Vatican calling for Boycott of Da Vinci Code

All I believe is that there is a higher spirit. No matter what the name is.I don't think there is one true church nor do I believe anyone should be condemned for believing otherwise.Doctrine,Bible and all other philosophies are methods for us to lead a better life.

It is looking at the skies for guidance sometimes. The core of humans will resonate the path along with their own spiritual guidance. It is for all to accept or deny.

But, blessed be the children. For they shall inherit the earth.
 
concernedperson said:
All I believe is that there is a higher spirit. No matter what the name is.I don't think there is one true church nor do I believe anyone should be condemned for believing otherwise.Doctrine,Bible and all other philosophies are methods for us to lead a better life.

It is looking at the skies for guidance sometimes. The core of humans will resonate the path along with their own spiritual guidance. It is for all to accept or deny.

But, blessed be the children. For they shall inherit the earth.
I completely agree with your point that there is no "one true church" for everyone and I do not think anyone should be condemned for ascribing to one or another of the various varieties of religious traditions in the world.

At the same time, part of the problem is that when someone finds their path, often the individual feels so enthusiastic about it that they want everyone else to share in that.

IMO the Truth is not the domain of one path exclusively. And at the same time, individuals are attracted to certain faiths due to their unique temperaments and experiences.

In one way, we are all trying to find the same thing, but it is as if we are speaking different languages.
 
windovervocalcords said:
I completely agree with your point that there is no "one true church" for everyone and I do not think anyone should be condemned for ascribing to one or another of the various varieties of religious traditions in the world.

At the same time, part of the problem is that when someone finds their path, often the individual feels so enthusiastic about it that they want everyone else to share in that.

IMO the Truth is not the domain of one path exclusively. And at the same time, individuals are attracted to certain faiths due to their unique temperaments and experiences.

In one way, we are all trying to find the same thing, but it is as if we are speaking different languages.

What you are describing is extremist. I am not addressing that at all. There is always an excuse when some choose to follow that path. Mostly, it is dysfunction.

With that being said, my post was more directed to people who are trying to make a decision. The paths designated are to be chosen not assigned. I strongly believe in looking at all factors and temper it with your own beliefs.It it doesn't feel right than you aren't there yet.
 
<<In one way, we are all trying to find the same thing, but it is as if we are speaking different languages>>

I agree.
Different strokes for different blokes.
I will never believe I am not 'worthy' because I am not religious.
I am a good person and if Jesus were to look into my heart, he would see that!
Just because I use the God word and don't go to Church, doesn't mean I'm any less of a person than anyone else.
Edit to add:
That's me done.
Apologies to all concerned for being more argumentative than usual, pms and rainy days got the better of me.
 
narlacat said:
Because the other works make more sense, I'd say that's why.
I have had the pleasure of studying certain parts of the Bible....it just never made any sense to me, so I chose to move onward and upward....to find answers to my questions.
Christianity doesn't like people asking too many questions...and doesn't have the answers anyway lol


The day before graduation my college did a "roast" at the rehearsal. I was mentioned as "girl who asked the most questions" :doh:

So I am curious, what questions did you ask that they (Christianity) couldn't answer?
 
Well, one question I've had is about Adam and Eve.
If they were the first humans on this planet...how did the population become what it is?
Isn't that incest lol
Who was Cain's wife, where did she come from?
I don't get that...
I think he tried to kill his bro and was sent away...and I guess he found her running around in the desert somewhere?
But how does that work?
 
http://www.biblegateway.com and http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp

Regarding Adam and Eve;

However, Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect—no mistakes! But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam—Genesis 3:6ff, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.

It wasn't until 400 years after Abraham that G-d gave Moses the laws that forbade it.

We know that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old (Genesis 5:3), and Eve saw him as a ‘replacement’ for Abel (Genesis 4:25). Therefore, the period from Cain’s birth to Abel’s death may have been 100 years or more—allowing plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children and grandchildren. By the time Abel was killed, there could well have been a considerable number of descendants of Adam and Eve, involving several generations.

Cain married before he went to Nod, he 'knew' his wife, or lay with her in Nod. So to answer your question, Cains wife was his sister. As, if you so have this faith, we are all brothers and sisters. We know that Adam and Eve had children.

Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). His brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this Earth.

Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve—‘And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.’ This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.

During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, ‘The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.’11

The Bible does not tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve. However, considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5), it would seem reasonable to suggest there were many! Remember, they were commanded to ‘Be fruitful, and multiply’ (Genesis 1:28).


It's a faith thing, either you don't believe or you'll spend an eternity trying to disprove it. Oh and Cain didn't try to kill his brother, he did kill his brother. He killed him because G-d rejects his sacrifice but accepts Abel's. He is then cursed to wander with a mark upon him.

Now if I may, according to the Midrash, an Exegesis, an involved and critical interpertation of a scripture, it states that the real motive involved the desire of women. According to Midrashic tradition, Cain and Abel each had twin sisters, whom they were to marry. The Midrash say that Abel's promised wife was the more beautiful, and hence Cain desired to rid himself of Abel, whose presence was inconvenient. While the Torah merely states that Cain killed Abel, the Midrash records the tradition that the two brothers fought, until Abel, who was the stronger of the two, overcame Cain, but mercifully spared his life. Cain, however, took Abel unawares and, overpowering him, killed him. The exact method of murder varies with some traditions proposing a stone, others a cane, and others by strangling him.

The twins were their own sisters but not twins to each other. So, Cain was born with a twin and so was Abel. That is they were part of a set of twins and that Cain was to marry Abels twin and Abel was to marry Cains twin but was murdered. So he still married his sister either way.
 
I'm paraphrasing one of my favorite Thomas Jefferson quotes:

"If I live my life according to the principles that all religions have in common, then a truly wise and loving God would not stop me at the gates of heaven for the minor points on which they differ."
 
Oh, so it was his sister, see I just can't accept that....that doesn't make sense to me.
Incest.
That would surely bring on birth defects.....
And we all know incest is wrong, I'm sure it even teaches that in the Bible...but hey maybe they didn't know that back then lol
It scientifically wouldn't work like that...
How did all the different races come about if we all came from Adam and Eve, who were caucasian...
 
Guess it depends on your version. I personally don't believe that Adam and Eve were white. Given the circumstances of where they say that the Garden of Eden may be and the fact that we are talking Israel and the middle east for the rest equals not white.

Your genetics question is answered on the first line,

However, Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect—no mistakes!

Only after many years and the accumulation much of sin did G-d then forbid it.

But folks have been marrying close relatives for thousands of years. Egyptians, Jews, Christians, Puritans, it didnt matter the background. First cousins marrying first cousins, double first cousins marrying 3rd cousins...this is as close at the 1880's so what's so strange about genetically perfect people doing it?

Now for races. After the great flood we were then decended from Noah. He was told to go and multiply. A few hundred years later people disregarded G-ds law and gathered in one place, The Tower of Babel. Up until this time there was only one language. After G-d judged them He made them all speak different languages so they couldn't work together and they dispersed across the planet in confusion. Thus you get different climates, different amounts of sun, different ways of adapting. A light skinned person couldn't exsist in a very sunny area, so you got darker people who could handle sunlight. The genetic code was there I think for diversity. I think they were mid brown skinned with either darker or lighter being born in every generation, just like today, but given the humans way of adapting to a certain way of doing things, so to did skin, thus you get different 'races'

I get a lot of flak from those who think that G-d Himself was a caucasian...how when He was a spirit? But, if He made them in His own image they had to have been brown because of the general area.....or they just adapted to those colors due to the sun and climate. Anything is possible with genetics.

And I was asked this in an email so I'll share it here. I write G-d the way I do because to those of the Jewish faith it is a sign of reverence. We never even say His name. We look at it that because the web is not perm and His name could be erased then that is defacing the name of G-d. I don't want to run the risk of sin per say. I know other faiths do it too. Can someone tell me why they do it or is it for the same reason?
 
I understand the reasoning behind different races re:adaptation

But most of the stuff in that post is lost on me, I just can't swallow that...leaves a big lump in my throat that is probably doubt lol

God himself is cacasian?, I'm sorry but I don't think the whole made in his image was to be taken so literally...
I will never believe God is a little man up in the sky....how sexist anyway...but that falls in line with women having just about zero influence in any given church....

Anyway I have lots of unanswered questions where Christianity is concerned, the answers given just don't sit right with me....because to me the questions still seem unanswered.
 
just finished the book. its drek. i have read harlequin romances with more depth and fact.

the only character with any depth at all was the monk, silas. a book could have been written about him, alone. my husband says the same character in the movie was excellent, and well acted.

i dont regret reading it, but so many clinkers really made it a chore.

on to holy blood, holy grail. i am told it is a better book. i hope so.
 
Mira said:
just finished the book. its drek. i have read harlequin romances with more depth and fact.

the only character with any depth at all was the monk, silas. a book could have been written about him, alone. my husband says the same character in the movie was excellent, and well acted.

i dont regret reading it, but so many clinkers really made it a chore.

on to holy blood, holy grail. i am told it is a better book. i hope so.
Yet an albino monk would not be the best choice for an assassin as those suffering from albinism has poor eyesight and cannot drive as a result, as the Monk does all over Europe in the movie, let alone be able to see well enough to kill someone, lol. This is according to an article I read somewhere, anyways.
 
narlacat said:
I understand the reasoning behind different races re:adaptation

But most of the stuff in that post is lost on me, I just can't swallow that...leaves a big lump in my throat that is probably doubt lol

God himself is cacasian?, I'm sorry but I don't think the whole made in his image was to be taken so literally...
I will never believe God is a little man up in the sky....how sexist anyway...but that falls in line with women having just about zero influence in any given church....

Anyway I have lots of unanswered questions where Christianity is concerned, the answers given just don't sit right with me....because to me the questions still seem unanswered.
Having all of the answers would then require no faith to believe.
 
cappuccina said:
...trouble with Catholic kids at our public school telling the other kids that they'll burn in hell because they're not Catholic, while the kids are on recess and the teacher can't hear what's going on...
After reading this on the 15 page or so of this thread I am compelled to write that my daughter, aged 11 was told she was going to hell because she is a Catholic and then asked if we all wore black at home. We live in North Carolina where the Catholics are few but for the immigrants. There is NO Catholic big business happening here, just tithings to build a church bigger than a doublewide.

2 Years ago I was told by a Baptist woman in Wal-Mart that we are a cult and I will go to hell if I am not "saved". It happens to a lot of us Cappucina. I don't lump together and hate baptists because of it and I am certainly not going to pick out and make fun of our differences in beliefs.

It seems in your posts you villanize the Catholic Church. Would you feel just as comfortable disagreeing with Muslims or some other religion on their personal beliefs so boldly with such anger,fever, and bitterness? Would you tell Muslim women they are crazy for wearing covering over their heads because they believe it is what Allah wants?

Something I tell my kids that seems appropriate here, "Just because you don't agree, doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong."

I believe the original post was how do I feel about the Vatican boycotting DVC?
I feel fine about it. If a Catholic doesn't want to support DVC then don't. If you are a Catholic and don't want to support the boycott as I am, then don't. If you are a non-catholic and feel it is all rubish then that is your right too. But you don't have to bring in pedophilia and otherwise undermine the Catholic religion itself. I personally read the book and its prequel Angels and Demon's and found them both entertaining. If Dan Brown wants to run around saying it is nonfiction, I say go for it. I read them for kicks and giggles and when I can rent the movie on DVD I will be comparing and contrasting it to the book. This is just my humble opinion. May God have mercy on my soul.
 
Maral said:
The Catholic Church never taught that others would not go to heaven.
Vatican II only clarified the position the Church has always held, that many non-Catholics will be saved through the compassion of Jesus and his Church. Jesus knows the heart of everyone and he knows the difference between a hardened mean spirit against the Church and an honest searching seeker of the truth.
I have to disagree with you on that one point only. I went to a private Catholic church when I was a child and it was made very clear that All babies were born with Original Sin and that their souls would be in limbo or Go to Hell if they weren't baptized. Born to Catholic parents or not, it didn't matter. All babies.

This was my first issue when I was getting older and emboldened enough to question. I feel like I am allowed to question this because I choose to remain Catholic. I feel that a non-catholic has no reason or purpose to have a problem with specific Catholic beliefs as they are not Catholic so why should it even ruffle their feathers or bother them in the slightest. It has nothing to do with them. Only myself, my faith, and my personal relationship with God Almighty.
Again just my opinion
 
....rather with the EXTREME side of ANY religion. I have issues with the more the "fundamentalist" sects (including evangelical Catholics), whether they are Christian or not, not only because they are unyielding and intolerant, but because they justify violence, hatred, intolerance and other despicable acts in the name, not only of their religion, but of whatever God they believe in as well...My discussions have been mainly with otherCatholics posting on this thread, as those are the folks mainly posting here, although we do have different religions represented. Also, I have given example of other more enlightened and tolerant Catholics, such as Father Groppi, to the Catholics on this board, and it is very interesting to me that no one here wishes to take on the issue or reinforce the Catholics who have quesitoned the parts of their faith that make no sense, or who have dared to openly take on a humanistic cause, as Father Groppi did.

In my post where I used Father Groppi as an example, I said that I would not have a problem if individuals like him were the norm in the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, they are not at this point in time, and any priest or nun who dares to quesiton the Chuch, or who takes on causes the Church does not agree with, including humanistic ones, is swiftly punished...

Oh, and as far as people being presumptous and saying they know God is a white male...LOL if, in fact, there is a God responsible for the order in the universe, since we are all mere mortals, how could we even possible claim to be absolutely sure what God looks like....

And I LOVE the depictions of Jesus with blond hair and blue eyes...Since I have relatives that come from the areas where Jesus was born and led his life, I can say that it would be quite unusual to have an Aryan-looking person indigenous to this area! LOL...I think that Jesus probably looked more like this:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/

...rather than like this:


For those of you who have xenophobic tendencies, you'll just have to deal with what the forensic anthropologists say! :D
 
cappuccina said:
....rather with the EXTREME side of ANY religion. I have issues with the more the "fundamentalist" sects (including evangelical Catholics), whether they are Christian or not, not only because they are unyielding and intolerant, but because they justify violence, hatred, intolerance and other despicable acts in the name, not only of their religion, but of whatever God they beleive in as well...My discussions have been manily with otherCatholics posting on this thread, as those are the folks mainly pposting here, although we do have different religions represented. Also, I have given example of other more enlightened and tolerant Catholics, such as Father Groppi, to the Catholics on this board, and it is very interesting to me that no one here wishes to take on the issue or reinforce the Catholics who have quesitoned the parts of their faith that make no sense, or who have dared to openly take on a humanistic cause, as Father Groppi did.

In my post where I used Father Groppi as an example, I said that I would not have a problem if individuals like him were the norm in the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, they are not at this point in time, and any priest or nun who dares to quesiton the Chuch, or who takes on causes the Church does not agree with, including humanistic ones, is swiftly punished...

Oh, and as far as people being presumptous and saying they know God is a white male...LOL if, in fact, there is a God responsible for the order in the universe, since we are all mere mortals, how could we even possible claim to be absolutely sure what God looks like....

And I LOVE the depictions of Jesus with blond hair and blue eyes...Since I have relatives that come from the areas where Jesus was born and led his life, I can say that it would be quite unusual to have an Aryan-looking person indigenous to this area! LOL...I think that Jesus probably looked more like this:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/25/face.jesus/

...rather than like this:


For those of you who have xenophobic tendencies, you'll just have to deal with what the forensic anthropologists say! :D
Capp, maybe I missed something in the links you provided about Fr. Groppi, but I can't find anything that says he was punished by the Catholic Church.
The only thing I can see that some may consider a "punishment" is the fact that he had to leave the priesthood when he married. But that was his choice.

Maybe no one here wished to take on the issue or reinforce the Catholics who have quesitoned the parts of their faith that make no sense because they don't see that as the problem you do. If I felt that parts of my faith made no sense, and I couldn't get an answer that made sense, what I would question is why I remain a Catholic.

Like you, I also have a problem with the EXTREME fringe of all religions, including Catholics. I know there are some, but I don't personally know any Catholics that fit into that extreme fringe. Fr. Groppi did a lot of good with his civil rights activism, but just because not all Catholics get that involved with activism doesn't make them a part of the "extreme fundamentalists".
 
windovervocalcords said:
What do you know of "Charismatic Catholics"? I came across this when I was in college and went to one of their meetings at the invitation of a friend.

They speak in tongues....and faint, spasm etc. I must say that was toward the end of my personal experience with investigating the varieties of Catholicism before walking away from it.

One very beautiful place I visited and felt drawn to was a place in New Mexco called "Christ in the Desert" monastery. Its a retreat place.

Its run completely in silence, and the bookstore is on the honor system.

This is Catholic too, but seemed to be not so tied to Rome. Very remote location, yet in winter the locals drive all the way in on a very hazardous road to do Midnight Mass at Christmas time.

Very lovely.
Any Charismatic branch of Christianity will have speaking in tongues, etc. as part of it's worship. Those are considered gifts of the Holy Spirit.

When "regular" Catholics say the Our Father, we often hold our arms out (and sometimes look upwards) and that is considered somewhat of a Charismatic pose. I rather like it, actually.
 
windovervocalcords said:
Thank you for your answer.
Here's a link DK:

I visited this place in 1987. Picture does not do it justice. Spent the day there. It's Benedictine....feels good there. Very sincere practitioners.

The website has links to listen to gregorian chant.
http://www.christdesert.org/noframes/tour/brief.html

I'm a bit off the DVC track here but this reminded me of spending several very special months in this state and my journeys at that time:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week921/cover.html

Thanks for the link, Wind. I enjoyed it.

I love New Mexico, especially Santa Fe. When I lived in Denver, I would sometimes fly down there just for lunch!
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
681
Total visitors
860

Forum statistics

Threads
625,664
Messages
18,507,867
Members
240,832
Latest member
bibthebab
Back
Top