gather, since my mind is unfettered by religion)

... but it is really effed up by the Marines