Another reason for me to not like the current Pope

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

It doesn't work if you invoke it, Cherny.

I know, hence the "".

Still, he is a creepy Nazi Pope. Plus his social views make Ann Coulter look like Al Franken in comparison.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

It doesn't work if you invoke it, Cherny.

My point was, if we're going by accuracy of transcription, Torah has been transcribed by hand precisely for over 5000 years. So if that's the measure of whether something's worthy of belief...

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

My point was, if we're going by accuracy of transcription, Torah has been transcribed by hand precisely for over 5000 years. So if that's the measure of whether something's worthy of belief...

I was talking about Cherny invoking Godwin's law by bringing Hitler into the discussion on purpose and then referencing the effect of bringing up Hitler on fulfiling Godwin's law.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

I was talking about Cherny invoking Godwin's law by bringing Hitler into the discussion on purpose and then referencing the effect of bringing up Hitler on fulfiling Godwin's law.

And I quoted the wrong post.

[mousepod]

Has anyone seen The God Who Wasn't There? It's pretty interesting.

Here the wikipedia link...

[blueerica]

Precisely.

[BarTopDancer]

GC is my hero!!!!!!!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

GD: Does anyone, really? I mean, all that stuff in Leviticus about animal sacrifice, no one does that any more.

The reason the sacrifices aren't done any more is because there's no more Temple. Same goes for our own high priests. We had our own "pope" style set up, back in the day, and that ended when the second Temple was destroyed and the Dome of the Rock built in it's place.

If the Temple still stood, Judaism would be a whole 'nother deal...

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

The reason the sacrifices aren't done any more is because there's no more Temple. Same goes for our own high priests. We had our own "pope" style set up, back in the day, and that ended when the second Temple was destroyed and the Dome of the Rock built in it's place.

If the Temple still stood, Judaism would be a whole 'nother deal...

If the Temple still stood... would you still be Jewish? I mean, how would you feel about adhering to your religion under those circumstances.

(just curious, this isn't really relevant to the discussion)

Also... how does the lack of the temple nullify sacrifices? Didn't the early prophets built altars wherever? (I'm not challenging you here, I'm actually dead curious as to how Judaism changed from then to now)

[Tref]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Tref: why would you cease a fascinating line of discussion?

Hmm, OK ...

Well, I will say this -- at the moment, I attend Mass six days a week, though I have not always been so fervent a Catholic. For me it is an experience. A way to gain knowledge that I did not have before. I've spent some years of my life studying different religions, and I could tell some weird stories about things I seen. In the end, though, I went back to my religion of birth. The one I was baptised in -- Catholicism. As it turns out, the church in my neighborhood is one of the more conservative churches in Los Angeles. The pastor of my church is one serious dude. He is the size of Oddjob from the Bond movies, with the shaved head and physique of linebacker. When he speaks, you cannot help but pay attention. And when he gets mad at the congregation, you can hear a pin drop, nobody moves a muscle. This guy will even taunt the room during the sermon by saying something intentionally incorrect. He'll squint his eyes and an evil smile will break on his face. "Right?" He'll ask. "Am I right?"

And the poor old folks in the front row will squeak, "R-i-ight?"

"WRONG!" the pastor will scream. "Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!" Then he'll slap his head several times, or beat his giant paws on the podium. "What is wrong with you my Catholic people? How many times must I teach this?"

Nevertheless, for somebody like me, who truly wants to know what each little thing or action means, this kind of priest is perfect. This giant of a man who would loom high over the congregation, even if they were all wearing stilts, does not skip a step, miss a hymn or leave out a vowel. He even introduced Latin to the Mass, a full year before the Pope officially approved it.

However, I also want to know the history. The real story. The dirty laundry. The scoop on the apostles and all their foibles. And for that I went to bookstores. Anyway, I think I have wandered a bit. I am bored. Sorry.

To: Not Afraid. No, it really hasn’t changed. Its true the Bible was never originally meant to be distributed to the masses. Its purpose was to be used within the church as a guide for the Priests. Then came the printing and then the translations ... However, the text itself, despite the many translations, is as it was when it was first written. Jesus’ word has not been altered from the original Greek. It is as it was.

To Innerspaceman: Whether you like it or not, the writers of the Gospels are the only word of Christ we know. What do we know of Jesus that is not in the gospels? The Gospels are all we have -- there is no more. So, when these same men say that Jesus wanted a church built -- one true church, who can argue? Accordingly, Jesus gave the job to the Apostle Peter and he is the Roman Catholic Church’s first Pope, in an apostolic succession that goes on to this day. For people who argue that this is not history but church lore, I say, tell me how those two differ? History, as we understand the word, can not even prove the existence of Jesus. Not a single historian who lived during that age wrote of Jesus, not even in a sidebar. Not one. Nata. Why? I don't know. Many have theorised it was because Jesus never picked up a check and historians were by and large a gossipy clicque, but that is just a theory. So where does that leave Jesus? We know of him only because of these men.

To Goulish Delight: I say this, read the whole news article. There is a noticeable anti-Catholic bias in the media. The prayer that speaks of the conversion of jews has been changed, or, rather was changed 40 years ago. As far as I can tell, that change is permanent.

Either way, the return of the Latin Mass is significant.

To Kevy-baby. That is just not true. No old white men have stripped the Bible of anything. In fact, people will often point to the contradictions of the Gospels as proof of its unauthenticity, when, in fact, the very nature of the Gospels contradictions with each other is proof they were never touched, fixed, or otherwise altered from their original text.

Despites the jokes, the Church is not run by people who want to profit by what they are doing. They are people who have totally devoted themselves body & soul to praising God. They are there because they truly and sincerely believe that every word of the text is sacred. Why would these same people then sit quietly as its meaning was altered?

Anyway, I hope I haven't offended. I have a rule -- never talk religion. And I broke that rule in a big way this afternoon. And while nothing personally offends me at all, I just thought I'd stick up for the Pope. Things weren't looking to good for him in here.