God's Loyalty

[Insomniac]

If god was mad at the Egyptians for stealling the Ark from the temple of Solomon and punished them by engulfing Tanis in a sandstorm and then over 2000 years later burning the nazi symbol off the crate that the Ark of the Covenant was inside Bantu Wind.

How come the Carte, Warehouse and the U.S. wasn't punished?

Does God have a loyalty to the US?

Why?

[Pale Horse]

This one will be fun...


but until then, it's simple. "In God We Trust". It's all about the all-mighty dollar.

[Gear]

Let's go talk to him right now, I've got nothing better to do.

[Lance Quazar]

When confronted with the powers of American governmental bureaucracy, God realized He had met His match.

[The Man]

America makes God laugh - why spoil the fun?

[Rocket Surgeon]

If god was mad at the Egyptians for stealling the Ark from the temple of Solomon and punished them by engulfing Tanis in a sandstorm and then over 2000 years later burning the nazi symbol off the crate that the Ark of the Covenant was inside Bantu Wind.

How come the Carte, Warehouse and the U.S. wasn't punished?

Does God have a loyalty to the US?

Why?

Emperically?

God didn't burn any of the markings off the U.S. Governments crate

The official motto of the US is In God We Trust

The founding fathers were first to officially deliniate the separation of church and state, (no doubt in deference to Jesus's teaching; give to caesar what is caesar's and giveto God what is God's)

Need more?

According to Our Lady of Fatmima the United States would be pivotal in keeping the Soviet Union from spreading it's evils...

more?

U S A!, U S A!, U S A!, U S A!

;)

[The Man]

http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu264/sidsidious/prariedogpraying.jpg?t=1240350852
"Spare us your wrath, Lord."

[Lance Quazar]

The official motto of the US is In God We Trust


Not in 1936 it wasn't......

[Rocket Surgeon]

Not in 1936 it wasn't......

You think God didn't know it would be?

[Insomniac]

Are you saying america has and always will be viewed for our rights not our wrongs we do not all believe the same teachings. Just because we inheareted our ccustoms and belifes from our parents we see things from a brainwased point of view.

Think for Yourself.


To judge a nation by it's favorable aspects and not it's downfalls is ungodly in my way of thinking.

[DocWhiskey]

How come the Carte, Warehouse and the U.S. wasn't punished?

Why?

Because it's just a movie and had to be concluded somehow.

[Lance Quazar]

You think God didn't know it would be?

Yes..........

[Kingsley]

If God knew they were keeping the Ark in a warehouse for 20 years (and probably more), why punish anybody?

[Rocket Surgeon]

Yes..........

Baal, is that you? you little devil:p

You know God knows everything!

[Kevin]

If god was mad at the Egyptians for stealling the Ark from the temple of Solomon and punished them by engulfing Tanis in a sandstorm and then over 2000 years later burning the nazi symbol off the crate that the Ark of the Covenant was inside Bantu Wind.

How come the Carte, Warehouse and the U.S. wasn't punished?

Does God have a loyalty to the US?

Why?


We don't know that Tanis was punished by God. Just cuz Marcus says something doesn't make it so. It was located in the desert; sandstorms happen. As far as we know, the sandstrom was a natrual occurance. The Well of Souls itself was not altered in any way; it was intact, just buried. I think the Egyptians, "honored the Hebrew God whose Ark this is," recognized the power of the ark, and stored it away. They had no intention of using it to further their own ends, so they were not punished. In the same way, America recognized the power of the ark, and hid it away to prevent its use. The Nazis wanted to use it to conquer the world, so they were punished.

P.S. Why is this in the KOTCS forum?

[wolfgang]

Or maybe Americans did not know they could actually open the ark. SO they didn't get killed and at the same time they said "Aw, this golden box is useless and worthless. Lets put it in a box and hide it forever."

[Lance Quazar]

I contend that the ending of "Raiders" was in no way supernatural and was simply a freak electrical storm. Or maybe swamp gas.

[Insomniac]

I contend that the ending of "Raiders" was in no way supernatural and was simply a freak electrical storm. Or maybe swamp gas.
Ha ha swamp gas Men in black?
Okay you guys ar bringging up some good points but it's not the ark that killed the nazis it was god so why would the nazis Sallah and Indy ever think god would grant them the power the hebrews recived?

[Pale Horse]

The official motto of the US is In God We Trust

Not in 1936 it wasn't......

Maybe not in currency, but certainly in spirit, and in song:

..."…Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust!'..."

The Star Spangled Banner, Francis Scott Key (1812)

[Rocket Surgeon]

Maybe not in currency, but certainly in spirit, and in song:

..."…Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust!'..."

The Star Spangled Banner, Francis Scott Key (1812)


Well done!

...and Tanks.

[loganbush]

Biblically the rules changed when Jesus came. The Ark was the only way for people to talk to God.

[Rocket Surgeon]

Biblically the rules changed when Jesus came. The Ark was the only way for people to talk to God.

What about The Burning Bush loganbush?

[Pale Horse]

oh snap. .

[Bobcat]

Hello,

I thought the Burning Bush was just for Moses and the Ark was more a general part of worship for the whole Hebrew nation.

[indyt]

Are you saying america has and always will be viewed for our rights not our wrongs we do not all believe the same teachings. Just because we inheareted our ccustoms and belifes from our parents we see things from a brainwased point of view.

Think for Yourself.


To judge a nation by it's favorable aspects and not it's downfalls is ungodly in my way of thinking.


I would not say we are brainwashed by our parents. To accept Christ as your Savoir is an individual choice. It is not forced on anyone. Would you say that a Muslim child is brainwashed by their parents too? Careful.

[Bobcat]

I would feel that to a certain extent, all children are the products of their parents. Be it biological or parental figures in someone's life. Those who tend to have faith are usually raised by parents who have endorsed that faith, not true in my particular case, but parents who believe that there is no God often also pass this on to their children.

At some point as that child matures he/she will begin to ascertain what they themselves truly believe and they'll begin to develop their own spirituality or lack of spirituality.

[indyt]

"At some point as that child matures he/she will begin to ascertain what they themselves truly believe and they'll begin to develop their own spirituality or lack of spirituality."


well said. thats what my point was. At the time to maturity they do have the choice. I have studied many many religions, especially Islam. My choice is to be a Christian.

[Pale Horse]

"At some point as that child matures he/she will begin to ascertain what they themselves truly believe and they'll begin to develop their own spirituality or lack of spirituality."


well said. thats what my point was. At the time to maturity they do have the choice. I have studied many many religions, especially Islam. My choice is to be a Christian.


What happens when an infant dies?

[Rocket Surgeon]

What happens when an infant dies?

Before it's baptised, purgatory.

After,to heaven.

[Bobcat]

For me personally, I believe that their is a age of understanding. I don't feel that a infant has any kind of understanding about things like sin or salvation so I feel that a infant is immediately in heaven. I have many Catholic friends who have gave me their take on purgatory and I myself have found nothing to support the idea of purgatory in the text.


This is such a huge, theological, philosophical conversation happening in the Crystal Skull thread. Makes me smile.


How deep the Raven is.

[Jeremiah Jones]

To be honest if god had had his thinking cap on he wouldn't have let the Egyptians take the ark in the first place. Its all to do with his modus operandi - you take it and kill its protectors, fine, but open it SNAP! YOU'RE DEAD! Sorta under the whole you turn around SNAP! YOU'RE SALT! Way of thinking God had going on back in the Old Testament.

[Jeremiah Jones]

Anyway its not just passed on by your parents, its a cultural thing. In rural Ireland if you don't go to Mass you're sorta looked upon as something as an outcast. Not so much these days, though theres still a bit of it. Its not so much a matter of belief either, its just the done thing, People go to mass, People believe in God, its a simple as that. It isn't choice, its fact.

Thank Goodness we live in a time when we are free to examine and discuss our beliefs objectively and are free to come to our own decisions.

I used to believe in a Catholic God. I don't anymore. I probably believe in something, but from reading the Bible, I just find it all a bit subjective in its writing.

[Rocket Surgeon]

I would not say we are brainwashed by our parents. To accept Christ as your Savoir is an individual choice. It is not forced on anyone. Would you say that a Muslim child is brainwashed by their parents too? Careful.

Some parents are such an oppressive force on their children, that brainwashing does occur...Catholic, Muslim, agnostic, tennis fans, take your pick. The "individual choice" experience NEVER happens sometimes.

To be honest if god had had his thinking cap on he wouldn't have let the Egyptians take the ark in the first place. Its all to do with his modus operandi - you take it and kill its protectors, fine, but open it SNAP! YOU'RE DEAD! Sorta under the whole you turn around SNAP! YOU'RE SALT! Way of thinking God had going on back in the Old Testament.

Sounds to me it's more like the way some retards incorrectly interpreted natural phenomena/Gods plan.

[Pale Horse]

Before it's baptised, purgatory.

After,to heaven.


It would stand to reason that we shold then baptize every infact at birth, to ensure salvation; ...no?

Make it a part of the ritual of process?

"It's the only way to be sure, really" (Aliens)

[Kevin]

It would stand to reason that we shold then baptize every infact at birth, to ensure salvation; ...no?

That's why Catholics generally baptize their children as soon as possible after they are born.

[Lance Quazar]

Before it's baptised, purgatory.

After,to heaven.

Actually, it's limbo, not purgatory, which the Church says not may not even exist....

[Rocket Surgeon]

Actually, it's limbo, not purgatory, which the Church says not may not even exist....

Are you saying Limbo might not exist or Purgatory? Because Limbo is a theory, leaving Purgatory, which is doctrine.

Whereas;

Catholic doctrine
Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.

The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:

"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983).

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

[Rocket Surgeon]

Right from the source there's this:

“Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”

My edit window expired before I could append this...:D

[Lance Quazar]

I'm saying that unbaptized babies (supposedly) go to Limbo, not Purgatory. Your own defintion of Purgatory is consistent with this - it's where souls go to be "purged".

I am also saying that the Church isn't entirely sure Limbo exists - writings from the deceased JP II were released that hopefully speculate that Limbo doesn't exist (at least for babies). But that is not the official position on the matter. It's merely hopeful...

[Rocket Surgeon]

Actually, it's limbo, not purgatory, which the Church says not may not even exist....

So, HOPEFULLY it's Limbo, not Purgatory which is Church Doctrine...

[Lance Quazar]

So, HOPEFULLY it's Limbo, not Purgatory which is Church Doctrine...

No, you're still not getting it. It was NEVER Purgatory - that's not Church doctrine.

It was always Limbo...now it might be Heaven....there might not be Limbo...hopefully.

[Rocket Surgeon]

No, you're still not getting it. It was NEVER Purgatory - that's not Church doctrine.

Despite private theology, The Church, it seems is still debating the subject. Where Limbo is Doctrine, this "second tier" or "childrens dept" is sheer conjecture and wishful thinking. The concept of Limbus Infantium is theological speculation, and NOT DOCTRINE.

While opinions on the fate of children, (and I stress OPINION) continue to be debated, from; no one gets to heaven who is not baptized, to Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not...Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify,((which coincidentally is what baptism is)) ) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment, ( a Time Out, or Penaly Box) for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults.

My response for the purposes of the "The Raven" were consciously curt, (and hopefully entertaining), but have before now far surpassed any possibility of simplicity.

Maybe the answer would have been most simply, only God knows.

However if it's still not officially Heaven, not Hell, Children’s Limbo being a THEORY like EVOLUTION, (which to start more problems has been according to our POPES in concert with Catholic teaching for over half a century), leaves us with purgatory or we don't know!

For the sake of the Message board it's Purgatory...

[Pale Horse]

... no one gets to heaven who is not baptized, to Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not...


Chuckle, I with you on the perga-limbo. Now define baptism. :p

[Rocket Surgeon]

Chuckle, I with you on the perga-limbo. Now define baptism. :p

You're a cruel task master, are you a masochist if you like to watch?

Baptism of Blood? Desire? Do I get college credits for this?

[Pale Horse]

Well, (to keep it relatively on topic) the fate of the U.S. hangs in the balance.

[indyt]

What happens when an infant dies?


Great question PR. From II Sam 12:22 we see that King Davids first son by Bethsheba dies. David says "I will go to him, but he will not return to me." This baby had no opportunity to follow YHVH. He had not reached the age of accountability (which is different for everybody). This verse proves that the baby went to be with the LORD. David knew when he would be resurrected he would see his child again. In other words this child will be in Gods Kingdom automatically or will be given a choice in the future. Now, if one does not believe the Bible, this answer will not be sufficient. ( not saying you, PR, do not believe the Bible), i dont know you.

[Lance Quazar]

However if it's still not officially Heaven, not Hell, Children’s Limbo being a THEORY like EVOLUTION, (which to start more problems has been according to our POPES in concert with Catholic teaching for over half a century), leaves us with purgatory or we don't know!



Well, not in any way like the Theory of Evolution...

[Bobcat]

Hello again,

It was my understanding that Baptism was done as a public acknowledgment of one's faith as being a follower of Jesus. The old you goes under the water and the "born again" you rises. Simulating Christ's death and resurrection. Their is nothing magical about the waters just one's public confession of Christ.

As a un-churched child, I remember picking up things from friends and most of my boy-scout meetings were at a Catholic Church down the road. I sorta clung to purgatory as my best shot. Just in case the whole God thing worked out. As a adult, my understanding it is that Christ's blood paid it all. Not half of it that we'd have to work off in limbo.

I tried to think of some way of tying Indy in to this conversation but couldn't. Perhaps its just academic. :)

[Rocket Surgeon]

Well, not in any way like the Theory of Evolution...

Lance, Lance, Lance, they're both theories...

[Lance Quazar]

Lance, Lance, Lance, they're both theories...

No. One is a Scientific Theory.

The other is not.

"theory" has multiple definitions. A fact most evolution opponents tend to be entirely ignorant of.

[Rocket Surgeon]

No. One is a Scientific Theory.The other is not.
"theory" has multiple definitions. A fact most evolution opponents tend to be entirely ignorant of.

Come now Lance, no what?

One is a scientific theory, the other is what?

Come on you can say it, that's right...a theological theory.

Which makes them both theories.

What percentage of evolution opponents would you contend are ignorant of the word theory having multiple definitions? By your post at least 51%, no?

[Lance Quazar]

Come now Lance, no what?

One is a scientific theory, the other is what?

Come on you can say it, that's right...a theologi theory.

Which makes them both theories.

One is a scientific theory. That has a very precise, rigorous and specific definition. A theological theory is not the same. Nor are the vast majority of the colloquial uses of the word "theory", a fact which gives rise to a great deal of misunderstand about what the scientific definition is and what it means.




What percentage of evolution opponents would you contend are ignorant of the word theory having multiple definitions? By your post at least 51%, no?

My experience is entirely anecdotal. So perhaps I was too hasty by saying "most evolution opponents," since I don't have anything to back that up beyond my own experience.

I will amend that to simply say, "most evolution opponents I have read, communicated with or otherwise encountered."

And in that case, the percentage would be close to 80%.

And, by your conflation of a Scientific Theory to a theological theory, you seem to be falling very comfortably into that camp.

[Rocket Surgeon]

One is a scientific theory. That has a very precise, rigorous and specific definition. A theological theory is not the same.

Well, it's encouraging to hear that you're not entirely blind to shades of gray, even if your peripheral vision is sacrificed to horse blinkers.

Maybe you're not "too hasty" to recognize/appreciate this next concept.

In a debate where I find the opposing opinion is reflexively contradictory...absolutely, I tend to bring it down to the basics and start with a simple example that may encourage the other party to admit a common element. It would be foolhardy to delve too deep into a subject such as evolution when one half uncompromisingly contends that a base term such as "theory", (a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural), is not the same, i.e. theological and scientific theory.

My experience is entirely anecdotal. So perhaps I was too hasty by saying "most evolution opponents," since I don't have anything to back that up beyond my own experience.

And, by your conflation of a Scientific Theory to a theological theory, you seem to be falling very comfortably into that camp.

Now, to incite your ire, I believe you've moved passed merely confusing our two viewpoints of the term theory to an untenable state of hypocrisy by proposing that among the "vast majority of the colloquial uses of the word "theory"", my application is unequivocally not credible.

Finally, introducing a qualifying term such as scientific does not alter my contention, (and is hardly a satisfactory response), that the common bond is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in short, a theory.

It's simply a vain attempt on your part to alter the argument. I never proposed a scientific theory and a theological theory were the same, ( although we could run that one out as well, but from your past few posts I fear you do not have the patience or comprehension to take on such a journey). :p

[Lance Quazar]

...I never proposed a scientific theory and a theological theory were the same...

Really? Well, in that case, this quote was certainly misleading -

Lance, Lance, Lance, they're both theories...

It would be foolhardy to delve too deep into a subject such as evolution when one half uncompromisingly contends that a base term such as "theory", (a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural), is not the same, i.e. theological and scientific theory.

Great, let's start with the basics. The base term "theory" does have multiple definitions. This is the entire crux of the argument.

To say that a scientific theory is conjectural in the same way in those other uses of the word theory are is just plain incorrect.

A scientific theory is something which has been demonstrably proven through rigorous independent scientific testing. It is not conjecture.

A theological theory, no matter how thoughtfully analyzed, debated, discussed and refined, can, by definition, never be tested. Therefore, it will forever be different from a scientific theory.

At no point did I say those other uses of the word theory were semantically incorrect, or "unequivocally not credible", merely that the definitions different and distinct from one another.

I can have a "theory" about where my lost car keys went or a "theory" about what's really happening on "Lost" or (and not to demean the latter by lumping it in with the former), various theories about what happens after death.

But those theories exist in a different semantic universe than scientific theories like the Theory of Relativity, Germ Theory of Disease and so forth.

Adding the word "scientific" to the word theory is not simply a "qualifier", as you put it, but is instead a specific term, as I've said, with its own very precise and rigorous definition.

I fear you do not have the patience or comprehension to take on such a journey).

And now we've resorted to insults. :up:

Well, you were right about one thing. I am out of patience.

[Rocket Surgeon]

Really? Well, in that case, this quote was certainly misleading - Originally Posted by Rocket Surgeon
Lance, Lance, Lance, they're both theories...

Really?

To say that a scientific theory is conjectural in the same way in those other uses of the word theory are is just plain incorrect.

As in this example?

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
Theory: All swans are white.
Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. And yes, there are really black swans.

A scientific theory is something which has been demonstrably proven through rigorous independent scientific testing. It is not conjecture.

Please tell me the proofs for String Theory...

But those theories exist in a different semantic universe than scientific theories like the Theory of Relativity, Germ Theory of Disease and so forth.

Like String Theory, which is a scientific theory that makes no predictions that can be proven...

semantics is a wonder...

Adding the word "scientific" to the word theory is not simply a "qualifier", as you put it, but is instead a specific term, as I've said, with its own very precise and rigorous definition.

Except adding the word String to the word theory...

:hat:

[Pale Horse]

P.S. Why is this in the KOTCS forum?

It's not .

[Insomniac]

No offense Pale Horse but it was in KOTCS section because the whole evidence to my debate was backed up with the cameo of the ark.
:hat:
So why did you move it?

[WilliamBoyd8]

"Come on baby, let's do the Twist"

or the Limbo

[Mr. Fusion]

I think America was spared the "Wrath of God" for a few reasons:

1) America did not intend on using the Ark for evil
2) They were smart enough to hide it away and never mess with it again
3) The good of a country should outway the evils of the past. Like slavery, the Western Expansion that killed so many Native Americans, imprisoning Japanese Americans in Internment Camps during WWII, so on and so forth. While not forgeting them, however.
4) The good guys always win (except in Quentin Tarentino films), so they had to end the story on a fairly positive note.

"God Bless America, and death to Poncho Villa!"

[Mickiana]

The god that Christians, Muslims and Jews worship is the god of the old testament and is a literary figure, mimicking human traits. What the Indiana Jones movies and the bible (amongst nearly everything else) have in common is that neither are meant to be taken literally. Though it does seem entertaining to show a 'power-of-god' display annihilating the baddies!

[Goze211]

Even God couldn't get into Area 51.

[Insomniac]

Even God couldn't get into Area 51.
Nice One! And welcome to The Raven!

Back On topic, I see what you mean Mickiana a agree to a certain existent!:hat:

[Indy's Fist]

God knew that the Americans would do anything to stop the Nazi's from getting it and once the Americans did get would hide it well. God can see the future and he knew that we would never use it for evil.

[Doc Savage]

What happens when an infant dies? "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Rom 7:7-9

I think this is the strongest Scriptural defense of an "age of accountability." There's no biblical basis for Purgatory, and I find it against God's character to condemn an innocent to Hell.

Just my pastoral two-cents worth...

[Indy's Fist]

What happens when an infant dies?
What happens to any of us when we die?

[Indy's Fist]

Before it's baptised, purgatory.

After,to heaven.

Who said Earth isn't purgatory?

[Doc Savage]

You sound positively Socratic, Fist...in my opinion, that's the best way to find truth. Socrates said that the unexamined life isn't worth living. I believe that the unexamined belief isn't worth believing.

[Rocket Surgeon]

Who said Earth isn't purgatory?

Those in the long line of faithfull who instituted baptism as a sacrament.
Many more learned men and women then you or me.

Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.

The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:

"Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful" (Denzinger, "Enchiridon", 983).

Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful.

[Indy's Fist]

You sound positively Socratic, Fist...in my opinion, that's the best way to find truth. Socrates said that the unexamined life isn't worth living. I believe that the unexamined belief isn't worth believing.

He who choses not to to look beyond what has been established and follows the teachings of those before them unqustioned will learn nothing of the truth. The power of God resisdes within all of us...the ability to use one's mind!

[Insomniac]

We are so off topic How haven't we been shut down yet.
:hat:
Continue

[Pale Horse]

... and I find it against God's character to condemn an innocent to Hell.

Just my pastoral two-cents worth...

Very appreciated, but there too in Romans 3:23 ALL have sinned...

not all, accountable have sinned. It's quite the paradox. ;)

“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them..."

Romans 2:14 ff

[WillKill4Food]

...not all, accountable have sinned. It's quite the paradox. ;)
Wouldn't one then assume that the unaccountable's sins are exonerated?

[Rocket Surgeon]

He who choses not to to look beyond what has been established and follows the teachings of those before them unqustioned will learn nothing of the truth. The power of God resisdes within all of us...the ability to use one's mind!

So true...but don't forget to include the wisdom of those who have gone before you:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

[Indy's Fist]

So true...but don't forget to include the wisdom of those who have gone before you:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
True. But if wisdom is just, then one should have no problem explaining when it's questioned.

[Rocket Surgeon]

True. But if wisdom is just, then one should have no problem explaining when it's questioned.

Some people have to learn the hard way...

[Pale Horse]

Some people have to learn the hard way...

chuckle, OR

some people WANT to learn...
some people CHOOSE to learn...

[Doc Savage]

Very appreciated, but there too in Romans 3:23 ALL have sinned...

not all, accountable have sinned. It's quite the paradox. ;)
It's true that this is one of the most debated questions in my "field." Kind of like the question, "What about those who've never heard the Gospel?" But referencing the verse you quoted, it goes on to say that justification is free in Christ. I believe that justification extends to those incapable of making such a decision. The Romans 7 passage is what I rest on.

Good to hear from you, Thanatos.

[Rocket Surgeon]

chuckle, OR

some people WANT to learn...
some people CHOOSE to learn...

...even better.

Some even refuse to learn...

[Pale Horse]

Good to hear from you, Thanatos.

likewise my long absent friend.

[Indy's Fist]

Some people have to learn the hard way...
Your answers are careful to avoid the questions. That could be seen as arrogant, making it difficult for some to accept your wisdom.

[Rocket Surgeon]

Your answers are careful to avoid the questions. That could be seen as arrogant, making it difficult for some to accept your wisdom.

Really? Your choice of words makes me wonder about your assumptions. I answered your "who's to say" post, and your other was merely a statement I was commenting on. Do you have a specific example?

It COULD be read as arrogant, but that all depends on YOU. It can be difficult to read tone into text, so I won't apologize, but I can assure you when I'm being sarcastic there's NO question.

I suppose if you can be vauge with your critisms, I can as well...

Good! You should question a persons wisdom, but, point being, consider it!

[bennihana123]

Does anyone else find it strange that the Indy movies are my favorite films, yet I don't believe in a god? They all revolve around a higher power of sorts.

[Mickiana]

Not at all strange. Indy flicks revolve around spiritual/mystical matters without getting too deep into them, which is the point. There's a bit of everything in an Indy flick.

[Andrew Wilson]

Having recently joined The Raven, it is fascinating to see the way this thread started life as a question about God punishing the Egyptians and Nazis for messing with the Ark, but failing to do the same to the Americans for storing it in a warehouse!
As one contributor put it quite early on: It was because the film had to have an acceptable ending! Quite so. It sometimes doesn't do to look too deeply into these things!

[Insomniac]

Ya the ending makes the movie like Casablanca or any other classic!:hat:
Welcome to the Raven!

[Perhilion]

If god was mad at the Egyptians for stealling the Ark from the temple of Solomon and punished them by engulfing Tanis in a sandstorm and then over 2000 years later burning the nazi symbol off the crate that the Ark of the Covenant was inside Bantu Wind.

How come the Carte, Warehouse and the U.S. wasn't punished?

Does God have a loyalty to the US?

Why?
the warehouse didn't explode in a pillar of fire because the ark was lost among all the other crates. it was hidden again, not being disturbed. unlike the egyptians or nazis.

[Attila the Professor]

the warehouse didn't explode in a pillar of fire because the ark was lost among all the other crates. it was hidden again, not being disturbed. unlike the egyptians or nazis.

I'm not sure that jibes with what happened to Tanis. Shishaq disturbed it and hid it away in the Well of the Souls, just like the Americans. Then the city was consumed in the sandstorm that lasted a whole year. Why wouldn't the same thing happen in the warehouse?

[Rocket Surgeon]

I'm not sure that jibes with what happened to Tanis. Shishaq disturbed it and hid it away in the Well of the Souls, just like the Americans. Then the city was consumed in the sandstorm that lasted a whole year. Why wouldn't the same thing happen in the warehouse?

Well, God changed his mind didn't he? He EVOLVED from a vengefull God to a loving God. He even sent us his son, right?

;) :up:

[Attila the Professor]

Well, God changed his mind didn't he? He EVOLVED from a vengefull God to a loving God. He even sent us his son, right?

;) :up:

And we also see God being a lot less active even as the Old Testament wears on, but I can't help but get the feeling that theology is trumped by our discovery that the Ark works precisely as it always did, as evidenced by the climax of Raiders.

[kongisking]

Does anyone else find it strange that the Indy movies are my favorite films, yet I don't believe in a god?

Thus, the reason I love the livin' sh!t out of KOTCS. The "gods" turn out to be inter-dimensional beings! A logical explaination for religion! Why?

Something like, "Super-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"...

Plus, I just am a science-fiction person. It's the genre of IDEAS. Fantasy, though, is the genre of IMAGINATION. Sci-fi asks "what if..." while fantasy asks "Wouldn't it be great if..." Sure, the Indy trilogy was unbelievably awesome, but KOTCS was like a dream come true for me. Two of my favorite things: Indiana Jones and Science-Fiction, together! It doesn't get better than this, fellas...

[Perhilion]

I'm not sure that jibes with what happened to Tanis. Shishaq disturbed it and hid it away in the Well of the Souls, just like the Americans. Then the city was consumed in the sandstorm that lasted a whole year. Why wouldn't the same thing happen in the warehouse?
yes, but Shishak plundered Israel, stealing the Ark and placing it among idols, thus defiling it.

[Insomniac]

Yep KongisKing has proved again why KotCS Was awesome an alternative view to "Gods" and questions what we think is the basis!

[Attila the Professor]

yes, but Shishak plundered Israel, stealing the Ark and placing it among idols, thus defiling it.

How is that different from what Indy (with some Nazi interference) and the Americans did?

[Rocket Surgeon]

Yep KongisKing has proved again why KotCS Was awesome an alternative view to "Gods" and questions what we think is the basis!

I truly feel sorry for you two, if that is what makes Skull enjoyable. But, there's no accounting for taste.

And Space Ghost proves there ARE ghosts in space!:hat:

[Perhilion]

How is that different from what Indy (with some Nazi interference) and the Americans did?
well for one thing Indy never touched the Ark, which is what really gets you killed. second, where as Shishak stole it from the Israelites, God's people, Indy was simply recovering it. I also think he had a certain respect for it, something Shishak and the Nazis lacked. But judging by the storm clouds that came as Indy was digging, God wasn't too pleased. I think of Indy not watching the opening of the Ark as his act of contrition which saved him.

[Rocket Surgeon]

well for one thing Indy never touched the Ark, which is what really gets you killed. second, where as Shishak stole it from the Israelites, God's people, Indy was simply recovering it. I also think he had a certain respect for it, something Shishak and the Nazis lacked. But judging by the storm clouds that came as Indy was digging, God wasn't too pleased. I think of Indy not watching the opening of the Ark as his act of contrition which saved him.

Consider Shishak actually trying to use the ark, over and over, sacrificing his priests and slaves in each and every attempt abusing the ark and bringing the finality of the year long sandstorm on his people and himself. As opposed to transporting it and locking it away.

[Attila the Professor]

Consider Shishak actually trying to use the ark, over and over, sacrificing his priests and slaves in each and every attempt abusing the ark and bringing the finality of the year long sandstorm on his people and himself. As opposed to transporting it and locking it away.

I don't know that we really know that he did any of that. What we do know, however, is that he locked it up in a chamber without any apparent entranceways other than through the roof, and created another chamber with an elaborate map of the city that could point to the Ark.

He might have done what you say - but I'm not sure how well it fits in with what we do know that he did, which, frankly, isn't all that different from the scenario in which the Ark got to Area 51.

Now, some people have a distant memory of a shot of the crate in the warehouse, back in Raiders, of the numbers on that crate being burned the same way the Nazi crate did. I have no recollection of that, however, and have failed to be persuaded by those who do.

[Indy's Fist]

Really? Your choice of words makes me wonder about your assumptions. I answered your "who's to say" post, and your other was merely a statement I was commenting on. Do you have a specific example?

It COULD be read as arrogant, but that all depends on YOU. It can be difficult to read tone into text, so I won't apologize, but I can assure you when I'm being sarcastic there's NO question.

I suppose if you can be vauge with your critisms, I can as well...

Good! You should question a persons wisdom, but, point being, consider it!

I'm glad you placed emphasis on "could". I purposly used the word could as I'm not saying it's arrogant, but someone might read it that way. I meant no ill will to you or your replys.

[Rocket Surgeon]

I'm glad you placed emphasis on "could". I purposly used the word could as I'm not saying it's arrogant, but someone might read it that way. I meant no ill will to you or your replys.

Cheers...:up:

[Rocket Surgeon]

I don't know that we really know that he did any of that. What we do know, however, is that he locked it up in a chamber without any apparent entranceways other than through the roof, and created another chamber with an elaborate map of the city that could point to the Ark.

I'm not saying it happened, only proposing a senario to explain why Warehouse 51 didn't suffer the same fate.

He might have done what you say - but I'm not sure how well it fits in with what we do know that he did, which, frankly, isn't all that different from the scenario in which the Ark got to Area 51.

Time being elastic, it makes sense to me to take it away so it couldn't be used against him and to try an use it himself. There are many many reasons he might have shut it up in the Well. One of them what I mentioned...but in no way difinitive!

Now, some people have a distant memory of a shot of the crate in the warehouse, back in Raiders, of the numbers on that crate being burned the same way the Nazi crate did. I have no recollection of that, however, and have failed to be persuaded by those who do.

That's easy, it never happened. It seems to me this crate would have been VERY different.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3554/3306201495_8bddefc06b.jpg?v=0

[Perhilion]

I read in the Ultimate Guide that one of Shishak's wise men told him to hide it. Don't know if that's canon or not. Historically it's unlikely Shishak took the Ark, since he accepted tibute from the Israelites, instead of sacking them, and I doubt they would have given up the Ark.

[kongisking]

Yep KongisKing has proved again why KotCS Was awesome an alternative view to "Gods" and questions what we think is the basis!

Thank you very much. My genius has finally been recognized! ;)