Indulgences. Pay pope or baptize LDS?

[archaeologist]

Shoe introduced indulgences in the OP, that is the door. I think when in a court that a opening is created for inquiry when the opposition introduces the topic.

this isn't a court of law

The OP mentioned Catholic Indulgences as a comparison to LDS baptisms, hence the topic is both LDS baptisms for the dead and Catholic indulgences

you have a knack for stating the obvious. just because someone makes a comparison doesn't mean that they are opening adoor, they are simply making a comparison to help the other person get the point they are trying to make.

I therefore think the generalization is hyperfocused on specific errors of the past by bad Catholics. Tetzel could have been very wrong in approach to indlugences, but I think he gets a bad rap mostly for his defending the practice rather than actually doing it in Luther's understanding

yet neither i nor lattourette were being hyper focused but applying the proper definition for the purpose of the indulgences. too often RCC adherents do not want to face the reality of what indulgences were for.

granted they may have morphed into something else over the years but i wouldn't kid myself that they are for any spiritual reason.

feel free to start a discussion on indulgences in the RCC forum and let us know your idea of their purposes. as i alreay said, you have changed them to fit your sensibilities, so what has stopped the RCC from doing the same (changing the public definition to fit RCC adherent' sensibilities) but keeping the original purpose from the 'faithful'?

[archaeologist]

Mormon president and prophet Brigham Young declared: "he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ" (Journal of Discourses, vol.9, p.312).

Apostle Bruce McConkie states: "There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).

There is] "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith" (Joseph Fielding Smith, in Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190).

No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289).

Bruce McConkie states: "If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation" (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).

and so much more. here we have evidence to support my point that mormonismis a schizophrenic belief. They claim to follow the Bible but what they are saying there is NOT taught in the Bible at all.

you cannot say you follow and believe the Bible then teach things not found in it. all of the above are contrary to what the Bible teaches and show that the mormons DO NOT belve or follow the Bible.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by archaeologist

feel free to start a discussion on indulgences in the RCC forum and let us know your idea of their purposes. as i alreay said, you have changed them to fit your sensibilities, so what has stopped the RCC from doing the same (changing the public definition to fit RCC adherent' sensibilities) but keeping the original purpose from the 'faithful'?

Actually, I would not have the time to go into the discussion at length. My liberty time is drawing to a close. But I do notice that your comments speak in generalities rather than citing sources. It was one reason that I became Catholic because I, when I was a Protestant, held the same misconceptions. Only one you are able to cite bibliographical information and check for bias and also checking the context of a p***age to a larger framework, i.e. reading the whole papal encyclical than just the parts that sound questionable, does the misconceptions disappear. I found most of the statements I used to denounce regarding the Catholic Church to be without merit and I found more in agreement with my own position as a Lutheran/Anglican.

[archaeologist]

Actually, I would not have the time to go into the discussion at length

that's typical.

But I do notice that your comments speak in generalities rather than citing sources

quite a baseless charge since i quoted latourette and have constantly placed links beneath my comments but par for the course for you.

i do not see you posting sources so i wouldn't talk.

It was one reason that I became Catholic because I, when I was a Protestant, held the same misconceptions

i don't hold to misconceptions but i see you failed to produce the links necessary to refute what i said, which means i wasn't wrong. and this is a chat room forum not an academic journal, if you want to see links then put them up to support your argument.

I found most of the statements I used to denounce regarding the Catholic Church to be without merit and I found more in agreement with my own position as a Lutheran/Anglican.

yet, i do not find any without merit as they teach unscriptural doctrines and indulgences is one of them. so why would you switch to a sect that teaches unbiblical things?

[Columcille]

archaeologist--that's typical.

Sorry, but I am on ***le 10 orders and I restart training on the 28th. It is not typical, I am speaking the truth regarding my own situation. The TN Army National Guard 278th Cavalry is going to be playing in the Middle East soon enough.

quite a baseless charge since i quoted latourette and have constantly placed links beneath my comments but par for the course for you.

i do not see you posting sources so i wouldn't talk.

You didn't quote Latourette in context, and you failed to quote Catholic primary sources as well.

i don't hold to misconceptions but i see you failed to produce the links necessary to refute what i said, which means i wasn't wrong. and this is a chat room forum not an academic journal, if you want to see links then put them up to support your argument.

The burden of proof rests on the offensive not the defensive. I as a practicing Catholic know my own positions, but may find it necessary to offer up primary source materials, but it really rests with your announcements of what you think my church teaches. If you don't like academics, I think you should not like Dr. Walter Martin, whose research method to cite primary source materials of the Cults is a testimony of his legacy. However, he falls short of his research methodology when he goes on the John Ankerburg show set against Father Pacwa in that every quote he uses against the Church is a refined prism through the eyes of the Reformers and not by Catholic primary source materials. It does not help him to be in agreement with the host if he fails to live up to standards he set for himself in the same research methodology of the Cults. However, he at least does not state Catholic are not Christians as you seem so ready to do.

yet, i do not find any without merit as they teach unscriptural doctrines and indulgences is one of them. so why would you switch to a sect that teaches unbiblical things?

You are en***led to your own ***umptions. I have pretty much viewed the indulgences as being a trivial matter, since people giving money to the Church for the sake of honoring deceased Christians is purely a volunteery matter. Nobody puts a gun to the head of people and says you must pay for indulgences, Even if back in the Reformation some Catholics sold indulgences outright, if they stated what the money was to be used for, it might be deemed a worthy charitable effort. But as far as the practice today, I see no line of parishioners stomping down the doors to buy indulgences. If they do go to gain an indulgence, it is intiated by them and not the priest. I think that has been a reform, if it was indeed an abuse of the Church during the Reformation. It does not negate its purposefulness.

[archaeologist]

Sorry, but I am on ***le 10 orders and I restart training on the 28th. It is not typical, I am speaking the truth regarding my own situation. The TN Army National Guard 278th Cavalry is going to be playing in the Middle East soon enough.

#1 too much information
#2 i do not care why you are leaving, you shouldn't have started something you knew you wouldn't be finishing.

You didn't quote Latourette in context, and you failed to quote Catholic primary sources as well.

ha ha ha ha always an excuse. not only was it in context, it was the beginning of the section and i do NOT have to cite RCC sources as that is biased material for a religious agenda.

The burden of proof rests on the offensive not the defensive

you would be wrong. (applies to the whole paragraph)

You are en***led to your own ***umptions

you are just like the mormons, you think your side is all facts and your opponents are all ***umptions. you certainly have lost all credibility with me (and that is all i am going to say)

[shoedog]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Shoe introduced indulgences in the OP, that is the door. I think when in a court that a opening is created for inquiry when the opposition introduces the topic. The OP mentioned Catholic Indulgences as a comparison to LDS baptisms, hence the topic is both LDS baptisms for the dead and Catholic indulgences. Just because he places it in the LDS forum does not matter since it is integrated into the original post.

Indulgences do raise money for the Church, but there are other indulgences that do not. In reading some prayers, there is sometimes an indulgence attached to it. I therefore think the generalization is hyperfocused on specific errors of the past by bad Catholics. Tetzel could have been very wrong in approach to indlugences, but I think he gets a bad rap mostly for his defending the practice rather than actually doing it in Luther's understanding. It is the laity that gives money to the Church, and in so doing should be for pure motives. If the laity knew that the money given would help produce a basilica for the glory of the Church, or to support the Crusaders from the spread of Islam then such indulgences as helped contribute is a pure and right motive. Everyone always talks about the crusades as though it was a stain, but never about the Muslim threat.

As Arch states, I was making a comparison between two religions with, to mew, similar heresies.

You admit, catholic indulgences reais money for the church. Everyone knows this. That wsn't my point. It was the abuse. I have somewhere a 1944 or so Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible that was stamped in the fromnt with a message from Pope Leo 23rd or something who said if I read it 15 minutes a day I would be credited 1 hour from my purgatory. (paraphrased)

It made no distinction I copuld see that one had to be a good Catholic in good standing with the Catholic ins***ution muxh less anything about having to be a Christian. It may have but wasn't readily apparent to me.

My bigger point is, why "indulgences" in either the form of cash, baptismal works, or anything else on the behalf of someone elses sin?

What possible benefit, other than for those sinned against or general welfare, does giving money on behalf of someone who died with a sin debt hanging over thier head? How would you giving money on my bwehalf lessen the responsiblity to "make right" what it was that I did while alive?

Didn't Christ alone may payment for the sin debt I incurred? Doesn't scripture say we are each responsible for our own sin? In my opinion giving something on behalf of another sinner is trying to take credit for what Christ Himself and He alone could for us on the cross.

Look at the LDS quotes I gave. They claim you have to bew baptized LDS to spend eternity with God. Joseph Smith has to okay it, and if you refuse to be baptized by LDS you cannot enter heaven. My point is, neither Catholic indulgences or LDS baptism have any salvational or redemptive value whatsoever and is simply a way fo rht egiver or worker to gain good works for their own credit after death.

Thanks, shoe

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by shoedog

My bigger point is, why "indulgences" in either the form of cash, baptismal works, or anything else on the behalf of someone elses sin?

What possible benefit, other than for those sinned against or general welfare, does giving money on behalf of someone who died with a sin debt hanging over thier head? How would you giving money on my bwehalf lessen the responsiblity to "make right" what it was that I did while alive?

Didn't Christ alone may payment for the sin debt I incurred? Doesn't scripture say we are each responsible for our own sin? In my opinion giving something on behalf of another sinner is trying to take credit for what Christ Himself and He alone could for us on the cross.

Look at the LDS quotes I gave. They claim you have to bew baptized LDS to spend eternity with God. Joseph Smith has to okay it, and if you refuse to be baptized by LDS you cannot enter heaven. My point is, neither Catholic indulgences or LDS baptism have any salvational or redemptive value whatsoever and is simply a way fo rht egiver or worker to gain good works for their own credit after death.

Thanks, shoe

I think your point is better stuck on the LDS than on the Catholic. The sacrificial payment for sin has been overcome by Christ being the Lamb of sacrafice. You have to seperate the eternal consequences of sin by the temporal consequences of sin, the eternal is payed for by Christ, but the temporal consequences of sin remain. A serial killer can only be killed once, even though they killed many. The ramifications of that serial killer is felt long after his own death. He may find Christ in prison and be forgiven, but the temporal consequences cannot be taken back. In such a case, the Church stands as a mediator for offsetting such temporal affects. When Christ is exalted by the good works of the Church, a balance can be partially restored. A person who attempts to give of himself only exalts his own self, this is why indulgences are important because they are works of love. They do not bring any salvation merit, only the love brings about some reconcilation to the world and to the self. God's forgiveness already forgave and remembers the offenses no more. As far as LDS baptisms are concerned, their intentions are quite different than Catholic indulgences. This is why I keep trying to say that the comparison does not work. I am in agreement with you against the LDS practice of baptism for the dead.

[shoedog]

Originally Posted by Columcille

I think your point is better stuck on the LDS than on the Catholic. The sacrificial payment for sin has been overcome by Christ being the Lamb of sacrafice. You have to seperate the eternal consequences of sin by the temporal consequences of sin, the eternal is payed for by Christ, but the temporal consequences of sin remain. A serial killer can only be killed once, even though they killed many. The ramifications of that serial killer is felt long after his own death. He may find Christ in prison and be forgiven, but the temporal consequences cannot be taken back. In such a case, the Church stands as a mediator for offsetting such temporal affects. When Christ is exalted by the good works of the Church, a balance can be partially restored. A person who attempts to give of himself only exalts his own self, this is why indulgences are important because they are works of love. They do not bring any salvation merit, only the love brings about some reconcilation to the world and to the self. God's forgiveness already forgave and remembers the offenses no more. As far as LDS baptisms are concerned, their intentions are quite different than Catholic indulgences. This is why I keep trying to say that the comparison does not work. I am in agreement with you against the LDS practice of baptism for the dead.

Sounds like you are n the service. Thank you! For anyone serving to protect our freedoms, thank you. Whatever we have in America, like freedom of religion, it was secured by those willing to fight and die for it. Thanks, shoe

[Mesenja]

Originally Posted by shoedog

shoedog:I watched the good movie Luther last night. He was pained by the Catholic church selling indulgences,that is,you can give money to the church for the benefit of a loved one in purgatory and you would get a certificate saying they would be released from purgatory at least sooner than they otherwise would be if not immediately.

Isn't this similar to LDS [Mormon] teaching that people who die apart from the Mormon church,and their belief system,can be baptized by proxy by an LDS [Mormon] convinced their cause is just?

Pay the Catholic Pope or be baptized by LDS... both groups claim you can choose the free gift of salvation after you're dead,and after you've found out you should have chosen well in this life.

Or,why would Jesus have to die at all if one could experiment apart from God in this life only to be given the opportunity to change in the next once you've seen you were wrong?

Thanks,shoedog

If you want to debate practice of indulgences then this is better served in the Catholic forum. Simply restate your concerns and take out the Later-day Saint [Mormon] references. This having been said I think the following article will be of great help in at least giving those of us who are not Catholic like myself a basic primer on what indulgences are and what they are not.

I believe shoedog that this article en***led Myths about Indulgences will clear up a lot of the misconceptions you may have about the practice of indulgences. As a non-Catholic it has certainly helped me in this regard. Here is an excerpt from the article that deals with the concerns that you have just raised.


Myth 1:A person can buy his way out of hell with indulgences.

This charge is without foundation. Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell,no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive. After death,one’s eternal fate is set (Hebrews 9:27).


Myth 2:A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.

The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes,"[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin,nor a pardon of future sin;neither could be granted by any power."

Myth 3:A person can "buy forgiveness" with indulgences.

The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place:"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1,emphasis added). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

Myth 4:Indulgences were invented as a means for the Church to raise money.

Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.

Myth 5:An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.

The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general,much less in a specific person’s case.

Myth 6:A person can buy indulgences.

The Council of Trent ins***uted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences,and, because of prior abuses,"in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

Myth 7:A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy,involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:"[I]t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence,alms giving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . .It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act,and, when it is done from right motives,it will surely not go unrewarded."


"Don’t indulgences duplicate or even negate the work of Christ?"

Despite the biblical underpinnings of indulgences,some are sharply critical of them and insist the doctrine supplants the work of Christ and turns us into our own saviors. This objection results from confusion about the nature of indulgences and about how Christ’s work is applied to us.

Indulgences apply only to temporal penalties,not to eternal ones. The Bible indicates that these penalties may remain after a sin has been forgiven and that God lessens these penalties as rewards to those who have pleased him. Since the Bible indicates this,Christ’s work cannot be said to have been supplanted by indulgences.

The merits of Christ, since they are infinite,comprise most of those in the treasury of merits. By applying these to believers,the Church acts as Christ’s servant in the application of what he has done for us,and we know from Scripture that Christ’s work is applied to us over time and not in one big lump (Phil. 2:12,1 Peter 1:9).


"Isn’t it better to put all of the emphasis on Christ alone?"

If we ignore the fact of indulgences,we neglect what Christ does through us,and we fail to recognize the value of what he has done in us. Paul used this very sort of language:"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake,and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body,that is,the church" (Col. 1:24).

Even though Christ’s sufferings were super abundant (far more than needed to pay for anything),Paul spoke of completing what was "lacking" in Christ’s sufferings. If this mode of speech was permissible for Paul,it is permissible for us,even though the Catholic language about indulgences is far less shocking than was Paul’s language about his own role in salvation.

Catholics should not be defensive about indulgences. They are based on principles straight from the Bible,and we can be confident not only that indulgences exist, but that they are useful and worth obtaining.

Pope Paul VI declared, "[T]he Church invites all its children to think over and weigh up in their minds as well as they can how the use of indulgences benefits their lives and all Christian society.... Supported by these truths,holy Mother Church again recommends the practice of indulgences to the faithful. It has been very dear to Christian people for many centuries as well as in our own day. Experience proves this" (Indulgentarium Doctrina,9,11).

[archaeologist]

nice but you are deflecting attention way from the subject of this thread and the point shoe was trying to make.

why don't you post the exat and true teachings of the mormon cult on their belief concerning the pratice of baptizing for the dead so we can see where you are coming form.

since you and the mormon cult claim to follow the Bible, please post from the christian Bible the verses which teach one to baptize the dead, pray for them or do anything for them?

[shoedog]

Originally Posted by Mesenja

If you want to debate practice of indulgences then this is better served in the Catholic forum. Simply restate your concerns and take out the Later-day Saint [Mormon] references. This having been said I think the following article will be of great help in at least giving those of us who are not Catholic like myself a basic primer on what indulgences are and what they are not.

I believe shoedog that this article en***led Myths about Indulgences will clear up a lot of the misconceptions you may have about the practice of indulgences. As a non-Catholic it has certainly helped me in this regard. Here is an excerpt from the article that deals with the concerns that you have just raised.


Myth 1:A person can buy his way out of hell with indulgences.

This charge is without foundation. Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell,no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive. After death,one’s eternal fate is set (Hebrews 9:27).


Myth 2:A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.

The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes,"[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin,nor a pardon of future sin;neither could be granted by any power."

Myth 3:A person can "buy forgiveness" with indulgences.

The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place:"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1,emphasis added). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

Myth 4:Indulgences were invented as a means for the Church to raise money.

Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.

Myth 5:An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.

The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general,much less in a specific person’s case.

Myth 6:A person can buy indulgences.

The Council of Trent ins***uted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences,and, because of prior abuses,"in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

Myth 7:A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy,involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states:"[I]t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence,alms giving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . .It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act,and, when it is done from right motives,it will surely not go unrewarded."


"Don’t indulgences duplicate or even negate the work of Christ?"

Despite the biblical underpinnings of indulgences,some are sharply critical of them and insist the doctrine supplants the work of Christ and turns us into our own saviors. This objection results from confusion about the nature of indulgences and about how Christ’s work is applied to us.

Indulgences apply only to temporal penalties,not to eternal ones. The Bible indicates that these penalties may remain after a sin has been forgiven and that God lessens these penalties as rewards to those who have pleased him. Since the Bible indicates this,Christ’s work cannot be said to have been supplanted by indulgences.

The merits of Christ, since they are infinite,comprise most of those in the treasury of merits. By applying these to believers,the Church acts as Christ’s servant in the application of what he has done for us,and we know from Scripture that Christ’s work is applied to us over time and not in one big lump (Phil. 2:12,1 Peter 1:9).


"Isn’t it better to put all of the emphasis on Christ alone?"

If we ignore the fact of indulgences,we neglect what Christ does through us,and we fail to recognize the value of what he has done in us. Paul used this very sort of language:"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake,and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body,that is,the church" (Col. 1:24).

Even though Christ’s sufferings were super abundant (far more than needed to pay for anything),Paul spoke of completing what was "lacking" in Christ’s sufferings. If this mode of speech was permissible for Paul,it is permissible for us,even though the Catholic language about indulgences is far less shocking than was Paul’s language about his own role in salvation.

Catholics should not be defensive about indulgences. They are based on principles straight from the Bible,and we can be confident not only that indulgences exist, but that they are useful and worth obtaining.

Pope Paul VI declared, "[T]he Church invites all its children to think over and weigh up in their minds as well as they can how the use of indulgences benefits their lives and all Christian society.... Supported by these truths,holy Mother Church again recommends the practice of indulgences to the faithful. It has been very dear to Christian people for many centuries as well as in our own day. Experience proves this" (Indulgentarium Doctrina,9,11).

Thanks for the interesting information. I don't know that much about Catholicism opr indulgences. I'm not interested in debating Catholic indulgences but would like to learn more. I was comparing the similarity i my mind to LDS baptisms. Seems like Catholics downplay what has been known about indulgences. My point is neither the LDS Mormons and their works of baptizing for the dead and the works or payments by Catholics, real or imagined, Luther correct or not, has no vaue in helping someone already dead. It may make victims and pious feel better.

You can move it if you want. Not my call.

Thanks, shoe

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by archaeologist

your thinking is really off, God doesn't forget UNTIL the person has repented of his/her sins and after He forgives the person.--NOT BEFORE.

indulgences does NOT buy forgiveness and DOES NOT replace the act of repentence.

Yes, which is why a serial killer can find forgiveness in God with a repentant heart, but the damage of his sins cannot be undone. You seem to ignore my statements regarding eternal consequences and temporal consequences. Indulgences do not buy forgiveness, I am in agreement with you on this. Nor does it replace the act of repentence. I am in agreement with you on this. I am only talking of the temporal consequences of sin and that indulgences are beneficial only for that. Are you to suggest that we should let the serial killer go scott free because God forgave him his sin and just let him walk out of the federal penitentary? Nobody in their right mind, especially concerned citizens, would in their right mind wish for a serial killer to be let loose in their neighborhood due to the gravity of which his sins have been felt. This is the temporal consequences and a serial killer's living a prison life for the natural term of his life will not bring back the numerous people he killed and so social justice is therefore unattainable, even if capital punishment is served. Parents of a serial killer should be hopeful that their son found salvation in Christ in jail, but should also do what they can in giving the Church the tools necessary to promote good works to help save others who are weak from starvation, and other needs. To save lives in the physical realm by supporting a Christian mission that attends to the needs of the weak thus offsets the taking of lives by such a serial killer. Then Christ is glorified by the weak in their needs being met and in the love they recieve.

[archaeologist]

which is why a serial killer can find forgiveness in God with a repentant heart, but the damage of his sins cannot be undone

so?? that is a fact of life, you can't have sin unless someone does osmething sinful to another. that is why they are called 'victims' BUT you forget the healing power of God who can remove that damage or else you are saying that something is too difficult for God.

I am only talking of the temporal consequences of sin and that indulgences are beneficial only for that.

post links to credible NON-RCC sources that explores the issue of indulgences to back up your words. your word is not good enough any more.

Are you to suggest that we should let the serial killer go scott free because God forgave him his sin and just let him walk out of the federal penitentary

your twisting of other people's words and your eiosogesis is appalling, try not to lie about what other people say.

but should also do what they can in giving the Church the tools necessary to promote good works to help save others who are weak from starvation, and other needs

in other words you are disobeying God's words by having the parents pay for their children's sins. something contrary to the command that God gave in the Old testamnet that parents are not to be punished for their children's sin and vice versa.

To save lives in the physical realm by supporting a Christian mission that attends to the needs of the weak thus offsets the taking of lives by such a serial killer. Then Christ is glorified by the weak in their needs being met and in the love they recieve.

now you are demanding that they do what man wants and not God. holding their chikld's sins over their heads to receive money is extortion, blackmail and many other illegal and sinful violations. it is NOT of God and you prove that the RCC's teachings are not of God.

(it is clear by your posting style that you are hiding things in your posts and you are afraid to let allpeople see what you are writing so they get a clear view of your anti-Christ teachings).

[stemelbow]

I enjoy seeing the infighting among the mainstreamers. This gets to the point of evans not realizing from whence their beliefs largely sprang--Catholicism.

says the dude who accepts from Catholicism nearly every tenet or doctrine, "Catholicism is a bad religion"--not realizing by doing so he is hurting his own cause. without Catholicism you'd be without many of the things you claim as truth. it seems your beliefs are merely a picking and choosing from Catholicism as you see fit. No inspiration at all. 'tis sad many an evan doesn't even realize what he/she's doing--shooting him/herself in the foot.

Its adorable to see for me though.

love,
stem

[vladimir998]

I suggest you go to the thread linked to below:


http://www.waltermartin.com//forums/...ead.php?t=1304



Many people who post about indulgences on the internet are grossly misinformed about what they, how they work, and what they mean. This is a chance for people to improve their knowledge about them and that's always a good thing.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by vladimir998

I suggest you go to the thread linked to below:


http://www.waltermartin.com//forums/...ead.php?t=1304



Many people who post about indulgences on the internet are grossly misinformed about what they, how they work, and what they mean. This is a chance for people to improve their knowledge about them and that's always a good thing.

Vlad is that you? If so welcome back... IHS jim

[archaeologist]

Many people who post about indulgences on the internet are grossly misinformed about what they, how they work, and what they mean. This is a chance for people to improve their knowledge about them and that's always a good thing.

that is just your opinion but feel free to post the true and correct version both modern and historical from NON-RCC sources.

This gets to the point of evans not realizing from whence their beliefs largely sprang--Catholicism.

#1. there is no such thing as 'evans'. it is a formal name of a person or family name not short for the word 'evangelical' or any religious group.

#2. the RCC adherents forget that christianity comes from the Bible NOT the RCC church. no one except the RCC adherents got their beliefs from the RCC organization. it is pure arrogance to think that the RCC created christianity and that all doctrines andteachings stem from it.

the RCC church was not part of the original christian movement but was formed long after the beliefs of christianity were established, somewhere in the 4th to 6th centuries AD. their extrapolation of their origin back to the time of Christ is a weak attempt to smother christianity with their lies.

it is actually sad to see RCC adherents uying into the lies of the RCC organization then proclaiming them everywhere, they are deceived and do not know it.

[vladimir998]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Vlad is that you? If so welcome back... IHS jim

Thanks! I hope all is well!

[vladimir998]

Originally Posted by archaeologist

that is just your opinion but feel free to post the true and correct version both modern and historical from NON-RCC sources.

I post what I want. Go to the thread in the Catholic forum and deal with it or ... run away. Your choice.



"#2. the RCC adherents forget that christianity comes from the Bible NOT the RCC church."

Christianity comes from the Bible? So it didn't exist until John wrote the Apocalypse? Hilarious!!! I thought Christianity came from Christ - hence the name CHRISTIANITY rather than Biblianity.

Please explain how Christianity did not exist from AD 33 to about AD 96/97 when John may have finished the last book of the Bible.

I can't wait to see your explanation. Please post it in the Catholic forum, however so this thread can go the way of the dodo as it should.

[archaeologist]

Christianity comes from the Bible? So it didn't exist until John wrote the Apocalypse? Hilarious!!! I thought Christianity came from Christ - hence the name CHRISTIANITY rather than Biblianity.

Please explain how Christianity did not exist from AD 33 to about AD 96/97 when John may have finished the last book of the Bible.

complete nonsense and absolutely absurd.

though for those who need to have exact specifics, i will edit my comment and make it read that christianity came from Christ and is recorded in the Bible.

it does not come from the pope, the rcc, the mormons, smith or ay other alternative belief system.

it is clear that those who belief the alternatives always seem to find something theycan exploit.

still waiting to hear about the exact true teachings of the baptism for the dead by mormons.i would use th einternet but i am tired of being called a liar by those who refuse to divulge their beliefs publically (after all, Jesus did so why can't the mormons)

[nrajeff]

Originally Posted by archaeologist

ha ha ha ha always an excuse. not only was it in context, it was the beginning of the section and i do NOT have to cite RCC sources as that is biased material for a religious agenda.

---As if the junk YOU post is NOT biased, and NOT for a religion-related agenda? LOL. Of course, in your case, your agenda is ANTI-religious, right? Seeing as how you are anti-everything.

you are just like the mormons, you think your side is all facts and your opponents are all ***umptions.

---And you have demonstrated that you DON'T think that way? Again, LOL.

you certainly have lost all credibility with me (and that is all i am going to say)

---You never had any credibility to start with, AFAIAC

[archaeologist]

As if the junk YOU post is NOT biased, and NOT for a religion-related agenda? LOL. Of course, in your case, your agenda is ANTI-religious, right? Seeing as how you are anti-everything.

i never said i was unbiased, i am on the side of God and the mormons, the majority of RCC people are not nor are their doctrines or religious practices.

if you claim to follow the Bible you must follow the Bible, if the doctrine in the sect is NOT in the Bible then you are not following the Bible but a false teaching.

if you say you love God then you can't disbelieve one word of the Bible for 1 cor. 13 tells us that if you love someone you believe all things (don't go absurd here), so if you throw out any part of the Bible and say it is wrong or science is right then you do not love God anymore for you do not believe Him in all things.

if you add things to the Bible then you show that you do not believe God for you are accusing Him of leaving something out and lying to His creation. you are also not following the Bible but following those items that are extra additions and have no biblical support.

And you have demonstrated that you DON'T think that way? Again, LOL.

i side with God, He is right you are not.

You never had any credibility to start with, AFAIAC

to be expected from those who cannot produce a credible defense of their beliefs and avoid defending them when challenged. when are you going to refute what i have said in the Nag thread?

[Mesenja]

Shoedog is discussing the Catholic doctrine of indulgences on the Mormon Forum. Why doesn't Shoedog at least stick to the topic of this forum?

Originally Posted by archaeologist

Nice but you are deflecting attention way from the subject of this thread and the point shoedog was trying to make.

Why don't you post the exact and true teachings of the Mormon cult on their belief concerning the practice of baptizing for the dead so we can see where you are coming form.

Since you and the Mormon cult claim to follow the Bible,please post from the christian Bible the verses which teach one to baptize the dead,pray for them or do anything for them?

[Mesenja]

There is no similarity to Catholic indulgences and our practice for baptism in behalf of the dead. Besides the faulty premise that you started out with I have provided two examples of the errors you made concerning the Catholic practice of indulgences. If you want to be taken more seriously then stop making faulty comparisons.

Originally Posted by shoedog

Thanks for the interesting information. I don't know that much about Catholicism or indulgences. I'm not interested in debating Catholic indulgences but would like to learn more. I was comparing the similarity in my mind to LDS baptisms. Seems like Catholics downplay what has been known about indulgences. My point is neither the LDS Mormons and their works of baptizing for the dead and the works or payments by Catholics,real or imagined,Luther correct or not,has no vaue in helping someone already dead. It may make victims and pious feel better.

You can move it if you want. Not my call.

Thanks, shoe

Originally Posted by shoedog

...you can give money to the church for the benefit of a loved one in purgatory and you would get a certificate saying they would be released from purgatory at least sooner than they otherwise would be if not immediately.

Originally Posted by shoedog

Pay the Catholics pope or baptize by LDS... both groups claim you can choose the free gift of salvation after you're dead,and after you've found out you should have chosen well in this life?