Mr. T Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 ARK of COVENANT revealed to Benedict XVI http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/167053 This will take place on Saturday, June 26, 2009: This might be interesting to watch... Ethiopian Church Leader to Announce Holy-Ark Unveiling Reported: 20:05 PM - Jun/25/09 (IsraelNN.com) Patriarch Abuna Pauolos of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has scheduled a news conference for Friday afternoon in Rome to unveil the Biblical Ark of the Covenant or make a full statement regarding it. While in Rome for meetings with Pope Benedict XVI, he told reporters that the time had come to reveal the Holy Ark before the world, adding that the holy container has been hidden in the custody of his church for hundreds of years. The claim that the Ark has been kept at the Church, in the city of Axum, is an old one, but this is the first time that the Church plans to actually reveal the actual container, or news of it. It is not known whether the Church claims that the actual Tablets of the Law are inside it. Pauolos said "The Ark of the Covenant has been in Ethiopia for many centuries. As Patriarch, I have seen it with my own eyes, and only a few, highly-qualified persons could do the same - until now." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 The Nazi Pope seems like the perfect dude to reveal it to...in true Raiders of the Lost Ark Style. Oh, mz the pussy., you funny guy, you. Playing off of the Pope's German heritage and youth in such a "humorous" way. The joke would have been better had you left out "Nazi" anyway. The RotLA reference was funny. The Nazi reference was not. Way too obvious. And lame. Which you well know. So why do it? Not to mention: Aren't you one of the people that always screams bloody murder anytime someone uses the word "Nazi", usually someone on the other side of the political fence? Bad form. Juki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Exactly. He is the one who acts with such outrage when the "N" word is used, but uses it to call the head of MY church one. Hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 The joke would have been better had you left out "Nazi" anyway. The RotLA reference was funny. The Nazi reference was not. Way too obvious. And lame. Which you well know. So why do it? The guy wasn't a member of the Hitler Youth? I understand he was "coerced" into it and all.................... Not to mention: Aren't you one of the people that always screams bloody murder anytime someone uses the word "Nazi", usually someone on the other side of the political fence? Bad form. Juki Again, sorry to offend you, but wasn't the guy wasn't a member of the Hitler Youth? Am I incorrect here?? I guess this is the same as Mr. T pasting youtube Hitler speeches... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 The guy wasn't a member of the Hitler Youth? I understand he was "coerced" into it and all.................... Again, sorry to offend you, but wasn't the guy wasn't a member of the Hitler Youth? Am I incorrect here?? I guess this is the same as Mr. T pasting youtube Hitler speeches... Mike, c'mon, man, be serious. You are better than this sort of thing. Yes, he was a member of the Hitler Youth. Look, 10 seconds of googling finds this article which explains it quite clearly: "In "Salt of the Earth," a 1996 book of reflections based on interviews with German journalist Peter Seewald, the pope, now 82, was asked if he had been in the Hitler Youth. He replied: "At first we weren't, but when the compulsory Hitler Youth was introduced in 1941, my brother was obliged to join. I was still too young, but later, as a seminarian, I was registered in the HY. As soon as I was out of the seminary I never went back." He said he also served on anti-aircraft batteries and was conscripted into the infantry late in the war. Histories of the time say teenagers conscripted as anti-aircraft auxiliaries, or "Flakhelfer," from 1943 were formally part of the Hitler Youth." So what's your point with this post exactly? Are you arguing that he was a willing participant and a member of the Nazi party so the term "Nazi" applies? I don't think you are saying that because you are smart enough to get the truth. Is your calling the Pope a "Nazi" the same as T posting Hitler speeches? No, of course not. But you invite that comparison when you paint with the similarly broad Nazi brush, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 I must say, it's impressive to see Damajuki being an equal-opportunity butt-kicker... LOL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 So what's your point with this post exactly? In the short run, to make a joke. In the long run, to illustrate how the Catholic church is just as "exclusionary" as the Nazi party. I think my post fell somewhere in between. But you invite that comparison when you paint with the similarly broad Nazi brush, don't you think? The Pope was affiliated with the Nazi party at one point whereas Obama, Pelosi, or everyone's other favorite scapegoats never were. So you can make the comparison if you like, but it's far from valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 In the short run, to make a joke. In the long run, to illustrate how the Catholic church is just as "exclusionary" as the Nazi party. I think my post fell somewhere in between. Thanks for being honest about the first thing. Using the word "Nazi" in a sentence rarely is funny though, as you well know. I don't get your second sentence at all and I'm trying REALLY hard not to knee-jerk react to it. Care to explain how the Catholic Church is akin to the Nazi party before I respond? The Pope was affiliated with the Nazi party at one point whereas Obama, Pelosi, or everyone's other favorite scapegoats never were. So you can make the comparison if you like, but it's far from valid. Oh, it's a totally valid comparison and you know it, mz the pussy. That's about the weakest thing I've ever heard from you. Your Nazi comparison is somehow less valid than someone else's? Um, how so? Oh, right, because "the Pope was affiliated with the Nazi party". Nevermind the facts that he was affiliated only in that a. he is a German who grew up during WWII and b. he was conscripted into the national defense forces. There is no evidence -- hell, there isn't even a credible accusation -- that he was ACTUALLY a Nazi in any way, shape or form. Which is what you intimated and are now repeating here. So please don't try to brush this one off, mz the pussy. Argue your point or apologize for it but don't think you get to play around with Nazi-slinging and then get holier-than-thou at the same time. It's one or the other, buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Me continuing to bash the Catholic Church isn't what anyone wants or needs here, so I'll just concede. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Me continuing to bash the Catholic Church isn't what anyone wants or needs here, so I'll just concede. No, in fact, you ACTUALLY bashing the Catholic Church is exactly what I want you to do, if that's how you ACTUALLY feel. So far, you've made two oblique references to Nazism and the Catholic Church, one in the context of a joke and the other as a weak explanation for the joke. In all seriousness, mz the pussy., I'm not offended by you not liking the Church. I'm offended by you using what you know to be a slur and then pretending it's okay simply because you said it. Man up, man. Have the discussion or don't but at least be honest about what you typed and why you typed it. Own what you said or disown it, that's all I want and need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Fine. My opinion is the Modern Crusades your Church is currently embroiled in certainly looks like a form of "ethnic" cleansing to me. To me, the wars we are involved in look way more like Holy Wars than a oil grab at this point. Not saying the Muslims are any less guilty than any other religion, but your Church's goal of world religious domination is in full effect. On the social side, following the Bible at its word is as oppressive when applied to the populace as a whole as any other dictatorial regime I've ever witnessed or read about. I kept it way short b/c my cell phone battery is at 10%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest AdaM Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Fine. My opinion is the Modern Crusades your Church is currently embroiled in certainly looks like a form of "ethnic" cleansing to me. To me, the wars we are involved in look way more like Holy Wars than a oil grab at this point. Not saying the Muslims are any less guilty than any other religion, but your Church's goal of world religious domination is in full effect. On the social side, following the Bible at its word is as oppressive when applied to the populace as a whole as any other dictatorial regime I've ever witnessed or read about. I kept it way short b/c my cell phone battery is at 10%. Saturday is the 27th. I have nothing to add. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aloysius Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Calling Pope Benedict XVI "the Nazi Pope" is an insult to Pope Pius XII, who came much closer to deserving that title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Calling Pope Benedict XVI "the Nazi Pope" is an insult to Pope Pius XII, who came much closer to deserving that title. Good point, Alo. Lots of legitimate questions about what the Church did and why during the '30s and '40s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Just for clarity, I BELIEVE mz the pussy considers the Catholic Church - one denomination of the Church of Christianity - with Christianity, itself. In many ways, Catholics are the red-headed stepchildren of the Christian (Anglican) religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mz. Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 I apologize for the lumping, as I am admittedly ignorant to many of the differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Just for clarity, I BELIEVE mz the pussy considers the Catholic Church - one denomination of the Church of Christianity - with Christianity, itself. In many ways, Catholics are the red-headed stepchildren of the Christian (Anglican) religion. Um, John, you do realize the Anglican church split from the Catholic Church for the purely selfish personal reasons of one man, right? Y'know, that whole "I want a divorce and a son and I'll kill each wife who doesn't give one to me" thing? Yeah, that. So if we're talking "red-headed stepchildren", it makes a lot more sense to talk about the Anglican church that way, as opposed to the Mother Church, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 With all the different denominations, it seems unfair to generalize in terms of "Anglican", or anything else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 I apologize for the lumping, as I am admittedly ignorant to many of the differences. Ah, this makes much more sense, mz the pussy. Thanks for clarifying your position. I started to reply to your first post but all I got was: what exactly are you talking about here? Because the Pope and the Catholic Church have been outspoken critics of the Bush wars since the very beginning and remain so. So, let me skip the Pope defense for a sec then and let me ask you, in all seriousness: Were you talking about Christianity, in the general sense of the word, as seeking world domination? If so, I think you could make that argument though it's a bit of stretch. Bush was an outspoken Christian who was the darling of the Protestant Evangelicals in the U.S. and he certainly was not savvy about the effect his personal religious beliefs would have on the image of our country around the world. So, if you wanted to look at Bush as a "Christian soldier", as I'm sure many in the world do, you could make the argument that he was pushing a "Christian" agenda in his decisions. An important point of clarification here: the Roman Catholic Church is the original Christian church and was the only Church of Christ for 1500 years, until Martin Luther opened the Pandora's box that became the Protestant Reformation. I think what you are objecting to primarily are many Protestant worldviews that are "based on Scripture" and are promulgated through politics. Things like this terrify me as well. We Catholics do not believe in stuff like that, thank God. Here's a good start for some big picture differences. Here's a good place to start to understand what Catholics do believe: As the Catechism puts it, "Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery. Finally, the Pope is the spiritual head of the Roman Catholic Church, still (I believe) the largest centralized religion in the world. Protestants do not have a comparable figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Um, John, you do realize the Anglican church split from the Catholic Church for the purely selfish personal reasons of one man, right? Y'know, that whole "I want a divorce and a son and I'll kill each wife who doesn't give one to me" thing? Yeah, that. So if we're talking "red-headed stepchildren", it makes a lot more sense to talk about the Anglican church that way, as opposed to the Mother Church, no? Well, Catholics have been persecuted throughout history by the English Protestants. Ever wonder why Cajuns ever settled in Lousianna? This could quickly spin into another thread but, in my mind - and I see it a lot - many Protestants, especially away from the East Coast, look like Catholics as Martians. The Blue Blood Anglicans, in short, hate Catholics. Look at Ireland for the past 800+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Well, Catholics have been persecuted throughout history by the English Protestants. Ever wonder why Cajuns ever settled in Lousianna? This could quickly spin into another thread but, in my mind - and I see it a lot - many Protestants, especially away from the East Coast, look like Catholics as Martians. The Blue Blood Anglicans, in short, hate Catholics. Look at Ireland for the past 800+ years. Yes, all of that is true and all of it is rooted in the Protestant Reformation that began on the Continent and spread to England when Henry VIII repudiated Papal authority when the Pope wouldn't grant an annulment of his marriage. Hard to believe that a church was founded on the whims of a monarch, but there it is. Which is why I responded so tersely when you said that the Catholic Church was the red-headed stepchild when the Anglican church was literally created because the king wanted his way. Anyway, what's really fascinating to me about the whole Protestant movement is how politically motivated it was from the very beginning. Oh, Luther had his legitimate spiritual and moral qualms, without a doubt, but the many local princes who jumped on his bandwagon were much more interested in the excuse to consolidate their own worldly power at the expense of the (admittedly too powerful) Church. The fact that the Protestant Reformation was fueled principally by economic concerns and worldly power and not theological or moral concerns is particularly ironic given how many Protestants look down on Catholics today, even viewing them as "alien", like you said, John. I often wonder how much of the Protestant world view is still principally driven by worldly concerns versus spiritual and moral ones, especially when you consider the predominance of Protestant politicians and their influence on our country. Which brings us full circle to what I think mz the pussy's original point may have been: is the actual concern and goal of the Protestants who run our country truly in line with Christ's teaching and values? Or are they more principally interested in economic gain and worldly power? Seems pretty clear to me which it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted June 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 This thread has taken a twist into biblical history and some others views of religion, but anyways just for the fyi and i dont want to discourage the conversation because it is very good reading the different views on history of religion. As a twist to the conversation, didn't King James have the Bible written and held all to worship under one faith? How many books of the Bible were left out of the King James version? (Note: 66 books written by 40 authors over 1500 years) Note: Dead Sea Scrolls, book of Enoch is worth studying. We first learn of Enoch in Genesis 5 but it leaves us with questions. Hebrews 11 has the answers and Jude quotes Enoch! How did Jude come to know the words of Enoch? They are not in the Bible. The answer of course, is The Book of Enoch. A book which is actually quoted not only by Jude, but also James the natural brother of Jesus. _________________ Now for "Ark of the Covenant" may have been found. Many scholars are being left dumbfounded and want more evidence of this. good reads below. Seekers of Ark Left in the Dark "Ark of the Covenant" may have been found Archaeologists Scramble Ark-Covenant - In Israel Not Ethiopia I also would like to see more information on this. But I dont want to see someones own vain attempt of searching for the "Ark of the Covenant" to be downplayed out of selfish pride, if this is the true "Ark of the Covenant" it would be a great thing to have been brought forward for all to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 This thread has taken a twist into biblical history and some others views of religion, but anyways just for the fyi and i dont want to discourage the conversation because it is very good reading the different views on history of religion. As a twist to the conversation, didn't King James have the Bible written and held all to worship under one faith? How many books of the Bible were left out of the King James version? (Note: 66 books written by 40 authors over 1500 years) Note: Dead Sea Scrolls, book of Enoch is worth studying. This thread has been about anything but the Ark, which is fine by me because there isn't any real info on this story as of yet. Here's some info on the King James Bible. It's a bit densely written so I've pulled out a few passages to make life easier, if anyone's interested. Name given to the English translation of the Bible produced by the Commission appointed by James I, and in consequence often spoken of as "King James's Bible". It is in general use among English-speaking non-Catholics. . . . In the meantime the Protestants were becoming dissatisfied with their own versions, and soon after his accession King James I appointed a commission of revision--the only practical outcome of the celebrated Hampton Court Conferences. The commissioners, who numbered forty-seven, were divided into six companies, two of which sat at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster, respectively; each company undertook a definite portion of the Bible, and its work was afterwards revised by a select committee chosen from the whole body. The instructions for their procedure were, to take the Bishops' Bible, which was in use in the churches, as their basis, correcting it by a comparison with the Hebrew and Greek texts. They were also given a list of other English versions which they were to consult. The commissioners set to work in 1607, and completed their labours in the short period of two years and nine months, the result being what is now known as the "Authorized Version". Although at first somewhat slow in gaining general acceptance, the Authorized Version has since become famous as a masterpiece of English literature. The Authorized Version remained in undisputed possession for the greater part of three centuries, and became part of the life of the people. . . . for the general public (non-Catholic) the Authorized Version still holds its ground, and shows no sign of losing its popularity. Really interesting stuff that I wasn't aware of myself. Thanks for bringing it up, T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 I agree, people on the outside of Christianity tend to lump us together into one group. and people outside of islam tend to lump them all together..... hmmmm...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damajuki Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 Fine. My opinion is the Modern Crusades your Church is currently embroiled in certainly looks like a form of "ethnic" cleansing to me. To me, the wars we are involved in look way more like Holy Wars than a oil grab at this point. Not saying the Muslims are any less guilty than any other religion, but your Church's goal of world religious domination is in full effect. On the social side, following the Bible at its word is as oppressive when applied to the populace as a whole as any other dictatorial regime I've ever witnessed or read about. I kept it way short b/c my cell phone battery is at 10%. Hey mz the pussy., care to elaborate now that we've covered the Catholic/Christian thing? I'm sincerely curious how you feel about the Christian (we'll keep it lumped for the purposes of this discussion) goal to dominate the world. What do you see as the point? Who are you referring to primarily? What offends you the most? I'll start by saying that what I as a Catholic Christian am offended by most are people that call themselves Christians who do not behave in anything remotely resembling a Christian lifestyle. To keep it general for now, I agree with your point here that our country's behavior while under the leadership of a supposedly devout Christian man was decidedly un-Christian in many ways, two pre-emptive wars being the biggest and most obvious example of that. So I'm curious where our similarities and differences lie, if you're willing to share. Juki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.