What is heaven like?

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by GottaBigOne@May 24 2005, 07:56 PM
I agree that it isn't always productive to poke fun at something many people take seriously

[post=314275]Quoted post[/post]​

let's be fair - it really depends on how seriously they're trying to take it. I can hardly help getting annoyed when I see religious folks demanding the same credibility for their beliefs as that received by demonstrable facts.

consider the evolution vs creationism "debate" as a great example. the rallying-cry of these cretins is "evolution is just a theory!" sorry, fuck off. evolution has been exhaustively proven by just about every scientific means known to man over the past 150 years. it is NOT just a theory; it is a fact which can be demonstrated to anyone. by contrast, creationism is a belief which an individual chooses, without evidence. (highlights are for comparison).

and that's really just a microcosm which is borne out on every level. wanna BELIEVE something for yourself? fine, that's your prerogative - but do NOT try to pretend that it has any validity or relevance to anyone else. I am sick of hearing blind belief upheld on the same level as common sense. when someone says "god says you shouldn't do that", what they ought to be saying is "I've chosen to believe that god says I shouldn't do that, but since I have no evidence to suggest the existence of god, and no right to exercise my beliefs anywhere outside the confines of my own skull, maybe I should just shut the fuck up."

okay? okay.

 

[ashlar]

Originally posted by jonb@May 24 2005, 03:05 PM
All I know is, o/~...Heaven isn't too far away...o/~ (And I only know that lyric from seeing an ad for a retro collection.)

[post=314281]Quoted post[/post]​

It's the song Heaven by Warrant from the album "Dirty Rotten Filthy Stinking Rich"

I think.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by Dr Rock+May 24 2005, 10:02 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr Rock &#064; May 24 2005, 10:02 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-GottaBigOne@May 24 2005, 07:56 PM
I agree that it isn&#39;t always productive to poke fun at something many people take seriously

[post=314275]Quoted post[/post]​

let&#39;s be fair - it really depends on how seriously they&#39;re trying to take it. I can hardly help getting annoyed when I see religious folks demanding the same credibility for their beliefs as that received by demonstrable facts.

consider the evolution vs creationism "debate" as a great example. the rallying-cry of these cretins is "evolution is just a theory&#33;" sorry, fuck off. evolution has been exhaustively proven by just about every scientific means known to man over the past 150 years. it is NOT just a theory; it is a fact which can be demonstrated to anyone. by contrast, creationism is a belief which an individual chooses, without evidence. (highlights are for comparison).

and that&#39;s really just a microcosm which is borne out on every level. wanna BELIEVE something for yourself? fine, that&#39;s your prerogative - but do NOT try to pretend that it has any validity or relevance to anyone else. I am sick of hearing blind belief upheld on the same level as common sense. when someone says "god says you shouldn&#39;t do that", what they ought to be saying is "I&#39;ve chosen to believe that god says I shouldn&#39;t do that, but since I have no evidence to suggest the existence of god, and no right to exercise my beliefs anywhere outside the confines of my own skull, maybe I should just shut the fuck up."

okay? okay.

[post=314382]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
I agree with most of this, Doc. I don&#39;t have a problem with others having religious beliefs. My problem is with those who attempt to hold me accountable to their beliefs. Before anyone jumps on me and accuses me of doing exactly the same (as usually happens in this discussion), consider this: There is a world of difference between saying "I believe homosexuality is wrong, so I won&#39;t engage in those behaviors" and saying "I believe homosexuality is wrong, so I will prevent anyone from engaging in those behaviors."

I have such a mix of emotions toward religious extremists. I feel sorry for them, I feel anger toward them... the thing that is so frustrating about those types is that they lose track of the true spirit of their chosen religion. Muslim extremists who get involved in "jihad" and terrorism conveniently choose to ignore the Pillars of Islam. Christian and Jewish extremists conveniently choose to ignore the Ten Commandments (among many other scriptures). All three religions condemn the killing of innocents. All three command golden-rule type behavior. All three command gentleness of spirit, generosity, and charity. It has finally ceased to amaze me that our government condemns "terrorist" acts by Muslims, but calls identical acts by non-Muslims "heroic acts by patriots." (Ref. any news of the West Bank)

If some want to believe in heaven, then by all means that is their right. If they want to believe in biblical accounts of creation, that is also their right. But it is my right to disbelieve. From my point of view, even "evidence" of evolution is a bit circumstantial. I can see a pile of bones, I can see carbon-dating results. But that does not place in front of my little peepers proof of one animal evolving from another. There could easily be a few red herrings in the mix of evidence, leading the researchers to some erroneous conclusions. Neither the creationist nor the evolutionist theory is satisfying to me.

 

[madame_zora]

I have to jump on the bandwagon here, there is a huge chasm of difference between someone&#39;s beliefs affecting their behavior and mine&#33; Once someone feels compelled to control MY behavior based on THEIR beliefs, we&#39;re in for s shitstorm.
Funny enough, it is very infrequent that I hear the hippocrits referring to their own behavior at all. This is the first mark of a disingenuous Christian to me. As soon as one presumes to judge me based on their faith, I pretty well know I&#39;m in the presense of an idiot of the highest order, one who hasn&#39;t figured out how to read the Bible even though it&#39;s been in print for over a thousand years.

Once again, I must throw in how absolutely irritating it is to have people confuse what is and is not an appropriate subject for an opinion. Opinions only pertain to subjective matters, not facts&#33; If someone has an opinion that 2+2=17, they would just be retarded and that "opinion" would be nothing more than misinformation. An opinion is "I like xyz" or "I think xyz is a good idea", but one simply can&#39;t change facts by saying "It&#39;s my opinion and you have to respect that&#33;" Bullshit&#33; I respect someone&#39;s right to have an opinion, but I sure don&#39;t have to respect the idea presented, especially if it&#39;s an incorrect opinion about factual matters.

When it comes to religion, there is no way I will ever believe anyone will have "the Truth" separate from their own perception of it in my lifetime. Actual truth is unaffected by anyone&#39;s recognition of it, nor can anyone know if they are getting close or not. Many people believe they&#39;ve heard the voice of God (myself included, sadly enough), many people have had what they consider significant religious experiences and may interpret these in a variety of ways. I personally view internal "voices" as one&#39;s (my) conscience, or the inner knowledge of right and wrong that we may refer to as morality bringing itself to the surface at a time when it is most appropriate.

Yeah, on a second read, I can pick up the sarcasm in Cline article, and I must admit to missing it at first. I sure love a sarcastic asshole as much as the next guy, so I guess I was a bit rash. Simplistic ideas bore the shit out of me too, if all a person can do is regurgitate elemantary nonsense about serious subjects and they haven&#39;t paid the matter the respect of serious consideration, I don&#39;t owe their beliefs any more sincerity than they have invested in them&#33;

 

[13788]

orionsword57:

Originally posted by madame_zora@May 25 2005, 07:20 AM
....I personally view internal "voices" as one&#39;s (my) conscience, or the inner knowledge of right and wrong that we may refer to as morality bringing itself to the surface at a time when it is most appropriate....

Simplistic ideas bore the shit out of me too...

[post=314512]Quoted post[/post]​

A simplistic concept that has worked for me, however... "always follow your hunches... if you ignore them, God will stop sending them to you" There are so many references in the Bible to the personal nature of one&#39;s relationship with the Divine, and none that say that you can only talk to God through a cleric, through a rite, or through of specific religion. I basically go to church for the music and the other people now, as the efforts of organized religions to make you believe that you need them for salvation has become too stifling. Heaven is a place without obstacles to God.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by madame_zora@May 25 2005, 11:20 AM
I have to jump on the bandwagon here, there is a huge chasm of difference between someone&#39;s beliefs affecting their behavior and mine&#33; Once someone feels compelled to  control MY behavior based on THEIR beliefs, we&#39;re in for s shitstorm.

[post=314512]Quoted post[/post]​

Along these same lines, has anyone ever wondered about a certain denomination which strongly advocates what I call "door-to-door Jesus sales?" I won&#39;t mention the name of the group (hopefully avoid controversy THERE), but part of their doctrine includes a literal interpretation of a phrase in the Bible describing the number of souls (pre)destined for Heaven. The part that confuses me about them is, number one, if the number is pre-determined, and the numbers have already been assigned to specific people, what good is proselytizing? If the numbers are predetermined, but not specified, aren&#39;t they taking chances that a new convert will take their place in heaven?

I have two quick ways to get rid of any of the several groups that do this - either answer the door completely naked (hopefully rock-hard, too) or simply ask them point-blank their church&#39;s view on homosexuality (you could use any controversial topic you know they are opposed to) and when they answer, then tell them "your &#39;god&#39; has no place for me, I have no use for a hateful god, thank you very much, goodbye."

Post script: Madame, I love ya&#33; You are SOOOO cool&#33; Big Hugs&#33;

 

[major_7]

I have two quick ways to get rid of any of the several groups that do this - either answer the door completely naked (hopefully rock-hard, too)

*fumbles around looking for pamphlets*


A dear, sweet old lady friend of mine (76 years old) in Atlanta recently moved and is looking for a new church. She found one close by, but is a little reluctant to join because of the huge emphasis from the church on nailing down the tithe she can give nailing down the number of volunteer hours she will give. Up there in Atlanta, they have some churches with such a huge congregation, and millions of dollars, that they HIRE CEOs/CFOs etc. to oversee everything&#33;

 

[breeze]

The Virgin Mary appeared to 2 of the medjugorje visionaries and took them on a visit to hell , purgatory and heaven. One of them described heaven as " the best of the best " and as an endless space. They note people dressed in robes and being the same { no one was under or overweight }.
The Virgin Mary first appeared in medjugorje what was then yugoslavia in 1981. If it had been a single appearance it would have been forgotten. The communist world become aghasted as her appearances continued daily { to this day }. They not only denied the existense of god but challenged god to prove his existense. Her appearances were senting shockwaves throughout eastern eurpore and in fact some claim medjugorje was ground zero { along with the pope } in the fall of russia. Relgious cells started to form in some eastern eurporean countries and came into play once poland fell. The communist tried various means and ways to end her appearances finally bombing medugorje during the bosian war to little effect.
Later for reasons unknown the yugoslavian government allowed the apparitions in medjugorje to be " the first apparitions in history to be throughly investigated by science ". The regularity of the apparitions made for " consistent and extremely reliable findings ". Three different international commsissions of the leading experts in the world have studied the apparitions. The first commission was led by professor henri joyeaux of the university of montpellier who was also a communist and atheist. I believe he was one if not the leading medical expert in the world at the time. The investigations revealed medical conditions never seen before. For example " the alleged visionaries voices stop during the time they are having the vision. Even though all the muscles involved in speech continue { all mouth , jaw and throat muscles } the laryx { voice box } shuts off. This is physically impossible............The laryx ceases to emit sound during the apparition- except for one exception. In unision , during the apparition the alledged visionaries will be heard simultaneously praying " Who art in heaven , hallowed by thy name. " When asked they report Mary is leading them in the lord&#39;s pray ".
If this is a hoax it is the greatest hoax in the history of the world and one that helped change the course of history. The appearances continue to this day and on easter sunday the Virgin Mary appears with her son Jesus. She leaves a message every month on the 25th. Pope Paul when thanked for his role in freeing poland responsed " no, not me but by the works of the Blessed Virgin , according to her affirmations at fatima and medjugorje " " Medjugorje is the fulfillment and continuation of fatima ".

 

[GottaBigOne]

ok< so as an aside: If heaven exists, what would it be like to you?

 

[Dr Rock]

well there&#39;d be no religious people in it, that&#39;s for damn sure

 

[Freddie53]

Originally posted by Dr Rock@May 25 2005, 07:45 PM
well there&#39;d be no religious people in it, that&#39;s for damn sure

[post=314724]Quoted post[/post]​

Guess I might as well get ready to burn in hell then.

 

[Dr Rock]

just being facetious. you know I don&#39;t really believe in the idea of afterlife anyway.

 

[Freddie53]

This is an answer or comment to several posts made recently:

The main tent of a religion is being overlooks by many here. It is faith. Faith is the belief in something not seen, not being able to prove scientifically. IT is what you believe to be true. That which you see is not faith. So the sun rose the morning, I believe, but that is not faith,I saw it. But I believe the sun will be there again in the morning. Now that has some faith in it because I really don&#39;t know for sure how the sun works. It could for some reason explode sometime today. But I have faith that the sun will continue as it always has.

Are we all going to have the same faith? No.

Is there a God? Maybe. I believe so. But some don&#39;t. I have what I believe to be comunication with him. Can I prove it? No. The doctors say there is no medical explanation for my recovery from complete paralysis. Does that mean a miracle. Depends on the definition of miracle. A miracle is an event on earth that is good in which there is no explanation that man&#39;s present understanding of science and technology can explain. So I give God credit. That is my choice. Others might choose a different explanation.

About how many can be in heaven. The Bible says 144,000. That means an infinte number in Jewish culture at the time that Revelatoin was weritten by John who was Jewish. The numbers 12 x 12 which is 144 was the standard statement of infinite number. The Hebrew language didnt&#39; have all the words we have. So 144,000 wold be a number so great that it could not ever be counted. So the interpretation is the opposite of what some give. It is not a limiting number, but a infinite number. The two interpretations are as opposite as is possible.

Yes, there are some Christians who belive that it is predeterined who is and who isn&#39;t ging to heaven. To me, that is false doctrine. I am a Jesus Christian. I believe that all who want to enter heaen will be allowed to do so. This idea that some will be selected before birth to go to heaven and others will be selected to go to hell and there is nothing they cana do about it is just false.

Can you get into heaven with false doctriner. I hope so. If you can&#39;t, heaven will be emptied. The truth from God is perfect in every way. I firmly believe that. No one though has a special radio or God&#39;s special perfect cell phone number. I think we all of us will in time learn the the truth, though some of that learing will be after death. Make that most of it.

About evolution. Dr. Rock, parts of evolution is theory and parts fact. We know that we can breed dogs and create new breeds. But we do not have enough evidence to prove the whole concept of evolution as fact. Though I believe it happened pretty much as most scientists have theorized. We can&#39;t prove that man developed from a one cell organism and when throgh various stages and finally became a primate with very little difference from the primates living today and then changed slowly into the creature we call man. There are still missing links just in the primate stage. But we know that all species do change over time.

Let&#39;s not cheapen religion by putting it in a science lab. Let&#39;s not cheapen science by defining science by faith criteria.

I beileve they can harmonize each other. I think there is a logical explantion for both. The truth will be completely revealed and faith and theory will be no more.

I hope these ramblings help a little. there have been some good posts on here and some by people who don&#39;t choose to be very religious. The state&#39;s job is to protect each us to have our own religious beliefs without interference by the state or other people. That is what Jana says she wants. The US Constitutin is "supposed" to give us that protection. And the Consitution&#39;s Bill of Rights also protects the state from undue influence from the various religious organizations.

It bothers me greatly that the religious right is trying to form a religious party. So ar the religous right have been content to use the Repubican Party though that we wear in time. The real powers in the Republican Party are Episcopalians. (former President Bush) United Methodist ( The present President Bush and Dick Chaney) and of course many others. Notice I said members, not active worshippers. Don&#39;t know about that. But I seriously doubt any of those three give a rat&#39;s ass about abortion. Except if a member of their family wnated one, it would happen.

For the record the United Methodist Church is not a political orgaizatoin. However, the official position of the UMC is prochoice on abortion, which is the opposite of what George Bush is trying to get through stacking the courts with people whose only qualification that mattters is that they will vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

It might have been better to quote each person with a line of response. I don&#39;t know. I do know that some of the answers from those who are not religious were very enocuraging to me. They did put down religion and acknowledged in some fashion that we should be able to worship unhindered by onyone. And they deserve the save respect from those who are religious.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by Freddie53@May 26 2005, 02:03 PM
About evolution. Dr. Rock, parts of evolution is theory and parts fact. We know that we can breed dogs and create new breeds.

oh, careful. selective breeding is not the same as evolution - it&#39;s about controlling zygotic mutations in particular ways, whereas natural mutation by its very nature is entirely uncontrolled (although limited in some respects by environmental circumstances).

a lot of people - even scientists who should know better - like to believe that evolution is about "progression" from existing lifeforms into "better" ones. it&#39;s not - there are no guidelines and no criteria. evolution is purely about survival, not "advancement" as we would understand it. the natural world is full of modern species which have evolved into more primitive and/or parasitic forms than their predecessors, because those forms are better suited to survive in their present environments. ice ages in particular tend to shunt lifeforms in a more rugged, physiologically simple evolutionary direction, because those forms are better able to adapt to the climactic compressions and upheavals that accompany a widespread glaciation (or its withdrawal).

we ourselves are more "primitive" in some ways than some of our predecessors. one example is ramapithecus (our evolutionary "ancestor" of 5-8 million years or so, prior to the tertiary ice ages) - a little ape-like primate, although dissimilar from modern apes in many respects. ramapithecus wasn&#39;t as smart as a human being or as aggressive as a chimpanzee, but it almost certainly had a more refined and highly-developed tactile nervous system than homo sapiens (or indeed any other primate) does now. certain areas of its brain were probably unusual in other ways (although that&#39;s something nobody will ever prove), and so it&#39;s quite possible that ramapithecus was a "better" social animal than homo sapiens (naturally) is, too. the species probably lost those characteristics as it evolved over the tertiary ice ages, because other factors were more important to survival.

 

[DC_DEEP]

GottaBigOne, if I actually believed in heaven, then for me it would be - filled with people/souls who are free to do as they wish, as long as it does not encroach upon any of the others. Pain and disease would not exist. There would be challenges, sometimes struggles, but only to the extent of keeping us boredom-free. Nothing spirit-crushing.

Freddie, I&#39;m sorry you seem to mis-read my post, and some of the others. I was not attacking you. If my comments don&#39;t apply to you personally, then please read them objectively. If they hit a little too close to home, well, perhaps that needs addressing. I have no problem with FAITH, I have no problem with SPIRITUALITY, but I do have problems with all of the organized RELIGIONS I have encountered. There is always too much emphasis upon doctrine and dogma, and so very little emphasis upon theology. Narrowing this down to the christian faith, I find an apalling amount of lip-service to the tired old phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner," and next to nothing as far as practicing that idea. Despite any claims made to the contrary, I have not found any CHURCH which is as loving, caring, and accepting as they boast to be. Most tend to subliminally or explicitly teach "fine that you claim to be a christian; but if you don&#39;t believe exactly as we do, then you are hellbound." The roman catholic church, and the church of christ are blatant examples of this.

I have never, ever attempted to push my non-belief upon anyone else. I do not try to dissuade them from their chosen religion/faith/beliefs. I simply stand up for my right to be a non-believer. I don&#39;t understand what is so difficult, for so many people, about the First Amendment. The right to worship freely also includes the right NOT to worship. GottaBigOne, this is what I meant when I mentioned my view of "atheism" as somewhat a religion in itself. Nothing to do with theology, but rather the practice, as was evidenced by Madeline Murray O&#39;hare. She made atheism a religion. Unless I am mistaken, the following definitions apply:
Polytheist - believes in multiple gods
Monotheist - believes in one god
Atheist - denies existence of god
Agnostic - does not know whether or not god exists
I want to add one more to the list, the one I made up for myself:
Non-theist - it isn&#39;t that I don&#39;t know, I just don&#39;t believe. I neither confirm nor deny god.
Can anyone explain to me, rationally, (forget it, Dr. Rock, I know what your answer will be) why so many refuse to leave me the fuck alone regarding religion? Why it is so important for me to believe the way they do?

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@May 26 2005, 03:33 PM
Most tend to subliminally or explicitly teach "fine that you claim to be a christian; but if you don&#39;t believe exactly as we do, then you are hellbound." The roman catholic church, and the church of christ are blatant examples of this.

I must object here. I was in the seminary: I know what the official stand of the Roman Catholic Church is on the attainment of salvation. "One need not be a Catholic, nor even Christian, to attain salvation. Salvation is the reward of all who remain true to the dictates of their consciences." This is the current doctrine of the Church, and any priest who proclaims anything different is in error.

 

[DC_DEEP]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+May 26 2005, 02:49 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; May 26 2005, 02:49 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-DC_DEEP@May 26 2005, 03:33 PM
Most tend to subliminally or explicitly teach "fine that you claim to be a christian; but if you don&#39;t believe exactly as we do, then you are hellbound."  The roman catholic church, and the church of christ are blatant examples of this.

I must object here. I was in the seminary: I know what the official stand of the Roman Catholic Church is on the attainment of salvation. "One need not be a Catholic, nor even Christian, to attain salvation. Salvation is the reward of all who remain true to the dictates of their consciences." This is the current doctrine of the Church, and any priest who proclaims anything different is in error.

[post=314929]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

DMW, sorry that perhaps I overstated. But please tell me where Sacraments fit into the life of a christian, and the roman catholic church&#39;s official stance on sacraments for non-catholics. I refer specifically to the sacraments of confession/penance/reconcilliation, eucharist, baptism, marriage; but also to confirmation, holy orders, and annointing the sick. Really, what is the purpose of any of this if remaining true to one&#39;s conscience is all that is necessary for salvation and eternal life in heaven? I was under the impression that catholic doctrine taught that one may not marry except in the church; one cannot partake of the eucharist unless one has done penance; one&#39;s sins are not forgiven unless one has confessed to the priest; and none of these may be given to anyone who has not undergone confirmation and baptism. Does the church have closed communion, and are marriages outside the catholic church recognized by the church?

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by DC_DEEP@May 26 2005, 06:57 PM
But please tell me where Sacraments fit into the life of a christian, and the roman catholic church&#39;s official stance on sacraments for non-catholics. I refer specifically to the sacraments of confession/penance/reconcilliation, eucharist, baptism, marriage; but also to confirmation, holy orders, and annointing the sick. Really, what is the purpose of any of this if remaining true to one&#39;s conscience is all that is necessary for salvation and eternal life in heaven? I was under the impression that catholic doctrine taught that one may not marry except in the church; one cannot partake of the eucharist unless one has done penance; one&#39;s sins are not forgiven unless one has confessed to the priest; and none of these may be given to anyone who has not undergone confirmation and baptism. Does the church have closed communion, and are marriages outside the catholic church recognized by the church?

Ah, now we&#39;re delving into the murky waters of Sacramentology. That&#39;s some very deep theology in the Church. Right now I will give the short answers because I&#39;m leaving to return to New Orleans in less than two hours and it would take longer than that to give the how and why of the sacraments ... plus it would result in an epic saga of a post that would bore most readers to tears.

Baptism is necessary for initiation into the sacramental life of the Catholic Church. Though under certain conditions a non-Catholic can participate in Holy Communion, he does not receive the sacramental grace associated with the Eucharist, though he does receive some measure of actual grace. The conditions are dispensation from the celebrant and acceptance of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. If those two conditions are not met, the reception of grace is anulled. Dispensation is rarely given except in the case of a nuptial Mass where a Catholic is married to a non-Catholic. Dispensation is occasionally given to members of other denominations that accept Transubstantiation, such as Eastern Orthodox and Episcopalians/Anglicans. Receiving the sacrament of Reconciliation is not necessary for reception of the Eucharist except in the case of a mortal sin. Venial sins are forgiven through contrition, and that is sufficient to receive communion.

A Catholic is allowed to marry a non-Catholic, and it&#39;s quite common since the Second Vatican Council. A civil marriage is recognized by the Church, but the sacrament of matrimony is not conferred upon the couple until the marriage is consecrated. Civil marriages and marriages performed in non-Catholic places of worship can later be consecrated by a priest.

Since the sacraments are reserved for those who have been baptised in the Church, non-Catholics cannot receive absolution through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, but priests are more than willing to talk about moral questions with non-Catholics. And though actual sacramental confession does not take place, he is still bound by the seal of the confessional and cannot reveal the contents of that conversation to anyone. Now for Catholics, I have mentioned that contrition is all that is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, but through the sacrament of Reconciliation, we believe that we receive sacramental grace. For a mortal sin, the sacrament is necessary for forgiveness.

The clergy of the Church can only bestow sacraments on those who have received the first sacrament: Baptism. Confirmation? In ordinary cases, a Catholic experiences the sacraments of Reconciliation and Eucharist before receiving Confirmation. In cases of adult Baptism, Confirmation usually immediately follows the Baptism, but that is not the case of children growing up in the Catholic faith.

Annointing of the Sick as a sacrament is, of course, open only to Catholics, but a priest can certainly annoint and pray for a non-Catholic without bestowing the sacrament.

I hope this answered some of your questions.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@May 26 2005, 10:49 AM
I must object here. I was in the seminary: I know what the official stand of the Roman Catholic Church is on the attainment of salvation. "One need not be a Catholic, nor even Christian, to attain salvation. Salvation is the reward of all who remain true to the dictates of their consciences." This is the current doctrine of the Church, and any priest who proclaims anything different is in error.

[post=314929]Quoted post[/post]​

Yeah well, the U.S. just has a lot of religious nutcases. There&#39;s actually a group of breakaway Catholics in Kansas who believe every Pope since John XXIII has been a heretic, usually because of the end of Latin mass.

*sigh* I have mentioned how much this country has every aspect of the Middle Ages you won&#39;t find at a SCA event, right?

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by ChimeraTX@May 26 2005, 09:38 PM
I think people have a need to believe in something greater than themselves.

[post=314996]Quoted post[/post]​

frankly, the idea of something greater than myself would just make me wanna beat up on it.