Organized Religion?

[reyb]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='16 October 2009 - 09:28 AM' timestamp='1255703318' post='1986419']
Good job at not answering the question. Instead of asking me to ask myself a question, simply answer the question. If God requires and needs perfection or he will be insulted, why is there imperfection in creation around us?
[/quote]

You really did not get me. Okay I will rephrase your word and let me know if I get it.

When you said ‘imperfection’ around us, you are referring to the ‘sins’ committed by humanity, which you also called ‘immorality’. From where this sinful act or immorality is an outcome of an ‘imperfect creation’ which is man itself.

This is the reason why you used Mr. Donald Duck as an example because of casino and everything in it like drugs, prostitution, killings, and all ‘unholy act’.

Therefore, everything (in heaven and earth) that was created by God is ‘perfect’ except humanity because man is an imperfect creation.
(and only Jesus Christ made it).

Do I get it?

[reyb]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='15 October 2009 - 06:24 AM' timestamp='1255605892' post='1985789']
It's is not logical that a perfect God is insulted by an imperfect creation. Look around, there are lot's of imperfection around. Is a perfect God dependent upon or needful of perfection, or is God perfection independent of and/or despite imperfection.
[/quote]

Do I get it right? (that the imperfect creation is man itself because of 'sin')

[Anomaly]

[quote name='reyb' date='17 October 2009 - 08:01 AM' timestamp='1255777281' post='1986895']
Do I get it right? (that the imperfect creation is man itself because of 'sin')
[/quote]Nope. The tsunami that wiped out tens of thousands of people was because of human sin? A little too random, don't you think? Wouldn't Miami Beach be the better choice as far as earning a good cleansing? What about animals that are born deformed or a colony of peaceful meercats being ravaged by wildcat beyond what was needed to eat? Are all natual disasters, whether or not they affect humans, caused by God as vengence for Adam's sins? Going back to your original claim, point out the Perfect Church that is needed for God to not be insulted.

[reyb]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='16 October 2009 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1255671256' post='1986344']
That's your interpretation. I hope it not an "erroneous interpretation."
Why not?
[/quote]

This is to clarify my previous post regarding 'addition and subtraction of Books' and also the reason why I said the Book of Mormon is not a witness testimony and Joseph Smith is a false prophet.
-------------------------
The statement ‘Do not add or subtract from the book’ does not mean addition or subtraction to the established number of books in the bible (Bible is a compilation of books) but rather, it simply mean, do not defile the message of the Scripture, and that message of the written word is the Christ.

There are many, many, many books in John 21:25 and obviously the number of books in your bible - whether protestant bible with 65 Books or Catholic bible with 72 Books - is not that many compare to the books mentioned in this verse from where, each and every book is a written testimony of witnesses, ‘of what Jesus did’ – meaning each book is a written testimony about ‘Salvation brought by the Coming of the Messiah’ (and we already know that the Christ was called in many different calling - Light of God, Son of Man, Bread, Word of God,…etc in every book in the bible)

Therefore, there will be no addition - in relation to its message - even if we take all of them as ‘scripture’ and there will be no subtraction even if we hold just one book out of that many since all of them is pointing to one and the same Christ. On the other hand, ‘distortion to the true message of the scripture’ is either an addition or subtraction to the word of God.

In short, addition or subtraction means ‘distortion’ in the message of the scripture rather than addition or subtraction on number of pieces of books.
----------

Regarding the Book of Mormon why I said it is not a witness testimony and Joseph Smith is not a true prophet of God.

First, Joseph Smith by his own admission did not write the Book of Mormon. He is called by God thru an angel named ‘Moroni’ and instructed to take care a golden plate and to translate it into english. Nevertheless, he was called a prophet. (see http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/jstestimony)

This is false. Prophets are witnesses of Christ but he is not. When God choose among creation He revealed The Christ. There is no such thing as Chosen by God without revealing the mystery of God, who is the Christ. And the ‘only duty’ of these chosen people of God is to preach this mystery - which was revealed to him by God - and that mystery is The Christ. Again, there is no duty (obligation) given by God to his chosen people other than to preach.

Second, According to them, a prophet-historian named Mormon wrote The Book of Mormon and it continued by his son named Morini who eventually exalted and become angel. (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction)

Wrong again. Prophets are not historians. They are witnesses of the Power of God. Scriptures or The book of the chosen people of God is not history but testimony about the coming of Christ. (And Christ is not under the time of this world, that is why, Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever).

....and so on ....and so forth.

He is not a prophet of God.

[reyb]

[quote name='Anomaly' date='17 October 2009 - 07:47 AM' timestamp='1255783623' post='1986913']
Nope. The tsunami that wiped out tens of thousands of people was because of human sin? A little too random, don't you think? Wouldn't Miami Beach be the better choice as far as earning a good cleansing? What about animals that are born deformed or a colony of peaceful meercats being ravaged by wildcat beyond what was needed to eat? Are all natual disasters, whether or not they affect humans, caused by God as vengence for Adam's sins? Going back to your original claim, point out the Perfect Church that is needed for God to not be insulted.
[/quote]

Did I ever say the cause of natural disaster or calamities is 'sin' of man? 'Sin' of man has nothing to do with Tsunami or whatever natural event.

Let me explain this issue and eventually we will go to the issue re: Perfect Church. Is it okay?

[tinytherese]

Okay I finally get to post this from one of my textbooks.


"With the mark of holiness as with the others, we must distinguish between the outward showing--visible to anyone who cares to look and liable to grow greater or less--and the inner characteristic, visible to the eye of faith and belonging to the Church's very essence, present from the first moment of her existence and never varying.

In this profounder sense the holiness of the Church is simply the holiness of Christ. It is his Church, maded by him as the bearer of holiness to men. Every member, in contact with him, has available to him a fount of holiness; there is no limit save our own will to receive what he has to give.

For the Church there is no growth and, of course, no diminishing. If every one of her members were in a state of grace at a given moment, the Church's holiness would be no greater; if we were all in mortal sin together, it would be no less. In other words the holiness of the Church is not the sum total of the holiness of all her members, any more than the wetness of rain is measured by the wetness of all those who have ventured out in it. If the whole population goes out and gets drenched, the rain is no wetter; if everyone stays indoors, the rain is no less wet. Rain is wet because it is rain, whether or not men expose themselves to it. The Church is holy because it is Christ living on in the world. It is cause of the holiness of its members but is not measured by their response...

She has had popes who made no fetish of personal holiness but not one of them ever tried to reword the law of God to allow for the indulgence of his own temptations. And no other human quality has ever taken precedence of holiness. Her heroes are teh saints; she inserts into her liturgy Masses for saints,but not for individual popes, however great, unless they too happened to be saints. And if you are tempted to smile cynically at that last word, remember that only two popes of the last four hundred years have been canonized" (Theology for Beginners by F.J. Sheed pages 113 and 114).

[reyb]

[quote name='tinytherese' date='19 October 2009 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1255985520' post='1987961']
Okay I finally get to post this from one of my textbooks.


"With the mark of holiness as with the others, we must distinguish between the outward showing--visible to anyone who cares to look and liable to grow greater or less--and the inner characteristic, visible to the eye of faith and belonging to the Church's very essence, present from the first moment of her existence and never varying.

In this profounder sense the holiness of the Church is simply the holiness of Christ. It is his Church, maded by him as the bearer of holiness to men. Every member, in contact with him, has available to him a fount of holiness; there is no limit save our own will to receive what he has to give.

For the Church there is no growth and, of course, no diminishing. If every one of her members were in a state of grace at a given moment, the Church's holiness would be no greater; if we were all in mortal sin together, it would be no less. In other words the holiness of the Church is not the sum total of the holiness of all her members, any more than the wetness of rain is measured by the wetness of all those who have ventured out in it. If the whole population goes out and gets drenched, the rain is no wetter; if everyone stays indoors, the rain is no less wet. Rain is wet because it is rain, whether or not men expose themselves to it. The Church is holy because it is Christ living on in the world. It is cause of the holiness of its members but is not measured by their response...

She has had popes who made no fetish of personal holiness but not one of them ever tried to reword the law of God to allow for the indulgence of his own temptations. And no other human quality has ever taken precedence of holiness. Her heroes are teh saints; she inserts into her liturgy Masses for saints,but not for individual popes, however great, unless they too happened to be saints. And if you are tempted to smile cynically at that last word, remember that only two popes of the last four hundred years have been canonized" (Theology for Beginners by F.J. Sheed pages 113 and 114).
[/quote]
--------
And you (or the writer of that book) are telling us that the Holy Church is the Roman Catholic Church? Is it not by her own admission her sacraments are mysteries? How come your Church becomes Holy if she do not know her own teaching? In what way do you think she can bring you to true God, if she herself admit 'God is a mysery'?

Nevertheless, I like you because you are studying.

Edited October 20, 2009 by reyb