brent wrote:
The shroud shows a man with a beard...doesn't one of the messianc prophecys say of the crucifiction and the messiah's suffering in Isaiah 50:6 that the messiah's beard would be plucked out...

Dewar wrote:
Hey Lance
Is it a feature of being Roman Catholic that you have a really lousy memory and require all these special mnemonics?

"Is that your reason for worshipping toast, polyfilla statuettes and old bones and stuff?"

Lance Alllot wrote:
if I were to see it made of polyester, I would certainly venerate it, because, polyester or not, it is a reminder of Christ's passion and resurrection.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
6 Simon Peter therefore also cometh, following him, and entered into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen cloths lying,
7 and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself.

No shroud

Neil wrote:
but its Catholic fans continue to waste everyone's time about it.

Others are perfectly free to ignore the whole thing. After all, it affects them in no way. But the Shroud seems to be endlessly fascinating for both Protestants and atheists.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
The Bible proves the Shroud is as phony as a two dollar pocket watch! [URL=http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0214shroud.asp]]]According to the Bible, it's not shrouded in mystery at all![/URL].

After all, if you don't wish to share in Jesus' sacrifice through prayers and works (these two are much the same thing, in my opinion), then you won't get to heaven.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Actually, Lance, no matter how you want to look on "veneration" it is really worship, [URL=http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Statues.html]]]Venerating Statues[/URL]. ... Neil had some excellent comments on this "filthy rag"

And the expression "filthy rag" certainly reveals a lot, but not about the Shroud of Turin.

Tony Lopez-Cisneros wrote:
IT WAS BORN FROM HELL IN 313 AD; WHEN THE PAGAN ROMAN EMPEROR, CONSTANTINE, BETROTHED THE EVENTUAL MARRIAGE, UNION & (CON)FUSION OF THE EMPIRICAL ROMAN STATE TO THE LEGALIZED ROMAN "CHURCH": THUS PRODUCING THE RELIGIO-POLITICAL MONSTER KNOWN AS ROMAN-"CATHOLISM"

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Roman Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses and of like organizations are totally responsible for their actions and sins, and are condemned by God.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
And, by the way, according to canon law -- this is Roman church law -- a vow of celibacy is broken if the priest marries. But it's not broken if he engages in sexual relationships.

16 Bene's later wrote:
GG, Lance is this true...
Arn't you both ashamed?

And yes, I am ashamed.

In the short term it will reduce the membership of the RCC (here I give Calvinists permission to cheer). Once the generation with these views has died out, it will not be replaced. The generation after it will simply believe in nothing. However, it will leave the RCC with a leaner, more orthodox membership.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Why go to another human authority, Lance?

Guinness wrote:
Good to see you put "heretics" in inverted commas...
In what scripture verses do you find these absolute standards that appoint and approve the state to put saints to death for believing in Christ and the Bible?

I'm quite sure there are no standards in the Bible that "appoint and approve the state to put saints to death for believing in Christ and the Bible".

But if I looked hard, I'm sure I could find verses supporting the right of the state to punish criminals.

Guinness wrote:
And when the times change again Lance, would the comments once more be "appropriate" and "perfectly reasonable"?
Does the Bible not give us God's absolute standards?

Answer to the second: Yes.

Those absolute standards allow the state to punish those who threaten social order, and in a state in which virtually everyone is of the same religion, "heretics" threaten social order.

Queen Elizabeth I executed those who refused to acknowledge her as head of the church.

Calvin had Servetus executed for his heresy, as that heresy might have threatened the social order in Geneva.

And who was it (Zwingli?) who had Anabaptists tied up in sacks and drowned?

Publican wrote:
I found this alarming enough to render lying negligible:
'Though heretics must not be tolerated because they deserve it, we must bear with them, till, by a second admonition, they may be brought back to the faith of the church. But those who, after a second admonition, remain obstinate in their errors, must not only be excommunicated, but they must be delivered to the secular power to be exterminated.' St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Vol. iv. p.90.
You do realise, Lance Eccles, that our battle is not with you, but with your church and your defense of it.
Our prayers are with you, for your salvation and entrance into glory. We plead your continued remembrance of this in all of our discussions.

Publican wrote:
I was under the impression that the declaration of the Council of Constance, to the effect that promises to 'heretics' need not be kept, amounted to a green light to lie.