Re: Love in Action

by caguama Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:55 pm

now my english is bad ? I am a troll, not a christian ,not a mexican and have bad spanish and bad english. and I make only 4 post. If I want to be criticised more I will ask my wife. She is american but polit and dont criticise me so much in a whole month. good bye rude people.

by CheenaGringo Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:57 pm

[img]

[/img]

So I guess that New Mexicans are covering all their bases when they hang a "Chile Ristra with Garlic"?

by Ms.Thang Sat Sep 15, 2012 3:18 pm

[quote="viajero"]

caguama wrote:Bueno, LA mente. i type very bad and even make mistakes . excuse me very much.

Aun no me suena,ni su español,ni su"mal" ingles,but I do agree with your posts.[/quot

Unbelievable. Caguama IS a Mexican... a smart, educated Mexican that would made some very interesting contributions. Way to go, geniuses.

by Chapalagringa Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:44 pm

CheenaGringo wrote:[img][/img]

So I guess that New Mexicans are covering all their bases when they hang a "Chile Ristra with Garlic"?

That's awesome!

by viajero Sat Sep 15, 2012 4:54 pm

Ms.Thang wrote:

Unbelievable. Caguama IS a Mexican... a smart, educated Mexican that would made some very interesting contributions. Way to go, geniuses.

In that case I apologize Caguama.I'd just never heard a Mexican say "el mente"before and it didn't seem like a typo.
Mil perdones y bienvenido al foro.

by David Sat Sep 15, 2012 6:29 pm

Pls note that Lori did NOT answer the question about the Virgin of Guadalupe. She did say that she's not mentioned in the Bible and that Christians believe EVERYTHING that's in the Bible. If that were true they'd all be keeping Kosher. In fact they pick and choose. It's always fascinated me how they do that. It's like, "will this is true" and "that was true." How do they know? BTW, Lori it's NOT the "Jewish Bible," it's the Torah.

by Traveller Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:36 am

The Virgin of Guadalupe is Mary, Jesus' mother. Didn't you see the link Lori posted? Mary is in the Bible, but her later appearances to different believers are not because they hadn't happened when the Bible was written.

The Kosher thing was a bone of contention in the early days of the Christian church. Jesus had in fact already told his disciples that it isn't what goes into your mouth that makes you unclean in God's eyes, but what comes out from your heart. This teaching was aimed at those Jews who practiced all the right rituals but neglected more important rules, like taking care of their elderly parents. But the break from tradition was gradual. The first followers of Jesus were Jewish; they were accustomed to the traditional practices and were comfortable following them. Eventually non-Jews joined the new movement. There was heated discussion among the apostles as to whether the dietary and circumcision requirements applied to the Gentile converts too. (I imagine the male converts were particularly interested in the circumcision issue.) Eventually it was decided that dietary laws and circumcision were symbols of purity and of dedication to God, but only symbols, and that inner purity and the dedication of one’s heart were more important. Potential Gentile converts breathed a sigh of relief, and gradually Christians began to see themselves not as Jews Plus, but as a separate religion. As time went on they developed a tendency to formalize their own traditions and rituals and neglect the basics ... but that's another story.

by David Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:42 am

Like I said, they pick and choose. For example the Catholic church, who gave us the Bible, left out the gnostic gospels.

by Chapala Payaso Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:13 am

What ignorance. Mary is mentioned in the New Testament many times. All mainstream and peripheral religions pick and choose but I agree with that critique. Should we talk about the crusades and castrations to keep choir voices soprano or the burnings at the stake, etc? Unfortunately, all religions have been corrupted in some degree because they are run by humans. Look at the paranoid Muslims as an example. Funny though. since Christianity and Judism descended from the same person, Abraham.

by David Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:57 am

Even the Muslims are children of Abraham. How about the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has yet to pardon Galieo!

by E-raq Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:53 am

CheenaGringo wrote:[img][/img]

So I guess that New Mexicans are covering all their bases when they hang a "Chile Ristra with Garlic"?

Yes they are, and in a most attractive way I might add. Love it.

by E-raq Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:59 am

David wrote:Like I said, they pick and choose. For example the Catholic church, who gave us the Bible, left out the gnostic gospels.

Did you read Elaine Pagels book on that? Pretty good reading I'd say.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532

They also left out the book of Enoch, among many many other top hits. Pretty interesting stuff if you ask me. The council of Nicaea did a fine job of sanitizing there. BTW, now available, such as it is, on the internet.

by E-raq Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:02 am

Chapala Payaso wrote:What ignorance. Mary is mentioned in the New Testament many times. All mainstream and peripheral religions pick and choose but I agree with that critique. Should we talk about the crusades and castrations to keep choir voices soprano or the burnings at the stake, etc? Unfortunately, all religions have been corrupted in some degree because they are run by humans. Look at the paranoid Muslims as an example. Funny though. since Christianity and Judism descended from the same person, Abraham.

Let's just inject a few facts here. The Moslems believe in Jesus. It is a religion of peace, read the Koran. Y'all been watching waaaay too much T.V.

by Traveller Sun Sep 16, 2012 11:08 am

Yes, of course the Muslims are children of Abraham, of the line of Abraham's first son, Ishmael. In fact, the Koran begins with the story of Ishmael and his mother Hagar after they were driven out into the desert by a jealous Sarah (Abraham's wife, Isaac's mother).

BTW, the Catholic Church pardoned Galileo in 1992 and admitted that Galileo was right and the Church was wrong. www.vibrationdata.com/space/helio.html

Get with the times, David - check out your assumptions before you post them! Don't weaken a good argument!

by viajero Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:09 pm

Traveller wrote:

BTW, the Catholic Church pardoned Galileo in 1992 and admitted that Galileo was right and the Church was wrong. www.vibrationdata.com/space/helio.html

Well that was good of them,too bad he'd already been dead for 350 years before they pardoned him.
Maybe someday Creationists will see the light as well,hope it doesn't take them 350 years.

by David Sun Sep 16, 2012 1:40 pm

Sorry I missed the pardon, I must have been busy. Interesting that the Church didn't accept the teachings of Copornicous, Galileo, and Darwin until 2009!

by gringal Sun Sep 16, 2012 2:58 pm

David wrote:Sorry I missed the pardon, I must have been busy. Interesting that the Church didn't accept the teachings of Copornicous, Galileo, and Darwin until 2009!

Was Copornicous the monk who put on the dirty plays?
pirat

by David Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:05 pm

Ooops!

by arbon Sun Sep 16, 2012 3:36 pm

gringal wrote:

Was Copornicous the monk who put on the dirty plays?

Darwin was censored by the Turkish government's porn filter ("evolution")

by Traveller Sun Sep 16, 2012 6:33 pm

David wrote:Interesting that the Church didn't accept the teachings of Copornicous, Galileo, and Darwin until 2009!

Interesting, yes, but is it true? Reference, please?

What I would like to convey, and what you perhaps can't accept, is that Christianity, including the Catholic Church, is dynamic and multi-dimensional. The Church is not now, never has been, never will be totally "good" or totally "bad". There is wisdom and enlightenment; there is also darkness and repression. In its attempts to seize earthly power, build up wealth and protect its political empire, it has done great wrong, as all earthly empires have done. And yet there has also been room for discussion, for progress, for science and, yes, even for social justice. The Church reflects the human nature of its members - imperfect human beings as we all are, struggling to stretch the known framework of our world, seeking to understand ourselves and our universe.

Take Augustine of Hippo, for example, one of Galileo's influences. In the 4th century, Augustine "recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, and remarks that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up." The agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russel was impressed by Augustine's meditation on the nature of time. On the other hand, he "viewed women not only as threatening to men, but also as intellectually and morally inferior." A brilliant, flawed human being - the product of his era, and yet in some ways amazingly advanced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

I'll leave you to learn about Galileo for yourself - if you actually care about Galileo for his own sake and not just as a tool for argument.

You, Sir, are an intelligent man, but are you as open-minded as you believe yourself to be? Where Christianity changes, you criticise it for being inconsistent. Where it doesn't change fast enough to suit you, you mock it for being backward. You can't comprehend complexity. You see flat black and white where there is a multi-coloured tapestry. In fact, judging not from what you perceive but rather from the way you perceive it ..... if you weren't a "non-believer", I might mistake you for a fundamentalist.

by gringal Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:10 pm

You, Sir, are an intelligent man, but are you as open-minded as you believe yourself to be? Where Christianity changes, you criticise it for being inconsistent. Where it doesn't change fast enough to suit you, you mock it for being backward. You can't comprehend complexity. You see flat black and white where there is a multi-coloured tapestry. In fact, judging not from what you perceive but rather from the way you perceive it ..... if you weren't a "non-believer", I might mistake you for a fundamentalist.

WOW. I'm surprised at you, Traveller. That statement is insulting to a highly intelligent and generally tolerant man. If he got his dates wrong, that's unimportant when you consider how long it took the church to set things right in that unfortunate scientist's case.

by Chapalagringa Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:55 pm

Traveller,
Guadalupe is not mentioned in the Bible. Not the Torah or Catholic Bible either, her name isn't there. Mary yes. Guadalupe was assimilated as the websites states.

What would you think if I told you that Our Lady of Guadalupe is not really Our Lady of Guadalupe, instead she is really Our Lady of coatlaxopeuh which is pronounced "quatlasupe" and sounds extraordinarily like the Spanish word Guadalupe? Coatlaxopeuh means She who crushes the head of the serpent.

Saint Juan Diego was a Native American Aztec who spoke the native Nahuatl language. Saint Juan Diego's Aztec name is Cuauhtlatoatzin, which can be rendered as "One who talks like an eagle" or "eagle that talks." Juan Diego is his Christian name given to him at his baptism which took place between 1524 and 1525.

the story of coatlaxopeuh continues on the site...long after the Bible was written.

The Tanakh, is the Jewish Bible and it is the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.(Old Testament=Christ prophesied, New Testament=Christ fulfilling Old Testament prophesy) The Torah is the first 5 books of the Bible. God gave Moses the law or covenant in the Torah. The Talmud is a commentary written by the Hebrew scholars about the law during Ezekiel's day. Ultimately, the law of Moses and the Talmud proved that they were impossible to follow and that they needed a redeemer. I was trying to say to my husband that the Talmud writers made the law more legalistic but he said that wasn't their intention, they were trying to make it easier to understand and it just proved that it was impossible to keep and they needed a Savior.

Simplified, the law of Moses shows us something about God, that He demands perfection, and shows us our need for Christ. Hebrews 7 Christ fulfilled the law, and brought a new covenant, the law of grace. When one accepts Christ as their personal Savior, he covers over our imperfections and we become acceptable to God as He sees His Son.

Regarding Kosher. Kosher is awesome. Over the past 2 years, I've studied, without perfection by any means but have tried to find recipes to eat like God's people, because I know that that's the healthiest way to eat!!!! It is beneficial to the body. What Christ shows us in Mark 7:19, is that what a man does on the outside, like the ceremonial washing of hands , is beneficial for the outside but what matters the most to God is our spirit inside, our character our reactions to situations, and how we treat others.

Jews that do not accept Jesus Christ are under the law of Moses.

by viajero Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:59 pm

viajero wrote:
Traveller wrote:

BTW, the Catholic Church pardoned Galileo in 1992 and admitted that Galileo was right and the Church was wrong. www.vibrationdata.com/space/helio.html
Well that was good of them,too bad he'd already been dead for 350 years before they pardoned him.
Maybe someday Creationists will see the light as well,hope it doesn't take them 350 years.

by Traveller Mon Sep 17, 2012 1:18 am

gringal wrote:
If he got his dates wrong, that's unimportant when you consider how long it took the church to set things right in that unfortunate scientist's case.

Never mind dates -he got his facts wrong. How about the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has yet to pardon Galieo! Not true. I called him on it. Then he comes up with "Interesting that the Church didn't accept the teachings of Copornicous(sic), Galileo, and Darwin until 2009!" Interesting, perhaps, but a half-truth at best. I asked for a reference because I'm interested to know where these non-facts and half-facts are coming from.

I've already given you the correct information on Galileo in a previous post. Now for Darwin and the theory of evolution.

Interesting that the Church never rejected the teachings of Darwin! The fact that life changes over time has been recognised by the Church since the days of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The Church hotly debated Darwin's theories, remained neutral for half a century, then officially accepted them. Unlike the Galileo situation, the official stance of the Catholic Church to Darwin's theories was never one of rejection. Individual Catholics were always quite free to read Darwin's books and accept Darwin's theories or not.

Maybe you non-believers can accept this information, since it comes from about.com's atheist/agnostic page: In America one is accustomed to seeing religious figures condemn evolutionary theory and argue that teaching evolution is incompatible with Christianity. Catholicism, however, not only doesn’t reject evolution but in fact has supported evolutionary theory for quite some time. http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/evolution.htm

Someone else can do the heavy lifting on Copernicus.

Meanwhile, just in case anyone still insists that the Catholic Church is/was/always will be the sworn enemy of Science, here is an article by a non-believing scientist, but reprinted in a Catholic magazine. The title is "No Catholic Church, No Scientific Method." http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1011-locklin

by Traveller Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:39 am

Oh, sorry, you can't see the whole article for free on that link. And I can't find the Edit button??? So here is the complete original article.

http://takimag.com/article/when_man_invented_science

by David Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:11 am

Here's one, there are many.

http://www.zimbio.com/The+Roman+Catholic+Church/articles/432/Message+Galileo+Forgiven

by Sponsored content