What Divides Catholics and Protestants?

servant wrote:

<quoted text>
.
then name them
.

As preacherman would say:

Wheres does yous comes froms, Mars?

barry wrote:

<quoted text>interesting except that there are names given to Spirits of God in the Bible. three of them can be found in Isaiah 11:2.

"And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD."

We could argue the pros and cons of each interpretation all day but we'd end up right where we started.

Catholics are bigots who hide child molesters in their ranks and tries to interfere with the politics of sovereign nations like the United States for their head of state, the pope.

barry wrote:

<quoted text>interesting except that there are names given to Spirits of God in the Bible. three of them can be found in Isaiah 11:2.

Actually, I'll concede that point. I won't concede spirit and Holy Spirit are one in the same.

Back to John 3, the first birth is of the spirit and the second birth is of the Holy Spirit.

John 3:10
Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

Probably a year ago this verse told me the key will be found in the Old Testament and start praying for Nettie and the rest of you yokels. I've come a long way. Saturday I switched from the Parish to the Mission congregation.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
"And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD."
We could argue the pros and cons of each interpretation all day but we'd end up right where we started.

but at least we and others might consider the validity of the response/argument.

Truth wrote:

Catholics are bigots who hide child molesters in their ranks and tries to interfere with the politics of sovereign nations like the United States for their head of state, the pope.

The Pope wants me to kneel in prayer an hour a week in front of Planned Parenthood and be poking holes in all the condoms at Walgreens. I should fabricate some kind of skewer thing to go through the whole box at once.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
Spirit is the breath of life. Anything that breaths has a spirit. This includes animals.

Does your hypothesis include all species of life we have yet to discover in the extreme depths of the ocean?

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text> The Holy Spirit is the breath of God.

Which god are you talking about? You should be more specific when considering there are many gods that people believe exist..Allah, christian god, protestant god etc.

barry wrote:

<quoted text>but at least we and others might consider the validity of the response/argument.

I agree.

Anti Delusional wrote:

<quoted text>
Does your hypothesis include all species of life we have yet to discover in the extreme depths of the ocean?
<quoted text>
Which god are you talking about? You should be more specific when considering there are many gods that people believe exist..Allah, christian god, protestant god etc.

I think I can speak for all of us in saying we are talking about the God of Catholics and Protestants.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
We're thinking the seven spirits of God are the five visible planets along with the Sun and Moon.
In Revelation 5:16 and Zechariah 4:10 they are called the seven eyes of God.

between you and servant Zechariah 4 is becoming popular.
servant; "Are you a Jew or Gentile? If you are a Gentile (non-Jew) then yes you were grafted into Israel by one half of the olive tree (Zechariah 4)..."

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
I think I can speak for all of us in saying we are talking about the God of Catholics and Protestants.

Does your hypothesis "the spirit from this god is in everything that breaths", include all species of life we have yet to discover in the extreme depths of the ocean?

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
That's real unfortunate because www.vatican.va capitalizes 'Revelation'.
Even before looking that up I translated:
'Made-up shít affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man.'
Father M will be so disappointed.

Where does it say in the Bible that animals have souls?
In: The Bible, Creation
Answer:
One view:

You will find it in the same place where it says that "man has a soul" -- nowhere. The Bible reveals that man... and animals... are souls -- they don't have one.

"...and man became a living soul."

It doesn't say that God put a soul into man.

"Soul" is translated from the Hebrew "nephesh," which merely means "mortal creature." The first place God inspired "nephesh" in the Bible is before "man became a living soul." Only the English translators didn't translate "nephesh" as "soul" in that passage. They translated it as "creature."

"And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth..." (Gen.1:21).

The KJV Bible translates "nephesh" in a variety of different ways other than "soul":

"any, appetite, beast, body, breath, creature, lust, man, me, mind, mortally, one, own, person, pleasure, them, they, thing."

It says: "...that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts [animals]; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they all have one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above the beast... all go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." (Eccle.3:19-20)

The "spirit," of course, is another matter. Men and animals have a "spirit" within them:

The spirit returns to God at death... but our "soul" [the mortal creature that we are] returns to the dust of the earth that it is.

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." (Eccle.12:7)

Anti Delusional wrote:

<quoted text>
You sound like you're in a delirium..Do you really think the great white shark, with three rows of razor sharp teeth, was grazing on kelp before a human ate a forbidden fruit for lunch? I hate to say it and mean no insult, but that's pretty whacky..

I think you missed the point totally. Before sin came into the world animals did not prey upon each other. Once sin entered the world came thorns,weeds, sickness and other things. I was pointing out that from top to bottom things were turned upon it's ear when sin came into the world.

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text> All life is sacred because it came from the hand of God. But it is not all equal in value. Man is set apart as the recipient for which it was intended.
My mother used to say that it is sad that something has to die so that we can live...meaning either animals or plants.
And, she had a good point.
But, that is the nature of life on this planet.

You do realize modern humans have not always been on top of the food chain don't you?

We were prey for larger predators to eat before we developed weapons to defend ourselves. Before that, larger predators had dominion over us. So no, man was not set apart as the recipient, and still isn't when we run into bigger predators without our weapons with us..

The undeniable truth that makes your claim false is in this one of many resent news story's.. It happens many times every year showing various animals eat humans for nourishment just like we eat cows etc. for nourishment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/41008 ...

Oxbow wrote:

924 819
<quoted text>
So, you understand that not all Scripture is to be taken literally. From what you are saying it appears you are using your natural God given abilities to understand, reason, use logic,and arrive at a conclusion as to if the message is a metaphor, an allegory, is symbolic, a parable, or is to be taken literally...is that correct??
Bear with me on this....I need to know "is this correct" so I can know how to proceed. I don't want to "assume" anything..
From what you are saying it can be assumed that your answer is "correct"..I do not want to start our discussion on an assumption. If you are uncomfortable with a straight forward answer, say so...

I can stand a straightforward answer or a straight forward question. I am used to dealing in a straight forward manner.

janeebee wrote:

<quoted text>
Evil was in the world BEFORE man first sinned.
Had evil (Satan in a serpent suit) not already been in the world, man would not have sinned.

Take a peek at Rom 5:12-19

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text> All life is sacred because it came from the hand of God. But it is not all equal in value. Man is set apart as the recipient for which it was intended.
My mother used to say that it is sad that something has to die so that we can live...meaning either animals or plants.
And, she had a good point.
But, that is the nature of life on this planet.

The link in my post didn't work so here it is again..I'd like to hear your views on this considering what you posted to me..

You do realize modern humans have not always been on the top of the food chain don't you?

We were prey for larger predators to eat before we developed weapons to defend ourselves. Before that, larger predators had dominion over us. So no, man was not set apart as the recipient, and still isn't when we run into bigger predators without our weapons with us..

The undeniable truth that makes your claim false is in this one of many resent news story's.. It happens many times every year showing various animals eat humans for nourishment just like we eat cows etc. for nourishment

when I came back to the body the shark took it."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18840324

Bible Verses

The Catholic Bible contains verses that speak about animals, which can provide comfort to people who have lost their beloved pets. Luke 3:6 says "and all flesh shall see the salvation of God." Isaiah 11:6-9 mentions animals in heaven. Ecclesiastes 3:18-21 says men and animals have the same breath and that man does not have an advantage over animals. It also says that man and animals all "go unto one place." Luke 12:6 mentions that not even sparrows are "forgotten before God." Revelation 5:13 mentions all creatures praising Jesus.

Anti Delusional wrote:

<quoted text>
The link in my post didn't work so here it is again..I'd like to hear your views on this considering what you posted to me..
You do realize modern humans have not always been on the top of the food chain don't you?
We were prey for larger predators to eat before we developed weapons to defend ourselves. Before that, larger predators had dominion over us. So no, man was not set apart as the recipient, and still isn't when we run into bigger predators without our weapons with us..
The undeniable truth that makes your claim false is in this one of many resent news story's.. It happens many times every year showing various animals eat humans for nourishment just like we eat cows etc. for nourishment
when I came back to the body the shark took it."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18840324

I suggest you add more protein to your diet and eat three square meals a day.
Get back with us next week and let us know if you are feeling better.

030 924 819
<quoted text>
So, you understand that not all Scripture is to be taken literally. From what you are saying it appears you are using your natural God given abilities to understand, reason, use logic,and arrive at a conclusion as to if the message is a metaphor, an allegory, is symbolic, a parable, or is to be taken literally...is that correct??
Bear with me on this....I need to know "is this correct" so I can know how to proceed. I don't want to "assume" anything..
From what you are saying it can be assumed that your answer is "correct"..I do not want to start our discussion on an assumption. If you are uncomfortable with a straight forward answer, say so...

Patriot wrote:

<quoted text>I can stand a straightforward answer or a straight forward question. I am used to dealing in a straight forward manner.

Here is a straight forward question...repeated..

So, you understand that not all Scripture is to be taken literally. From what you are saying it appears you are using your natural God given abilities to understand, reason, use logic,and arrive at a conclusion as to if the message is a metaphor, an allegory, is symbolic, a parable, or is to be taken literally...is that correct??

A straight forward answer would be "Yes, that is correct".

Or..."No, that is not correct".

I have seen neither from you yet..