Life in the Fail Lane: Derp Salad
Oh boy kids! We have ourselves a Derp Salad!
So, for the few of you who might not know, I'm Catholic -- religiously so.
And I have a gallery dedicated to my religious art...porcelain-requiem.deviantart.c…
And I've had my fair share of well meaning but ill informed fundamental Christians trying to get me to "repent of my heathenous ways."
I try to see the good in these people, but sometimes they go too far.
But this one really takes the cake. comments.deviantart.com/1/1245…
It started out innocently enough...
He commented on this image of mine...NOTE:
I will be posting the comments here. That's because this kid likes to hide his comments when he gets called out. So there's gonna be lots of reading ahead.SECOND NOTE:
I am not trying to convert or change anyone. I am merely defending my faith.
weird, but good concept. love the art!
jesus should have longer wavier hair i think. and why is the church pregnant?
It's meant to symbolize the birth of her new children -- the faithful.
oh i'm sorry, i forgot to read the description- my bad!
but yeah, the church IS the faithful.
The Church is the dwelling place of the faithful which Christ established through His Apostles, and the faithful are the body of the Church.
So, as you can see, nothing too crazy. But then he started "schooling me" on the placement of Christ's wounds...
actually, the faithful are the body of CHRIST; which is the church. which in turn was established by christ through the apostles.
i'm inspired. beautiful work! reminds me of the shulamite and her shepherd lover (lord jesus is the GOOD shepherd after all).
oh, and the nail prints should be in the bottom half of the hands, not all the way down in the wrists. i know the greek word may mean both hand and wrist combined, but in the hebrew prophecies, its said specifically that they pierced his HANDS and FEET.
I never said we weren't also the mystical body of Christ.
The placement of his nail wounds is based on the Shroud of Turin (which is believed religiously and forensically by many to be Christ's burial cloth.) The image shows the wounds on his wrists. Scientifically, he wouldn't have been able to hang by his hands so it makes sense.
scientifically he WOULD HAVE hung by his hands- believe me, i read this on a website on hand anatomy with regards to the crucifixion. also, i took a real good look at the shroud of turin and my statement is based on my observation of the shroud. if you look closely, you'd agree with me.
and another reason is that the muscles in human hands are stronger than rope. also, it is said that his crucifiers nailed him to the cross with slightly blunt nails so as to increase the torment and pain( he was already scraped, beaten, wounded, punched, slapped, had his beard ripped off of his face, and was scourged and twisted thorny branches were surrounding his forehead). and it would hurt all the more if it were in the bottom half of his palm.
even otherwise, i shall let you have your way if you're still not convinced my friend, for it is up to everyone's own personal conviction as to whether the lord was nailed by his hands or wrists.
if the shroud of turin cannot show the wounds of the lord which were prophesied by the psalms and the prophets fulfilled meticulously according to the aforementioned, then the shroud cannot be trustworthy. besides, the crucifiers had no fixed way of crucifying people. they could hang people in anyway they pleased, so as long as the person suffered torment for the longest timespan imaginable.
No, his hands would have ripped from the weight. He either had to be nailed by his wrists, or his hands had to be tied with ropes to support his body. That website doesn't hold up in comparison to physics and all the studies that have been done on this.
The shroud has been studied forensically and it shows all the torture and suffering he endured. They counted the lashes on his back from the whips. They noted his shoulder was broken in order to stretch to fit the cross. They noted that his beard had patches where the hair had been plucked. They even found evidence of pollens from the time and region on it, and the type of blood. These are religious and non-religious scientists too. So this isn't biased.
Since I find the shroud to be a credible visual source of Christ's suffering, I used it as a reference in the placement of his wounds. If you want to draw his wounds elsewhere, go right ahead.
thanks! like your defensive spirit!
but physics and sciences alone don't hold up. like i said, you CAN have your way.
besides, i'm a fundamental, not RC. so i stick to traditional views.
If you stuck to traditional views, you wouldn't be fundamental... just saying. I'm not insulting your faith, but the Catholic Church existed before the Bible was compiled and can trace its origins back to the Apostles. Fundamentalism is a modern form of Protestantism.
Physics and sciences do indeed hold up. To say they don't is really silly. What's gravity if not science? Science doesn't disprove the existence of God. The Big Bang theory was first thought up by a priest as a way to explain creation scientifically.
i'm sorry, but by fundamental, i meant kerala brethren. you can look 'em up on wikipedia.
oh and i sound silly because i'm only 14 years old- still lots to learn. thanks!
i think you're way older than i am. and you do a lot of research.
if you'd like to see how i think jesus was crucified, just visit my gallery! do comment or critique on one of them.
to say that a priest came up with the big bang theory is kinda... interesting. and it is implied that light came as a big 'BANG!'; i heard this from a bible teacher who was teaching our church from the book of revelation. something like... 'went forth from the throne of god' or something. dunno.
and priesthood actually is abolished- that's right, we DON'T need priests to intercede on our behalf to god anymore. just read the epistle to the hebrews for more info. i too am not insulting your religion or anything, just sticking to the bible like we always should! because WE ARE THE PRIESTS. jesus christ the lord is our HIGH PRIEST, interceding before god on our behalf. and the sacrifices we offer are the fruit of our lips- our worship, songs, hymns, and thanksgiving. and we offer it all on the mystical altar- christ himself.
Christ established his Apostles as high priests. This is why he chose them.
Also, the Bible wasn't compiled until several centuries after Christ came. So the faithful relied on tradition first (we Catholics and Orthodox still follow the traditions.) The Bible also doesn't contain everything -- as John said there wouldn't be enough books to contain everything.
If Christ didn't want anyone else to lead his faithful, the entire purpose of Christianity is moot. That's why the priesthood is essential. We are all called to lead each other, but some have greater roles in that leadership.
there wasn't any catholic, or orthodox, or protestant church during the time of the apostles. please show me a reference(s) in the bible for the statement that the lord appointed his apostles as high priests. and to lead the faithful, we have bishops( they're called elders in my church). and pastors as well. they're not legit, unless they're appointed by god himself. the actual person who leads the faithful is the holy spirit, who also is the only true interpretor of the holy bible because he authored it in thee first place! one thing that makes me sad about the RC church is that they give a lot of credit to human effort in salvation and adding to the church and expounding on the word of god. the bible says, "no man should glory before god". if you disagree, just count how many saints, stigmatists, popes, priests, images, relics, bishops, churches, apparitions, and other things you guys have received and relied upon, as though they were from god. and i know you'll also say that you don't trust all of them, jsut the ones who are chosen of god. but WHICH of them has god really chosen? is it according to what is given in the bible? is it according to human foresight and wisdom?
and johns statement you quoted earlier is nothing but a hyperbole. all he says is that jesus did so many, many things, that it'd take him a lifetime to write them down one by one. he wasn't refering to the traditions upheld by the RC church. and the bible of the early christians was the old testament, not tradition. there isn't any evidence of extra-biblical beliefs used in their worship. there were'nt any priests, popes, or any such thing in them. they were the real catholic church. not the one that exists today.
You can't find everything in Scripture, but the epistles show the leadership of the Apostles. Saint Peter and Saint Paul especially write to guide people. There are other early Christian writings that explain the priesthood further.
How do you know John was being hyperbolic? Did he say he was when he wrote it?
The word "Catholic" is Greek for "universal." It's the oldest term used to describe the Universal (Catholic) Christian.
"Faith without works is dead." We are to work to help others achieve salvation. Christ himself asks us to pray for one another as a way of helping them achieve good.
The saints are there to help us with their prayers. Since they are in Christ's holy presence, their prayers are holier than our human ones.
Most of the people during Christ's time were illiterate and the Temple elders were the only ones who could read. So they weren't using the Scriptures then.
hmm... good points you've got there.
my church teaches that the bible is complete and final. all other so-called augmentations aren't of god. we don't need to work FOR our salvation, we should work it OUT i.e., we should prove our faith in action. so what you said is correct!
we the christians of this world are the only ones god would willingly hear when we pray. one saint's prayer is not superior to another because- guess what- all christian believers who truly believe god and the lord jesus christ and the holy bible are saints! it actually sounds like we are too lazy to pray for ourselves so we have our christian brothers and sisters like st mary, st peter, st john, st martha, &c pray for us. no- really- it sounds kinda hilarious.
i totally agree with the definition of the word 'catholic'.
many RC teachers and interpreters use st john's statement to support their use(abuse i should say) of tradition. its the holy spirit after all, not the church which helps us understand the bible better.
the christian's prayer is way holier than any random ne'er-do-well's prayer. god never listens to the prayers of sinners unless they admit their sin and accept the lord jesus as their personal saviour.
i agree with you about praying for each other.
prove that you can't find everything in scripture. in fact, i have noticed contradictions in tradition itself. this gives me another reason to think that the bible is complete and final.
Are you implying that your prayers are equal to the righteous in Heaven?
We are called to become saints, but we won't achieve the state of sainthood until we reach Heaven.
The saints in Heaven are holier than we are. And they are in the full presence of Christ. Asking them to pray for us isn't lazy as we also pray for ourselves too. It's just asking for extra prayerful support -- similar to asking a family member or friend for prayers, but better because it's a Heavenly friend.
Prove it? Okay. Jesus goes from being a baby to being twelve to being in his thirties. There are big chunks of his life missing there.
I'm not saying the Scriptures are irrelevant because they're not the entirety of Christ's life. I'm saying that they're an abridged version of his life.
Yes, our prayers are indeed equal to the righteous in heaven- first of, we are GOING there and second there is no hierarchy in Christian believers. That cow dung was brought by men, not God. Before Him, all Christians are equally precious and important.
Besides, we don't need to know information other than what is given in the bible about rhe Lord or anyone else for that matter.
Please tell me, who has said that we won't become saints until we get to heaven? That' so not in sync with the Word.
Neither of us is holier than those in Heaven. Nobody on earth is. To say we are is heretical. We are not in Heaven yet. We are imperfect humans struggling to get to Heaven. So we are not as righteous and holy as those in Heaven are. Yes, Jesus loves us, but we have to work through our sinful, temporary life to achieve Heaven. He gives us the help, but we must run the race ourselves to achieve the reward as Saint Paul says.
I still proved that the Bible doesn't contain everything from Christ's life. It's an abridged version, not the entirety of it. Also, Matthew's Gospel speaks of the "dead" bodies of the saints rising to Heaven. (I put "dead" in quotes, because nobody in Heaven is truly dead.) He doesn't refer to himself as a saint in his writing. He calls the holy men and women of old saints. He's acknowledging their holiness that they are achieving in Heaven.
hmm... i agree with you.
but as i said before, i'm NOT RC. therefore, i don't have to think that some of my beliefs are heretical. i belong to a church which follows the new testament pattern of worship. so i stick to the bible and i don't need to go anywhere else. i should admit though, i haven't read the whole bible through. but if you don't know, those who are saved are SANCTIFIED, that is set apart and made holy. so there is no holier than us or anything like that among true believers.
ha ha, its so funny, we came this far about the interpretation of a cute little picture you drew! i drew it myself ya know; i'll upload it here so you can see and tell me what you think about it. don't worry, i'm not self-centred or anything!
If we are equal to Heavenly people in holiness, why would we need to go to Heaven? The goal of achieving Heaven is to become perfectly holy. We cannot be perfectly holy on earth, for we are flawed and give in to temptation at times. The saints are not equal to us in holiness, because they are perfectly holy in Heaven.
I belong to the Church Christ founded with his Apostles. The Church that originally translated and put the first Bible together.
hmm... i agree with you about the holiness part, i learnt about it today at bible class. so you owned me there.
but about the church... i'm not an RC, but when i said new testament pattern of worship; that was what the apostles founded. and even otherwise, the lord jesus did not come to establish a new religion or anything- that's what religious "founders" do- they FOUND religions. that's not what the lord did. he came to bring us from darkness to his marvelous light- which apparently he stablished through his apostles, but it is not a religion. the christian faith is a way of life.
Do you believe in the Eucharist as the Apostles did? Do you consume Christ's Body and Blood under the form of bread and wine as the Apostles did? Remember Jesus said: "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you truly have no life within you."
The Apostles ate his Flesh and drank his Blood on the night of the Last Supper, and they continued the tradition because Christ said, "Do this in remembrance of me."
Catholics and Orthodox still continue to eat his Body and drink his Blood at Mass under the form of bread and wine in remembrance of his beautiful sacrifice.
read hebrews chapter 7:27 and chapter 10:10. both of them unanimously state that jesus offered himself up ONCE AND FOR ALL for ALL SIN and All humanity. the RC belief of transubstantiation is not actually biblical. it is a heresy as far as the eucharist is concerned.
when jesus told us to 'eat his flesh' and 'drink his blood', it mean't to accept him, just as we enjoy a tasty sandwich we love. it has nothing to do with the eucharist.
when jesus spoke and taught, he used a lot of figurative language. when he said that the bread was his body, it didn't literally become his body, that's a heresy. same thing with the wine. he was being figurative. the bread and wine only REPRESENT his body and blood. but that doesn't mean we should take the lord's table for granted- we should do it with great fear and trembling.
His sacrifice was for once and for all. we only remember it through the bread and wine. we don't only remember his sacrifice- as st paul said it, we also proclaim the lord's death UNTIL HE COMES.
i'm not baptised yet, even though i'm saved(my church believes in believer's baptism, not infant baptism). i cannot consume it unless i'm baptised.
You are so ignorant of my faith, it's astounding.
Jesus didn't say it was a "symbol" of his Body or a "symbol" of his Blood. The sacrifice of the cross was a one time deal, but the memorial of it is not. We remember it every time we celebrate the Mass. ("Do this in remembrance of me.")
Jesus didn't tell the disciples who left that he was being metaphorical when he said his Flesh and Blood were true food and true drink. He kept emphasizing it instead.
he he, i'm really sorry, i don't know much about the RC faith.
and jesus never SAID it was a symbol. i agree with you about that. but that's what he meant! it WAS figurative. the disciples understood it. if what the RC church teaches is biblical, then i would find it in my bible. besides, if it weren't for god, we'd never have had the bible in the first place. but only god can help us understand it because he authored it in the first place! we asked god's help in choosing the 66 books of the bible(apocrypha has human imaginations which should NOT be present in the bible- its the word of GOD, NOT MEN), and we always rely on him when we meditate on the bible.
the lord used figurative speech, but its really sad that people take the bible too literally all the time. the bible is to be taken literally after proper understanding of its message and teachings.
If it was figurative, nobody would have left. They would have all understood. Remember, the Apostles said it was a "hard teaching to follow." Something figurative isn't hard to follow. Something literal is. The Apostles realized it wasn't figurative. But they followed him anyway. The truth is, you don't know what he meant. I'm taking Christ at his literal word with that passage.
If it weren't for the Catholic Church, you wouldn't have the Bible. Yes, God inspired the holy words contained, but the Catholics were the ones who translated and compiled it. (And it was no easy feat in the days before the printing press.)
Martin Luther took the Apocrypha out. It was always in Bibles prior to the Protestant reformation due to its historical significance. So it was a man who deemed the Apocrypha unworthy, not God. Luther also wanted to remove Revelation and Daniel. (Were those books also filled with "human imaginations?")
Daniel and revelation aren't full of human imaginations. If you'd wanna know about the church you belong to, just read acts chapters 2,3, and so on. Compare that with the history of the RC church.
Luther thought they were. And he was the one who removed the Apocrypha, so yeah.
The Catholic Church has different rites for different regions, but the core beliefs have always been the same. Roman Catholic is one of the rites of Catholicism. Catholics weren't permitted to be in Rome until a couple hundred years after Christ came.
i asked you to read in your bible about the early church. 'catholic', even though it means universal, is and will always be seen as a denomination in christendom. a word doesn't necessarily have to be tied to its original meaning or origin. the catholic church may have believers from all around the world, but they will always be called 'catholics' because they are. they belong to the "catholic and apostolic" church. i hope you commented after READING YOUR BIBLE- hmmm..?
praying the rosary and confessing sins isn't enough. a victorious christian life is also based on heartfelt prayer and diligent study, reading and meditation of god's word the bible.
Why do you assume I don't read the Bible or listen to the Scriptures? Catholics do indeed read the Bible and we hear the Scriptures each time we go to Mass.
The rosary is also a Biblical meditation -- as we reflect on passages from Scripture as we pray it.
if it were biblical, there would be a commandment to pray it. but there is NONENo, I disagree! . i'm sorry, but the rosary is unnecessary.
i assumed so because you never told me what you think about what the bible said about the history of the church. that's all; i desperately wanted an opinion
(Big Grin) .
'if it were biblical, there would be a commandment to pray it.'
That's the most ignorant thing I've ever heard. First of all, the Our Father comes directly from the Gospel. Second, the first half of the Hail Mary comes directly from the Gospel. The latter half of the Hail Mary is asking her to pray for us.
While we say these prayers which come from the Gospel, we meditate on passages from Scripture. There are different Mysteries of the rosary -- the birth of Christ, the crucifixion, etc.
The Bible doesn't contain the entire detailed history of the Church. So that's a silly assumption to make.
that's fine with me. if i were older than you(which i'm NOT), i could explain to you the true meanings of the prayers you cited.
and i know about the rosary's mysteries. in fact, i was going to do a life of jesus series using the mysteries as reference.
So, as you can see, he's really argumentative. (Take note, that will be relevant later.) But he's also trying to kiss ass.
I shall also be adding extra commentary throughout some of these next replies.
What you said about the illiteracy of the Christians is false. Most of them could read and write, and those who couldn't, had the entire OT committed to memory(no, that kind of memorisation is possible). And there wasn't any need of you to bring up Martin Luther here. What matters is actually god's opinion about it. The Jews took education seriously. Even a poor middle class man like Jesus could read from the scroll of Isaiah at the synagogue.
It's not false. Many weren't educated because they were lower class. That's why Jesus preached orally instead of writing things down. Once the Apostles and their successors became leaders of the Church, more people were educated.
Why of course it is. Then explain Peter and John writing epistles- that is unless... They dictated their letters. So you can own me there.
the educated folk were mostly Gentiles, not Jews. Those guys had plenty of OT in their heads, so even otherwise, they had a mental bible to check with. That's another reason why so many became Christians on the spot. The primary reason is the working of the Holy Ghost.
oh and btw, did you read acts chapters 1 and 2 and the other 5 or 6?
Do you RCs even read your bibles at all? Please tell me, I want to help you.
They were writing to their successors and leaders of the neighboring countries. Those people could read.
Most people became Christians on the spot when they heard the Apostles speaking their languages. The Apostles weren't known for their gifts of interpreting and understanding languages, so it was impressive when the Holy Spirit gave them that gift.
What kind of arrogance is that? Of course Catholics read the Bible. We don't solely rely on it for salvation, but we read it and believe in it. We also hear the Scriptures each time we go to Mass, and meditate on them as we pray the rosary.
i wasn't being arrogant. i just wanted to know. thank you.
Yes, because "I want to help you" is totally
not arrogant you guys!
But you assumed Catholics don't read the Bible. We are Christians too you know. I have read each of the 73 books in the Bible at least once.
73 books! i thought the bible only had 66!CURSE YOU! i'm so confused and mad right now!
"CURSE YOU!" Because that's
the Christian way of life kids!
The Catholic Bible has always contained all 73 books. Luther removed some of them during the Protestant reformation.
BUT WAIT!! THERE'S MORE!
Jesu didn't only use figurative language! He used plenty of literal language too. He didn't have to be literal all the time because the Jews sought a sign(as apostle Paul puts it). That's why he said it again and again.
repetition occurred because similar stories may occur in all 4 gospels. There is no need to worry about too much emphasis on figurative language. That's not what I said there. Sorry to confuse you! God help me.
How do you know what's figurative and what's literal?
Also, his deciples knew when he was being figurative. They didn't leave when he was. They left when he said, "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you have no true life within you..." because they knew he was being literal. They couldn't accept it. The Apostles struggled to accept it -- it was a hard teaching to follow -- but they ultimately did.
it's not what i know, its what the bible says. they left because they thought he was hinting at cannibalism or something grosser. that's why they left him; because the idea of eating his flesh and drinking his blood sounded uncomfortable. when jesus said that, he was talking about salvation by believing in him and having sins forgiven through faith in his crucifixion and death and resurrection. they didn't think he was good enough for them(he had no comeliness in him; nor any beauty we should desire in him).
No, he was saying they would need to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood. They didn't realize he would give them his Flesh and Blood in the appearance of bread and wine, and that's why they left.
Your understanding of it is very hippie-like. It's not Biblical. You're applying a meaning to that passage that isn't there.
okay. i don't wan to hurt your sentiments anymore, so i won't argue for this one.
He won't argue he says... oh if only. If only...
After a little more back and forth, he decided to ask me if I wanted to be friends. I obviously declined.
Honestly, you've been arrogant of my faith, you've been ignorant of my beliefs, you've misunderstood numerous things I've said, you keep making childish arguments that lack reason...
No, I don't particularly want to be friends. But if you'd like to go away, that's fine with me.
but you make good art. THAT's what's more important to me.
He said "bye", but he really didn't mean it. Because he decided to keep commenting.
yeah, but the bible never directly referred to the dislocation of his shoulder to fit the cross, but it does say that all his bones were out of joint. i think the shroud is not graphic enough- jesus didn't look like a man on the cross. the shroud shows a handsome face, radiant even when covered with scrapes, punches and wounds. this could be the work of satan or his minions(you know how good satan is at tricking people).
The Shroud is not Satanic. It is either the true burial cloth of Christ (which credible sources say it is) or an elaborate hoax (which is very unlikely.) Christ's radiance is simply his holy Divinity. Even in death, battered and broken, he was our beautiful Lord.
i don't think so. it's not an elaborate hoax, but it is not possible to scan a cloth with an image on it and be able to find real bloodstains, snotty liquid from the nose, precise scourge marks, &c, &c.
i told you to see my drawing of a pieta with wounds copied directly from the shroud. it's called pieta(1). you will see i also referenced the shroud to draw a picture of christ. i took a good hard look at it too. yes, its the authentic burial cloth of someone, but if it were jesus', i'd find a verse referring to it in the bible. and yes, the bible DOES have everything in it. if you deny this, you are saying that the care and love with which god inspired the writers to write the things written in it is useless and moot- in short, you are questioning god. all catholics do that through the delusion that the bible isn't enough for faith. "faith comes through hearing, hearing by the WORD OF GOD".
i don't need "credible sources" to convince me that the turin shroud is authentic. my god and his word will do.
its idiotic how some people want to listen to men about the things of god, rather than god himself. i'll be praying for this to stop.
i'm so sorry!Waaaah! i was only being truthfulHug . it's risky talking about god and jesus and the bible!
You're being smug and ignorant. I'm not an expert in the field of forensic sciences, but I know they can trace things our human eyes cannot perceive.
The Bible is an abridged version of Christ's life. Not every detail is included. I'm not saying it is useless because it doesn't contain everything. I'm just stating a fact. It's a holy abridgement, but it's still an abridgement.
You like many other fundamentals have put too much emphasis on the Bible. You've leveled the book as an idol -- relying on it too much for everything. What if all the Bibles in the world were destroyed? What would you have left?
If you want to worship a book, that's your prerogative.
we don't worship the bible per se, but that's like you guys saying "we don't worship mary".
jesus fingers are unusually long on the shroud.
i understand i'm being rude. i'm sorry. i knew better than to argue over a picture. and we came so far!
i think i'll stop and just understand that you're a person in your own right and i ought to respect you and not mind the fact that you're an RC.
So, he admitted he worships the Bible. Oy!
Sola Scriptura is not a Biblical teaching. It's a man made ideology.
can you give me bible passages which confirms this? and first of, what exactly is the "SOLA SCRIPTVRA"?
Sola Scriptura means "by Scripture alone" or "only relying on the Bible." The Bible never says you must rely solely on Scripture.
(Cool) show me a passage from the bible. lemme see.
He's trying really hard to be smart.
Which passage? Because there are many of them. Here. Take your pick. catholicknight.blogspot./2009/…
Luther started the ideology of Sola Scriptura, not Christ and his Apostles. It's a Protestant belief.
well i'm not protestant, but i'm not catholic either.
But you adhere to the ideology of Sola Scriptura based on your comments, which is Protestant.
i think you've never heard of the brethren movement which took place in the 19th century in kerala, south india. you can look it up in wikipedia. these people are all around the world, most of them malayalee expatriates from kerala. their churches are known by the names of their localities. they are a lot like the church described in acts chapters 1 and 2. they share belongings, keep fellowship, gather once every week to remember the lord and worship him, and believe in god, the lord jesus christ, the holy trinity, the bible, and the doctrines of salvation, baptism, &c. they do not celebrate any liturgical feast or festival, neither do they have lent, saints' days, &c. they have no liturgical language, and are very simple in appearance- the bishops or elders wear no mitres, cassocks, or carry staves. deacons, evangelists, and the other ministers don't either. we believe in and practise believer's baptism, and keep the lord's supper(or eucharist). they do not believe in the lutheran teaching of consubstantiation, or practise child baptism. many protestant churches practise child baptism, which is contradictory to what the bible teaches about salvation and baptism.
sola scriptura is not an ideology or delusion. it is because the scripture is god-breathed. we rely on the bible because it is our only source of hope and instruction. we ought to rely on the bible. it may not contain enough and detailed information on the people described, but it does contain what we need to know about them. the bible, however, DOES contain everything we need to live a fruitful, meaningful, and devout and faithful christian life in this sin-dominated world. we believe that tradition and the apocrypha are not of god, but we do believe that outside information about the biblical people and places can be very helpful more often than not. so you see, we don't entirely throw out tradition. we just don't rely on it that much. it does not do anything to bring us closer to god, in my opinion. our faith is catholic, and we are protestant to the prince of this world.
the lord's prayer is not a prayer the lord told us to pray- it is the pattern of prayer. christ told us to (quoting the malayalam bible) pray ye AFTER THIS MANNER, not pray ye THIS. we should praise god and acknowledge his magnitude and power, we should ask him to show us in his word(the bible has been called bread numerous times in the bible) what he wants to give us today, we should ask him to give us the grace to forgive and to ask his protection form the evil one. and in the end, we must give him glory, in the name of his son jesus christ, and close with an amen. it's fine to talk to your spiritual mommy(this was NOT sarcastic), and it's also okay to tell her what you need. you have the COMPLETE freedom to believe in whatever you choose to believe in. i'm cool with it, really. all i did here was share with you what i believe.
please take the time to read this! this was just some info on my church and beliefs. thank you and god bless.
Dude, I'm just pointing out your heresy. I'm not asking for a word salad explanation...
well then, i think we shouldn't point out each other's heresies and keep quiet!Rage CURSE YOU!
More of that good old Christian "CURSE YOU!"
I don't commit heresies because I follow sacred tradition.
But nice try.
what does "nice try" mean? what did you mean by that?
better be a child and believe simply, than be wise and prudent, and become heavy laden and overworked.
look, i think we're done here. i will not block you, but i think you should stop "pointing out my heresies". if you think they're heresies, i get points in heaven, so continue following sacred tradition. i will never be ignorant of anyone's religious faith; in fact, i appreciate it and encourage it! you, therefore, have accused me falsely of being "smug and ignorant". besides, even if i go to heaven or hell, what is that to you? don't worry! you keep upholding your traditions and such. i have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM. continue studying various bible translations and reading all those 73 books of yours. continue making catholic art. go on doing your thing. if you don't want to take me seriously, or understand me well enough, okay! i'll get lost and out of your online life.
look, i came on this website to post art and get feedback. i never thought this religious debate would be started by an ouf as myself, and escalate it to this point.
besides, you speak out of context sometimes. out-of-context speakers annoy me to shreds.
He's playing the victim card kids! Oh, and keep note of that "I will not block you" comment.
Definition of nice try
1. : a good effort or attempt to do something — usually used in an ironic way to say that an attempt at something was not very good or was not a nice thing to do
Now you're playing the victim card? You chose to comment, peaches. Don't pretend like I'm somehow forcing you to reply.
If you didn't want to have a religious debate, you certainly didn't convey that. You just kept arguing and arguing. If you didn't have a problem with my faith, you wouldn't have been so quick to argue. You insulted my faith numerous times in your replies, and yet you claim you have no problem with it? Bull!
You've been smug and ignorant. You claim to know what the Bible means better than the Church does. You said yourself you're young too, which makes it extra smug.
I don't claim to know everything. I go by what the Catholic Church teaches -- the traditions that have been passed down since its founding.
I speak plainly and bluntly. That's not out of context kiddo. Sola Scriptura is a heretical man-made belief. Period.
YOU have misunderstood what I said in my previous comment. you are a terrible interpreter of my comments. and your comments tempt me to reply so much, i can't resist. i never claim anything, i've only told you what i learnt from the bible. i visited the links you gave me. it makes me very sad to say that it's YOU CATHOLICS WHO HAVE MISINTERPRETED THE HOLY BIBLE. pathetic.
i have very clearly admitted my mistake above. i can't believe you're so mean. mary would take more time to understand me and bring me on my knees than you would. did this person even READ my comment at least once?!
i should've asked my second question after my first. how stupid of me!
you did speak out of context. if you don't want to admit it, then YOU'RE the "smug and ignorant" one. very sorry to tell you, but you misinterpreted yet another bible passage- what i typed beneath the first line of my previous comment was something the lord himself said- i simply quoted his statement. i never act smug just because i'm a kid. all the kids in my church know their faith and bible well. they don't read it only at mass and church, and use it to pray the rosary. mary would be more than shocked if she knew that people have prayed to her and asked for her intercession. jesus tells such folks,"depart from me, ye workers of iniquity! i never knew you!".
the catholic church may be ancient, but it simply isn't the church which the apostles founded. it simply isn't. it's offices and practices; doctrine and beliefs; devotions and devotees; none of them are christian in the true sense of the world, and if i dare say this, they actually satanic and anti-christian.
So, he has "no problem with my faith, but it's TOTES SATANIC!!"
He blocked me after that reply too. So much for keeping his word!
This was what I would have replied, had I not been blocked...
Well, if your comments were -- I don't know -- legible... that would probably help.
So, you give in to temptation? Tsk tsk...
The Church hasn't misinterpreted the Bible. We have held the same beliefs in it since our founding.
I'm "mean?" LOL kiddo. I've politely and patiently put up with your crap for a while now. I have my limits.
The Blessed Mother would understand your incoherent babbles because she's perfect in Heaven. Don't compare me to her.
And she wouldn't be shocked kiddo. She already knows I ask her to pray for me a lot.
Ah, now my faith is "Satanic?" So much for that whole "I have absolutely no problem with your faith" thing!
So, to sum up...
He started this whole thing, and then when I called him out on things, he played the victim card and blocked me like a coward.
Oh, and did I mention he commented on just about EVERY SINGLE RELIGIOUS PICTURE OF MINE?? He even replied to OTHER COMMENTS -- some of which were from several years ago.
Here's one example of his comments. comments.deviantart.com/1/2109…
Alas, he hid most of his comments. But he did leave the comment he made on his alternate account up!comments.deviantart.com/1/4807…
i know the salve regina! except i changed it to salve rex meo, so it would be directed to the lord jesus more. i first heard it in the movie called sister act. have you seen it?
"Screw Mary! I'mma just change the words and disregard her completely!"
Um... why are you using an alternate account?
The Salve Regina is an ancient Marian prayer. Catholics ask her to watch over us as a motherly figure and to pray for us to her Son. It existed long before that movie.
1. i'm using an alternate account because i first signed in to deviantart on my ipad. i couldn't remember my password for Aericlee, so i signed in on my father's laptop as aericmon. also, i made a mean comment about a drawing, and the artist blocked me, so i asked one of their watchers to ask them to unblock so i could apologize, but she didn't concur. so i thought of a different way, and i found out that i could apologize using my other account. but i'm not going to log out on either one of these, so people can at least guess that aericmon and Aericlee are the same person. and i already got feedback on this account.
2. okay, but i wanted to know whether you've seen that movie. and yes, i know it's a prayer, but i've also heard the hymn version.
So, by this point, I'd been chatting about this whole thing with my good buddy xiaoniao
. So she chimed in.
I thought you said you were going to pack up and leave.
i'm sorry, but that comment wasn't meant for you.
He apparently decides who gets to comment on my page... who knew? And here I thought it was a public site. Silly me!
"i'm sorry, but that comment wasn't meant for you."
You left a public comment! Anyone can reply. Also, since when do you decide who gets to reply to comments.
"also, i made a mean comment about a drawing, and the artist blocked me, so i asked one of their watchers to ask them to unblock so i could apologize, but she didn't concur. so i thought of a different way, and i found out that i could apologize using my other account."
You do realize that that's called ban evasion, and is against DA Policy, right?
And he blocked me on his alternate account, after ban evading to reply, of course.
---i know i left a public comment; i was just expecting someone else to answer.an uncaring, UNCHRISTIAN person doesn't need to be seen by me, so i'll just leave.
LOL bye Felicia.
Oh, and he copied my picture...
Yeah, I don't know if he's aware of this, but the hashtag "kingandqueen" is incorrect. In the Davidic Kingdom -- which Christ assumed the throne of -- the Queen is the mother of the King, not the bride. The bride is the Princess.
Case in point: Psalm 45:8b-15From ivory palaces stringed instruments make you glad;daughters of kings are among your ladies of honor;at your right hand stands the Queen in gold of Ophir.
Hear, O daughter, consider and incline your ear;
forget your people and your father’s house,
and the King will desire your beauty.
Since he is your Lord, bow to him;
the people of Tyre will seek your favor with gifts,
the richest of the people with all kinds of wealth.
The Princess is decked in her chamber with gold-woven robes;
in many-colored robes she is led to the King;
behind her the virgins, her companions, follow.
With joy and gladness they are led along
as they enter the palace of the King.
Note that the Queen and the Princess are not the same person in this psalm. The Queen is at the right of the King, while the Princess is walking to the King.
I'd point it out for him, but y'know...
EDIT: THIS COMMENT WINS!! comments.deviantart.com/1/1245…
xiaoniao is the best. Seriously.
Yeah... it's been a long week.
I need a drink...
Until the next fails...