Reply With Quote
Blinded by the light,
Held up like a
By the foreman of the night
Don't get crossed, Pheno . . .
Please let me know where I missinterpreted your position, restate your position and I will try to address it again. If I missintepreted your position, let me assure you it as not done on purpose.
Cheers
Blinded by the light,
Held up like a
By the foreman of the night
Really? I saw him answer your post as you wrote it. And there were some real whoppers in there too. The priesthood somehow attracts sexuals/pedophiles? We Catholics choose between the Pope and Christ? Come on...I'm not supposed to see those as attacks? And those are just two that I come up with right off the top of my head.
I mean, if I wanted to, I could draw back into history and lay some major wood down on Protestant churches...but what good would that do? And to answer your unspoken question, yes, I have a fair amount of experience...my father is Protestant ("non-denominational", used to be Baptist)...so I have at least a living source for my knowledge...not just books and (probably) biased websites.
In my opinion, you don't want to know what Catholics believe and how we got there. In my opinion, you believe our Church is wrong and sick. In my opinion, you would like nothing better than for smeagol and I and any other Catholics here to "come out" from under our Church and into the light.
But that's only my opinion...based on what I read from you. Are you willing to try to change my opinion?
Contrary to the beliefs of some, we are not interested in converting anyone. Nor do we send anyone to . Both of those are God's tasks. You want to know something, try asking nicely. We won't be hurt if you disagree...you have free will. If there's a question one of us can't answer, we're not going to bull you about it...we'll say we don't know. And then at least one of us is going to do some research...because those of us posting in this thread do care about our faith...and if there's something about our faith we don't know, then by golly that needs to be rectified.
What's nice about the people you'll be asking here is that we are Catholics by choice...we're all grown-up now, and we've had our crises of faith...and we've chosen to be where we are. And we're happy about it, too. Happy enough to share what we know...if you're willing to listen.
How 'bout it?
You are having so much fun, aren't you?
Dead people are . . . well, dead. We cannot ask them to pray for us the same way we ask our brothers who are alive to pray for us. If you don't like the word parying to the dead, think about it as talking to the dead.
Revelation 5:8 says that the saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints (on Earth). The fact that there is no record of the Apostles praying to the dead is not a good reason to dismiss the practice.
As I said in another post, 2 Maccabees also encourages praying for dead people although with a different meaning altogether.
Again you seem to be confusing concepts, probably because you have not been exposed to a well-versed Catholic (not that I am one).
Praying to Mary, as you are portraying it here, falls into the category of what I discussed two paragraphs above. Praying (asking/talking) to Mary in the same way a son who is a soldier, would ask his Dad to pray for him if he ever had to march into battle. If I'm this soldier, I would pray myself, ask my Dad, ask Mary and ask any other Saint I could think of to pray for me.
The Apostles might have asked Mary to pray for some reason or another, because she was alive, and this would not contradict your beliefs. This might have happened, even though it is not explicitly in the Bible.
Another point.... Jesus is both our Mediator and Intercessor. We can pray in support of our brothers, but the Holy Ghost is invariably the one who will intercede for them... not us.
Fine by me. I go by what Paul said in 1 Tim 2: 1-4
"First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth"
Smeagol, what would be illogical is to think that pedophiles were always sick. Their condition developed at some point in their life. I don't believe they are born with it. I simply explained a possible route to that condition, brought about precisely because their vow did not provide a natural outlet to their once natural urges.
I don't know if they were always sick, but I have to believe they are genetically predisposed. Because if I take your line of reasoning to the extreme, I absurdly conclude that we could all be pedophiles, and we are simply not because we are free to express ourselves sexualy.
In any case, if this were true, that celibacy leads to pedophilia, you would find many more pedophiles in the Church than in other organizations. Somebody, at the beginning of the thread, pointed out there are more pedophiles in the American school system than in the Catholic Church.
Have you seen that NBC program "Catching a Predator" or something like that? Pedophiles were caught on tape, and they were from all walks of life. There was a pastor and even a rabbi caught on tape.
Really the link is not as crazy as you think.... You simply don't want to see it, and I can understand why.
The link is crazy. To be a pedophile, you need to be sick in the first place.
If not, you are telling me that people who want to maintain their virginity until they get married, and don't find their bride until middle or old age, are running the risk of becoming pedophiles? This is how crazy you argument is.
Again, to be a celibate pedophile, first you have to be a pedophile, not the other way round. I don't understand why it is you who cannot see it.
It took Catholicism 400 years to defeat Arianism, and it was done with more than the Bible. The concept of the Trinity, as you and I know it, was developed way after the texts of the Bible were written.That was said to JESUS while He was fulfilling His mission on earth... That is a very significant detail; one that the Arians simply did not grasp (especially since the era of JESUS's time on earth was still relatively recent). JESUS is NOW reunited with the Father as they once were before time began.
"Let us make man in our image"
and then re-read...
Isaiah 44:6 "This is what the LORD says - Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.
One GOD -- Three Facets.
It's hard to grasp the essence of GOD... nevertheless, the Trinitarian concept is founded and grounded in scripture without the aid of extra texts or traditions. Starting from Genesis.
The fact of the matter is that no matter what I say... the Catholic Church is never wrong. It can never be questioned and if someone does question it, they are immediately branded as being anti-catholic bigots... Such arrogance is unbecoming of an ins ution that professes humility in the name of Christ... I simply seek the Truth.
There's really no point in keeping this discussion going. You agreed that the Gospel's message is simple and yet you are also willing to accept the fact that the RCC has complicated the SIMPLE message of Christ. That is why I compared the RCC to the pharisees and the sanehedrin in the first place... they did the exact same thing to the Hebrew/Judaic faith.
The underlying truth, if everything you claim is right, is that someone like me (or other protestants who have made a decision to follow Christ) cannot attain salvation because we have chosen to seek Christ outside the bounds set forth by the RCC... specifically by the catechism. I have admitted on numerous occasions that I believe that there are millions of true disciples of Christ within the Catholic laity. The RCC catechism on the other hand, suggests that people like myself can't inherit an eternal communion with GOD... without her blessing. I can't accept that.... I'm sorry, I just can't.
What's 'shocking', is that I've probably committed less sin in my lifetime than several of the popes in the Church's papal lineage... but hey, I'm just an insignificant protestant nobody! Am I supposed to believe that JESUS will exalt said popes 'higher' simply because they were popes... right.Everyone will face judgement equally... and those who have redeemed themselves with the blood of Christ will enter. Of course, if I would have said this 5 or 6 centuries ago, I probably would have been murdered for such 'heretic' comments.
On a side note: I've read the Bible from cover to cover at least seven times. A communion with GOD through Christ JESUS my LORD does not require that another man or ins ution mediate my bond. That much is understood. Besides, I have experienced the power of the Holy Spirit and seen His mighty hand at work -- and all outside the 'blessing' of the RCC -- was I just imagining things? IS GOD only GOD to Catholics? By their rules, apparently so.
It was a good discussion before Travis blew a gasket (and insulted me), so rather than continue and compromise the respect that I have for you two -- I'll just end with this post. Even his last post continued to undermine whatever semblance of logical counterpoint my posts had... as soon as the Catholic viewpoint was brought up (right, wrong or inconclusive)... that was it... end of argument! He felt that no further rebuttal was even valid - so what would be the point of submitting one?.
Travis did offer a return to civilized debate, and I appreciate that, but frankly I'm too tired to continue... It's not a debate I ever intended on 'winning' because I understood that these matters are very personal and highly engrained in our being -- depending on our life's experience. Besides it's not your garden variety ''I was right, you were wrong'' type of debate...
-Peace out.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 10-23-2006 at 08:02 AM.
Looks like I was right...
Man, it's good that I'm unwilling to chime in on this topic.
I'm Catholic and I'm stickin' to it.
God Bless.
Not me, thanks to reading the "Catholic views" thread on spurstalk.com, I'm thinking about switching to a new denomination.................no, no I'm not.
Before that other 'last' post I did intend on posting this.
A refute to Catholic Tradition on Mary's supposed Perpetual Virginity.
Did Mary Have Other Children?
One of the more controversial teachings of the Catholic church deals with the perpetual virginity of Mary. This doctrine maintains that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and that biblical references suggesting Jesus had siblings are really references to cousins (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 510).
As the veneration of Mary increased throughout the centuries, the vehicle of Sacred Tradition became the means of promoting new doctrines not explicitly taught in the Bible. The virginity of Mary is clearly taught in scripture when describing the birth of Jesus. But is the doctrine of her continued virginity supported by the Bible? Did Mary lose her virginity after Jesus was born? Does the Bible reveal that Mary had other children, that Jesus had brothers and sisters?
The Bible does not come out and declare that Mary remained a virgin and that she had no children. In fact, the Bible seems to state otherwise: (All quotes are from the NASB.)
Matthew 1:24-25 - "And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took as his wife, and kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus."
Matthew 12:46-47 - "While He was still speaking to the mul udes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
Mark 6:2-3 - "And when the Sabbath had come, He began to teach in the synagogue; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, "Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands? "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?"
John 2:12 - "After this He went down to Capernaum, He and His mother, and His brothers, and His disciples; and there they stayed a few days."
Acts 1:14 - "These all with one mind were continually devoting themselves to prayer, along with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers."
1 Cor. 9:4-5 - "Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"
Gal. 1:19 - "But I did not see any other of the apostles except James, the Lord’s brother."
An initial reading of these biblical texts seems to clear up the issue: Jesus had brothers and sisters. But such obvious scriptures are not without their response from Catholic Theologians. The primary argument against these biblical texts is as follows:
In Greek, the word for brother is ‘adelphos’ and sister is ‘adelphe’. This word is used in different contexts: of children of the same parents (Matt. 1:2; 14:3), descendants of parents (Acts 7:23, 26; Heb. 7:5), the Jews as a whole (Acts 3:17, 22), etc. Therefore, the term brother (and sister) can and does refer to the cousins of Jesus.
There is certainly merit in this argument, However, different contexts give different meanings to words. It is not legitimate to say that because a word has a wide scope of meaning, that you may then transfer any part of that range of meaning to any other text that uses the word. In other words, just because the word ‘brother’ means ‘fellow Jews’ or ‘cousin’ in one place, does not mean it has the same meaning in another. Therefore, each verse should be looked at in context to see what it means.
Let’s briefly analyze a couple of verses dealing with the brothers of Jesus.
Matthew 12:46-47, "While He was still speaking to the mul udes, behold, His mother and brothers were standing outside, seeking to speak to Him. And someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You."
Matthew 13:55 - "Is not this the carpenter’s son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?"
In both of these verses, if the brothers of Jesus are not brothers, but His cousins, then who is His mother and who is the carpenter’s father? In other words, ‘mother’ here refers to Mary. The carpenter in Matt. 13:55, refers to Joseph. These are literal. Yet, the Catholic theologian will then stop there and say, "Though ‘carpenter’s son’ refers to Joseph, and ‘mother’ refers to Mary, ‘brothers’ does not mean brothers, but "cousins." This does not seem to be a legitimate assertion. You cannot simply switch contextual meanings in the middle of a sentence unless it is obviously required. The context is clear. This verse is speaking of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus’ brothers. The whole context is of familial relationship: father, mother, and brothers.
Psalm 69, A Messianic Psalm
There are many arguments pro and con concerning Jesus’ siblings. But the issue cannot be settled without examining Psalm 69, a Messianic Psalm. Jesus quotes Psalm 69:4 in
John 15:25, "But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their Law, ‘They hated Me without a cause.’"
He also quotes Psalm 69:9 in
John 2:16-17, "and to those who were selling the doves He said, "Take these things away; stop making My Father’s house a house of merchandise." His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for Thy house will consume me."
Clearly, Psalm 69 is a Messianic Psalm since Jesus quoted it in reference to Himself two times. The reason this is important is because of what is written between the verses that Jesus quoted.
To get the whole context, here is
Psalm 69:4-9, "Those who hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of my head; Those who would destroy me are powerful, being wrongfully my enemies, What I did not steal, I then have to restore. 5 O God, it is Thou who dost know my folly, And my wrongs are not hidden from Thee. 6 May those who wait for Thee not be ashamed through me, O Lord God of hosts; May those who seek Thee not be dishonored through me, O God of Israel, 7 Because for Thy sake I have borne reproach; Dishonor has covered my face. 8 I have become estranged from my brothers, and an alien to my mother’s sons. 9 For zeal for Thy house has consumed me, And the reproaches of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me."
This messianic Psalm clearly shows that Jesus has brothers. As Amos 3:7 says, "Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets."
God’s will has been revealed plainly in the New Testament and prophetically in the Old. Psalm 69 shows us that Jesus had brothers.
Did Mary have other children? The Bible seems to suggest yes. Catholic Tradition says no. Which will you trust?
Of course, the Catholic will simply state that even this phrase "my mother's sons" is in reference not to his siblings, but to cousins and other relatives. This is a necessary thing for the Catholic to say, otherwise, the perpetual virginity of Mary is threatened and since that contradicts Roman Catholic tradition, an interpretation that is consistent with that tradition must be adopted.
The question is, "Was Jesus estranged by His brothers?". Yes, He was. John 7:5 says "For not even His brothers were believing in Him." Furthermore, Psalm 69:8 says both "my brothers" and "my mother's sons." Are these both to be understood as not referring to His siblings? Hardly. The Catholics are fond of saying that "brothers" must mean "cousins." But, if that is the case, then when we read "an alien to my mother's sons" we can see that the writer is adding a further distinction and narrowing the scope of meaning. In other words, Jesus was alienated by his siblings, His very half-brothers begotten from Mary and Joseph.
It is sad to see the Roman Catholic church go to such lengths to maintain Mary's virginity, something that is a violation of biblical law to be married and fill the earth.
My response: Who gives a ? You don't like the Catholic church, we get it.
Oh it's a significant point.
One instance of fallability in the RCC's doctrinal stance renders the whole concept of the RCC's supposed 'doctrinal infallability' null.
I don't hate the RC church... I simply don't tolerate its arrogance.
Bring a little more substance to the table next time Mr. Smith. Otherwise keep your insults to yourself.
Ummm, no, I think I'll bring exactly the same amount of substance to each and every one of my posts. Furthermore, I think I'll share my insults with everyone that chooses to read them, ya bag........now, what are you gonna do about it, "not tolerate" them?
Some cherry-picking...
The Protestant position on faith vs. works is Christological. It is not saying that a "Christian" can have mental assent to the Gospel without any manifestation of that in his life. Faith is not faith if it does not beget works.
The Protestant position is that God's grace alone is sufficient to save, and that any works with come forth as a result of the believer's becoming a new creation (Galatians 5:17) were prepared by God in advance anyway (Ephesians 2:10). The point of salvation by faith alone is not to give the prospective believer a "Get Out of Free" card without having to be obedient to God in everyday life, but rather to ascribe all the glory to God in the act of salvation, and none to the works of man.
In my observation, the difference can be whittled down in a nuts : Catholics believe works are a necessary element of salvation, while Protestants believe they are necessary evidence of salvation, i.e. Matthew 7:16.
Well, it doesn't say that. Romans 1-19:20 contradicts the notion that the Bible alone presents the revelation of God.
However, the Bible does say this: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV) And the words for "thoroughly equipped" in Greek are "artios exartizo," from which we are meant to understand that Scripture is sufficient.
This does not mean that Christians should not aspire to hear the teaching of others regarding Scripture, for not all of it is easy to understand (2 Peter 3:16). Sincere Protestants would have no interest in solid expository preaching, nor in studying the Bible together, if they thought they knew it all by themselves. The difference between Catholics and Protestants is that Protestants are not required to take such instruction as binding. The example provided to us is that of the Bereans (Acts 17:11).
I believe that the Bible allows believers to disagree on certain matters of doctrine without severing fellowship (1 Corinthians 14).
Because of verse 63.
Did Mary remain a virgin all her life? The Church says "yes", and has since the very beginning. Rather than repeat a lot of stuff, I offer these links for your perusal. They explain it just as well as I could.
They are all from the same (pro-Catholic) website. Make of that whatever you will.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Bret...f_the_Lord.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Buri...ames_Found.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Bad_..._Made_Easy.asp
So that's your answer, to put in a little roll eyes smiley face..........in that case.........
These threads always come up a few times a year. I read all the posts to get an idea of what other think but it does not effect my faith in any way, shape or form. My faith is solid as a rock and cannot be shaken. I've found that it is best to just let others believe as they wish. Now I've been accused of not being a real Catholic because I do not spread my beliefs to others but I feel that is not up to me for I believe that each person must find God on their own. Granted, it was my parents who introduced, some will say brainwashed, me to the Catholic faith and for that I am forever grateful.
I can tell you this. As God is my witness I would die before EVER denouncing my faith.
Carry on.
Yeah he was blinded by the light
Cut loose like a deuce another runner in the night
-The Boss
So, JS, you let Travis & Smeagol fight your battles, then you chime in with a "yeah what he said".
Weak.
I hope Boutons takes you up on your offer one day....
Re: Mary.
Pope Pious IX in 1852, (that's right almost 1900 years after the birth of christ) proclaimed (infallibly) that Mary was also of "Virgin" birth. (Were her parents celibate all their lives- what about her grandmother?)
Pios XII in 1950 proclaimed Mary's assumption (that her entire body and soul were taken into heaven) - a full century after THAT.
All of this, just completely coincidentally, not so long after the Marianist movement BEGAN in France post-revolution.
What did Catholics think about Mary for the first 18 and a half centuries? (Honest question; I can only assume it is similar to what Protestants think now)
Ummm, where in that quote does it reflect that I'm letting Travis and Smeagol fight my battles? And what battles have I been fighting? And what would happen if Boutons takes me up on my offer?
Your dog was in this fight for a couple of pages; then when the big boys starting throwing ACTUAL SCRIPTURE around; you were pretty much gone - obviously you got your feelings hurt because you got sniped from both sides (Smeagol & Pheno took shots in this thread); you disappeared.
THEN when Travis loses it, followed by Pheno bailing, you come in and dance on the remnants - like I said: Weak.
The last reference was regarding your adolescent hangup with challenging the resident liberal bombthrower to a fight - which he has utterly ignored.
What was my dog doing on the computer? And when scripture began to be thrown out, yes, I stopped posting for two reasons, one, I don't know scripture all that well, and two, Travis and Smeagol obviously know much more information regarding this subject then I do.....so what's your point?
Furthermore, one has to have feelings in order to get them hurt.
What is weak about throwing pot shots on an internet chatboard? You are doing in right now, does that make you weak?
As for the last reference and my "adolescent hangup", I again ask, what will happen if he takes me up on the offer. You said you hope he does, now I want to know what will happen.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
