Catholic views

[travis2]

Phenomenaul, I can't even begin to address your post. It is the most bigoted piece of trash I have seen yet. You say such untrue things about another Christian "church" and dare to call yourself a Christian?

I sure as don't see you living any Christian lifestyle here in this thread.

101A accused myself and smeagol of taking extreme positions and knocking them down. What I see is you and others doing that in this thread. And doing it in a damned hateful manner.

[johnsmith]

Wouldn't it be funny if in the end we were all wrong? That thought makes me chuckle.

[johnsmith]

Phenomenaul, I can't even begin to address your post. It is the most bigoted piece of trash I have seen yet. You say such untrue things about another Christian "church" and dare to call yourself a Christian?

I sure as don't see you living any Christian lifestyle here in this thread.

101A accused myself and smeagol of taking extreme positions and knocking them down. What I see is you and others doing that in this thread. And doing it in a damned hateful manner.

Yeah, I'm gonna agree on this one, travis2 and smeagol use a lot less hate when debating religion. Are you guys still mad that the Catholic church was around before your church? Cause if you are, dude it was a long time ago, get over it, worship how you wish and continue to believe that you and only you are "right".............I'm sure when God was.........oh it.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

Phenomenaul, I can't even begin to address your post. It is the most bigoted piece of trash I have seen yet.

From the Catholic viewpoint you have educated opinions, and I'm interested in hearing them travis. If you get the opportunity, I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to address his questions and points with substance, as smeagol has, rather that a generalized "it's the most bigoted piece of trash". Generalizations really don't carry any weight.
Thanks t2.

[travis2]

[QUOTE=jochhejaam]

From the Catholic viewpoint you have educated opinions, and I'm interested in hearing them travis. If you get the opportunity, I'd appreciate it if you would take the time to address his questions and points with substance, as smeagol has, rather that a generalized "it's the most bigoted piece of trash". Generalizations really don't carry any weight.
Thanks t2.

At a later time, I will. Right now that post still has me too angry.

I appreciate the words. You'll get your calmer debate from me when I am mentally able to give it. Despite possible posts of mine to the contrary, I prefer it that way.

[Phenomanul]

Phenomenaul, I can't even begin to address your post. It is the most bigoted piece of trash I have seen yet. You say such untrue things about another Christian "church" and dare to call yourself a Christian?

I sure as don't see you living any Christian lifestyle here in this thread.

101A accused myself and smeagol of taking extreme positions and knocking them down. What I see is you and others doing that in this thread. And doing it in a damned hateful manner.

I didn't attack the 'Church'...

I'm questioning the RCC's practices... you have to truly understand them before accepting them... that is all. YOUR heated stance only serves to show that many people simply don't want their religion questioned. Christ compels us to search for the Truth. If its between the Pope and Christ; I choose Christ - simple as that.

I know that any criticisms will always be taken as an attack... but that is not the case my brother...

Don't let your ins ution limit the grandeur of your experience with GOD... 'man' was never meant to 'wire-tap' that connection -- It's yours and yours alone.

BTW before you backlash yet again, I would look up countless of Catholic resources which question why sexual men are being drawn to the priesthood. It's a recognized problem within your ins ution, I gain nothing by making it up. Again, whether or not I agree with its practices I still inherently agree that the Catholic Church represents Christ -- the RCC should do everything in its power to purge out its problems...

[Phenomanul]

man has free will - man chose to fall by eating from the tree of knowledge, so man can easily decide what he thinks is the chaff from the wheat. if God didn't stop man from committing the original sin, why would he swoop down and stop someone from commiting an error in omitting a gospel or teaching from the bible? then again logic and faith are like oil and water. just because something isn't in the bible doesn't mean it isn't divinely inspired or can't help you to be a better christian, or even just a better person.

So you don't believe that GOD interacts with His children?

Yes or no?

Again, GOD wants to reveal Himself to us.... He's not trying to confuse us on who He is. Him preventing Adam's fall has nothing to do with allowing His handiwork to be tarnished by error. You make it sound as if Moses were trying to get personal credit by writing the books of Law we know as the Torah. He was doing what GOD instructed Him to do. This event also brings up an interesting point that's been working in my mind for weeks (and one that links this thread to the last thread I got heavily involved in - the 'evolution' one). OK here it goes: Who do you think revealed to Moses the names and ages of Adam's lineage, the 'so and so begat so and so and he lived to be 'x' hundred years old etc... '

It's a very revealing question considering that it's highly unlikely that those names would have been written down in any centralized location to serve as Moses' reference. GOD revealed those names, He revealed their ages and He revealed the necessary 'historical' accounts that pre-dated Abraham. So why then don't we believe that GOD revealed the story of Genesis to Moses? Somehow people have diminished the veracity of Chapter 1 and inadvertantly give more weight to Chapters 2, 3, and 4 which are inundated with 'factual' statements regarding the aforementioned lineages. Not to mean we should take them 'literally'... but their content cannot be outright dismissed the way it is by many people (inncluding people in the church no less). Either we believe it is inspired or we don't.

Anyways I believe GOD has worked closely on the oneness and authenticity of the 'scriptural' WORD He left mankind. Again, He wants us to know Him... to be drawn to Him. Here's some food for thought: If the Bible contained doctrinal error, would GOD allow it to represent His attributes erroneously? Would He allow it to confuse generation upon generation at the expense of their souls? I don't believe so.

[spurster]

To say there is a single Protestant position is a little crazy. Protestants range from very conservative to very liberal, from inerrancy to inspired to full-blown Biblical criticism.

Roman Catholics have had a long time to make their theology consistent, so arguing minutia is basically going to be a deadend. The problem I have with the Catholics (which applies to many/most other denominations) is the dichotomy often made that either you must believe all their tenets or else you are inferior. I am sure you can come up with good reasons why I should accept the Pope or that Mary ascended, but they are not good enough to convince me. Especially, I am not simply going to accept what the Pope or anybody else says without making my own evaluation.

[leemajors]

So you don't believe that GOD interacts with His children?

Yes or no?

i never said anything of the sort. you really have a knack for misconstruing. if anything i mentioned the possibility of divine inspiration happening to anyone, and not limited to christians and people who were interpreting the bible. if you meant by His children christians only my answer would be a resounding NO.

[johnsmith]

To say there is a single Protestant position is a little crazy. Protestants range from very conservative to very liberal, from inerrancy to inspired to full-blown Biblical criticism.

Roman Catholics have had a long time to make their theology consistent, so arguing minutia is basically going to be a deadend. The problem I have with the Catholics (which applies to many/most other denominations) is the dichotomy often made that either you must believe all their tenets or else you are inferior. I am sure you can come up with good reasons why I should accept the Pope or that Mary ascended, but they are not good enough to convince me. Especially, I am not simply going to accept what the Pope or anybody else says without making my own evaluation.

Funny, I'm 100% Catholic from birth. I go to church every Sunday, practice what I preach.........yet I frequently find myself questioning the politics and viewpoints of the Catholic Church. But I must be the only member of the Catholic church that thinks that way.

[Phenomanul]

i never said anything of the sort. you really have a knack for misconstruing. if anything i mentioned the possibility of divine inspiration happening to anyone, and not limited to christians and people who were interpreting the bible. if you meant by His children christians only my answer would be a resounding NO.

Oh don't be a ...

It was only a question. You said;

if God didn't stop man from committing the original sin, why would he swoop down and stop someone from commiting an error in omitting a gospel or teaching from the bible?

I explained my position on that concept by suggesting that GOD had active hand in the emergence of the Bible... That the Bible's content is based on GOD's active participation... that was all. Your analogy though a valid comment is not supported by the pattern GOD laid forth in His Word...

[smeagol]

Could a Pope that allowed the merciless bloodshed of thousands during the inquisition be spiritually connected with GOD? Is that link possible?

The Pope is not a super man. He is not an angel nor a god. He is human. Flesh and blood. And he is a sinner, like you and me. Some Popes have been saints, some have been far from being saints.

Could that same Pope then turnaround and stipulate moral policy and doctrinal interpretation free of human error, as something ordained and sanctioned by GOD?

I know the concept of Infallibility is a difficult concept to accept. But we Catholics believe it is in the Bible. Christ himself wanted a visible Church and said that the gates of would not prevail against it. Christ also named Peter as the leader of his Church. But as you said, we will never agree on this.

Did any of the prophets ever claim superiority over their peers? Look at the life of Samuel, Nathan, Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist... When did they use their connection with GOD as a way of improving their financial interests, their political influence? Either way, the doctrinal exclusivity that is claimed by the papal seat, along with its 'air of superiority,' (i.e. proclaiming to be 'Holy Roman Emperors'), does not conform to the biblical relationship that describes how GOD interacts with His people or with His stewards. Furthermore, since we will never agree on the meaning of Jesus' statement to Peter, I will never agree to the concept that one man and his ins ution can alone hold the keys to Heaven. Does not Jesus refer to himself as the conerstone? It couldn't possibly be that Jesus built His church upon 'himself', could it?

And there lies the problem (bold sentence above).

There is plenty of evidence Christians understood this passage of the Gospel as Catholics have understood it for 2,000 years. It was not until the XV century that people have changed its meaning.

Is celibacy a moral tradition? Or is it only a job requisite of sorts? Does this policy not stipulate that breaking the vow of celibacy would be considered a sin? If the RCC is decreeing that this action cons utes a sin... isn't celibacy more than just a policy?

IF celibacy were just a policy, then in the event of non-compliance, the offending priest would just be stripped of their priesthood - defrocked as punishment. But no, breaking the vow is considered a sin; celibacy is a moral policy that inherently defines a sin.

But since when does man have the authority to decree and define a sin unless it comes directly from GOD? And unless the RCC is contending that Popes are like prophets, this is not possible. Jesus clearly stated that John the Baptist was the last of the prophets (a clause not liked by Islam). We are to receive 'conviction' of our sins through the work of the Holy Spirit... not a list of rules, or because an ins ution has decreed it so...

Hence, due to the very nature of celibacy we find that the practice is very much a matter of morals and not just administrative policy alone -- it falls into an area that is supposedly infallible on interpretation.

All I know is that Celibacy is not an infallible doctrine.

And if it was divinely mandated it wouldn't engender the sorts of problems we see today

You have failed to bring any proof of this, scientific or other. Until you do, I will assume you are operating under the influence of anti-Catholic rhetoric.

Oh I personally understand it.... I'm what, 26 years old... and have remained completely chaste to date (not married yet). So although I understand that celibacy and chas y are two different things... they are still very much intertwined. I know about the mental struggles. Eitherway... the lifestyle is not for everyone.

I congratulate you. In this day and age, it is very difficult to do what you have done. And as you say, the lifestyle is not for everyone. Every person that goes into the Seminar wanting to be a priest knows this.

A bigger problem is sexuality amidst Catholic seminaries... Does priesthood, in fact, attract a disproportionate number of men with a sexual orientation? It is obvious that these perverts are NOT and never had any intention of being celibate. Their inability to live up to their vows should not besmirch those men who have been able to do so. At the same time the RCC should do everything in its power to discourage admission of sexual priests into its ranks.

Again, a lot of anti-Catholic rhetoric. It looks like you are mixing two concepts here: sexuality, which does not equal pedophilia.

I don't know why sexual pedos are attracted to the priesthood in the first place

They are as attracted to the Catholic priesthood as they are attracted to teaching, being rabbis, being male nurses or being Protestant pastors.

There are 22 rites (i.e. churches) in the Catholic world that are in formal union with the Pope. The Latin Rite (what I think of when someone says "the Catholic Church") is the only ONE that has decreed a vow of celibacy for its priesthood. Virtually every other rite (Maronite, Melkite, Byzantine, Ukrainian, etc.) allow the ordination of married men. As you mentioned above, the Orthodox Christians (who separated from Rome in the early 11th century) have 'always' allowed the ordination of married men - so they were doing it back when they were Catholic!

First of all, this proves to you that celibacy is not a Dogma. Second, a clarification: these rites permit married men to be ordained priests, but if you are single and you want to become a priest, you have to vow chas y (become celibate).

This discipline can change within the Latin Rite. Ironically though, the Latin Rite already incorporates married priests in its ranks; some Episcopal priests who converted to Latin Rite Catholicism and became ordained as Catholic priests brought their wives with them. I have even heard of Lutheran pastors getting ordained as RC priests and keeping their wives. So married priests already exist within the Latin Rite although no formal message from the Pope has addressed it.

How does this help your argument? This again proves to you celibacy is not a Catholic Dogma and has nothing to do with the Pope’s infallibility.

[Phenomanul]

You responded to a version of that post that hadn't yet been 'cleaned up' to flow better. Did you keep it open on that window all night... I had edited it before your response...

[smeagol]

You responded to a version of that post that hadn't yet been 'cleaned up' to flow better. Did you keep it open on that window all night... I had edited it before your response...

Yes I did, I answered part of it last night, part of it today (I kept the window open all night), and I wtill have more stuff to respond to. I actually copied it into word . . .

[smeagol]

OK this is a simple analogy, so bear with me... Do you get satisfaction from eating a cookie or from having your neighbor relay the taste?

How would anything be enhanced by taking detours? Is going through Mary some sort of scenic venture? Again, go straight to the source. Immerse yourself with GOD's presence. Breathe GOD. Don't be distracted by other heavenly beings. They aren't able to reveal anymore of GOD to you than He Himself can. How can anybody enhance GOD? Would they have to supercede GOD's attributes in order to do so???

Do you ask your brothers that are alive to pray for you? Are they intermediating between Jesus and you? To some extent they are, but you have no problem with it.

Catholics believe, and have believed since the times of the Apostles, that dead people have a connection with you, they are part of the Body of Christ, the Church Triumphant, as opposed to the Church on Earth, the Church Militant. We ask them to pray in our name, the same way you might ask a friend to pray for the health of a very sick relative.

If a celibate priest who inherently struggled with his lifestyle were presented with the opportunity to acquiece his natural desires by using the innocence of a child as an unhindered medium -- where no adults could stop him -- would that automatically suggest that he would sucuumb to temptation? No, he may still be able to contain his urges. Indefinitely even.

Say now that this scenario presented itself 2-5 times per week. The odds that he may end up doing something innapropriate - not necessarily an outright sexual advance - increases... If anything, this frequency gradually desensitizes the priest to the severity of his growing problem, it may also gradually diminish his personal restraint -- and suddenly voila! His desires have turned from being normal to being pedophilic. The objects of his fantasies... his secretive sexual outlet... even if only in his mind, have become children. Does this happen because he intentionally wants to hurt children? Not usually. This happens as a result of the power bond that develops between an entrusting child and the 'more' experienced and manipulative adult.

The celibate lifestyle doesn't always lead to pedophilia, in fact such a statistic would be impossible to measure... but that finality certainly isn't precluded.

A person who is attracted to children, celibate or sexually active, is a sick person. Celibacy will not increase this desire more than being a married. It will not because you are starting with a sick man. You continue to imply that celibacy causes pedophilia. It does not. This thought of yours defies logic.

Scott, who is not a Catholic (not even a Christian, I think), gets it.

While on earth Jesus was 100% man, and 100% GOD.... Many times he responds as a man. But many times He manifested his full power as GOD (as displayed with his miracles). In an earlier post I commented on why JESUS (as GOD) responds to Mary with the word 'woman' instead of 'mother' (something he would have said if he was responding to her as 'Jesus the man') at the wedding feast in Cana...

Ok, but what about when God himself says “This is my own dear son. I am pleased with you”. The Father appears to imply his superiority over the Son.

Matthew 28:19: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

There is no implication that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence, nature or substance with each other. The phrase simply says that disciples should baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, one could be higher in power than the other two.

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." together with John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." and John 1:18 "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

An Arian would reply with Heb 1:5 “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” which seems to imply there was a time before the Son was begotten.

John 8:23-24: "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins."

John 8:58 "'I tell you the truth', Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I Am!'"

John 10:38: "But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

John 12:41: "Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him." - As the context shows, this implied the Tetragrammaton in Isaiah 6:1 refers to Jesus.

Colossians 2:9: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"

Revelation 1:17-18: "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: "Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades." This is seen as significant when viewed with 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."

The quotes above are excellent quotes, but I’m sure a well-learned Arian could dispute them all. Why? Because approximately in the year 250 AD, Arius and his followers argued that Christ was not of the same essence and nature as the Father. And he argued this using the same Gospels you and I read today. And after the year 397 AD, Arians used the same Bible we use today to advance their heretic views. Arianism lasted another 200 years, but in those days it almost destroyed Christianity as we know it. It was finally defeated, not using the Bible (as I said, they used the Bible too), but using tradition to expand concepts known to many Catholics but, given their complexity, concepts not fully developed in the Bible.

Again, it is very interesting to read about the whole Arian controversy.

[smeagol]

I'm considered Evangelical and I don't believe that at all and I have never heard anyone that goes to my church say that either. Misconceptions about in every direction...

I'm happy to hear this. Nevertheless, I can show you access to plenty anti-Catholic literature and to many anti-Catholic websites.

Actually, Phenomanul, who I don't consider anti-Catholic, but does have a bias against Catholicism, on another debate in another life, linked a blatantly anti-Catholic website to drive one of his points home. I truly believe he was not aware of how bigotted that website is.

Travis, who blew a gasquet on this debate, went berserk on that one

[smeagol]

Phenomanu and I have both been Catholic, and in this debate have cited our own PERSONAL observations and esperiences as Catholics to make points.

I don’t believe H was a Catholic for a long time after he was born, but could be wrong.

In any case, as Travis points out elsewhere in this thread, being an ex-Catholic does not make you an authority in Catholic doctrines (and I say this with the utmost respect for your knowledge and without any intent to ofend). I was a Catholic since I was born until I was 20 years old (I was a rabid atheist for 7 or 8 years thereafter). But the reality was I thought I was a good Catholic because I went to Church, confessed once a year, prayed here and there and hardly ever read the Bible, in other words, I went through the Catholic motions (does it sound familiar?). I can bet you if an evangelical apporached me at that time, there would have been high odds of me abandoning the Church.

What I'm trying to say with all this is that its difficult to discuss the Catholic position if you have never studied it or even become acquainted with it. I try to defend my faith now, after many years of reading and studying (and after a spiritual awakening which happened in 2000-2001 . . . you can say I'm a born again Catholic ). But even now I feel I have so much to learn.

Travis and Smeagol continuously post extreme, or even non-existent, Protestant positions, ascribe them to us, then knock them down. It is a frustrating dialogue, unfortunately also exacerbated by the fact that we are not on line at the same time.

I beg you, list those extreme or non-existent Protestant positions I have continuosly posted.

Smeagol, I apoligize for accusing you of redirecting web information to suit you purpose

No wories, although I don't see why this could be a problem. Most of what I write comes, in one form or another, from stuff that I have read somewhere: the Bible, Catholic literature, anti-Catholic literature, religious websites, etc. I may, from time to time, link some website to help drive a point home. That should not be viewed as something negative.

Finally, I don't believe that it is in my best interest to interpret the bible ALONE, and that my interpretation is absolutely correct in all cases; far from it.

Agreed, that is why, when I have a doubt on how to interpret a certain passage, I go to my priest, or to the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, because I believe they will tell me what the interpretation of that passage has been for 2,000 years (approx).

I now understand far more about what the bible says than I ever did as a Catholic, because, as a Protestant I am encouraged TO READ IT

It is geat that you do. And who do you go to when there is a passage people you read the Bible with don't agree the meaning of?

Show me in the bible where Jesus suggests this kind of study and quest for a deeper understanding of my faith is wrong, or unwarranted.

Show me in the Bible where it says that you can interpret, understand and form your own religion exclusively with what is found in the Bible?

You certainly have a disgust and disdain for it, apparently.

Show me where I express disdain for people who read the Bible.

Also, there are several posters on the board who were Catholic but are now Protestant. Are there any who WERE Protestant and are now Catholic? Your opinions could be valuable.

I would like to hear there opinion too.

If you are interested, I recomend you a book: "By What Authority: An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition" by Mark P. Shea. I bought it on Amazon. It is a paperback edition which costs not more than 15 bucks.

[smeagol]

On perusing the thread for evidence, what I have found was written by Smeagol - specifically regarding baptism and his infatuation with what Luther did, and did not, want included in the bible. Luther, ultimately, was just another person who had a profound effect on Christianity, but was no more infallible than any Pope.

What I wrote reagarding baptism is true for many Protestant denominations.

And what I wrote regarding Luther are facts.

What's the problem again?

[smeagol]

I figured you'd say that.

That's because you are a very intelligent poster

Funny, when that pedophile senator from Florida's story broke the PTB above him are starting to get the heat. Pope's call the shots and they make the rules. You think some two bit deacon is doing all the covering up years and years against the Pope'(s) wishes?

Bring me evidence JP II knew about these pedophile cases instead of writing empty phrases.

Next thing i suppose you'll say Bush, Cheney and Rummy are not liable for what happans bc those soldiers should have moved a couple feet to the left every time one gets shot or steps in the path of a bomb?

Is this suppose to be an analogy?

[Phenomanul]

Do you ask your brothers that are alive to pray for you? Are they intermediating between Jesus and you? To some extent they are, but you have no problem with it.

Catholics believe, and have believed since the times of the Apostles, that dead people have a connection with you, they are part of the Body of Christ, the Church Triumphant, as opposed to the Church on Earth, the Church Militant. We ask them to pray in our name, the same way you might ask a friend to pray for the health of a very sick relative.

Again, the big difference is that I don't pray to anyone but GOD.

I may pray for others, or others may pray for me... but never to them or vice versa.

Also, I find it quite odd to suggest that Peter or John, or Andrew, or Nathaniel etc... prayed to dead people. Not one instance of this practice is found in scripture. Furthermore, no account of them praying to Mary can be found either. What gives?

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.

A person who is attracted to children, celibate or sexually active, is a sick person. Celibacy will not increase this desire more than being a married. It will not because you are starting with a sick man. You continue to imply that celibacy causes pedophilia. It does not. This thought of yours defies logic.

Scott, who is not a Catholic (not even a Christian, I think), gets it.

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. Children provide said outlet, and usually don't raise a word of opposition (at least not until they grow older). Really the link is not as crazy as you think.... You simply don't want to see it, and I can understand why.

Ok, but what about when God himself says “This is my own dear son. I am pleased with you”. The Father appears to imply his superiority over the Son.

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.

There is no implication that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same essence, nature or substance with each other. The phrase simply says that disciples should baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, one could be higher in power than the other two.

"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.

An Arian would reply with Heb 1:5 “Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee” which seems to imply there was a time before the Son was begotten.


The quotes above are excellent quotes, but I’m sure a well-learned Arian could dispute them all. Why? Because approximately in the year 250 AD, Arius and his followers argued that Christ was not of the same essence and nature as the Father. And he argued this using the same Gospels you and I read today. And after the year 397 AD, Arians used the same Bible we use today to advance their heretic views. Arianism lasted another 200 years, but in those days it almost destroyed Christianity as we know it. It was finally defeated, not using the Bible (as I said, they used the Bible too), but using tradition to expand concepts known to many Catholics but, given their complexity, concepts not fully developed in the Bible.

Again, it is very interesting to read about the whole Arian controversy.

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.

[Guru of Nothing]

Here is a random quote for Hector:

Many local Protestant churches organized Scout troops in the early days of the Scouting movement. Of the 7,375 registered troops at the close of 1915, more than 4,000 were chartered to Protestant churches, and 1,645 Scoutmasters were ministers.

Where could this lead?

[Guru of Nothing]

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.

Grasping the essence of God is easy; the difficulty lies in religion.

[smeagol]

I find these discussions enriching as well... but unfortunately other people feel as though we can't agree on GOD... as long as they understand that we believe that the other is en led to his views there should be no problem.

I'm e enical por naturaleza, as we say in Spanish

That's because the message is simple.

--GOD created the Universe and everything therein.

--GOD created man in His image... "Let us create Him in our image"

--Man 'fell' and sin was introduced into the world. "For all have sinned and have fallen short of the Glory of GOD".

--Man's fate was certain death (both physically and spritually -- an eternity apart from GOD). "For the wages of sin is death...."

--GOD developed a plan to redeem mankind. "There is no remission of sins without the spilling of blood."

--JESUS, fully GOD and fully man, restored our link to GOD by dying for everyone's sins.

--JESUS defeated and conquered death (the causality of sin) upon His ressurrection. "... but the gift of GOD is eternal life through Christ JESUS our LORD."

--Upon leaving, JESUS promised the arrival of the Holy Spirit, one who would guide His followers to Truth.

--Anyone who acknowledges JESUS's redemptive act of love and "believes that GOD has raised Him from the dead" will inherit the 'gift' of eternal life - one where man will be reconnected to an eternal communion with GOD.

--All you have to do is accept JESUS's sacrifice for you. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

--The Holy Spirit will work in the hearts of those that truly want to know GOD, He will convince followers of their sins, seeking out true repentance.

--One day JESUS will return to establish His kingdom on Earth.

--1000 years later, in one decisive battle, sin will forever be purged from the Universe and Satan and his minions will be cast into the Lake of Fire.

--A New Heaven and a New Earth will follow and all the saints (all those who accepted the message of JESUS) will forever live with GOD.

Rites and Rituals won't get us into Heaven... a close personal relationship with GOD will.

I'm with you with most of this, inlcuding the last sentence (bolded) except your "by faith alone" part. Simply accepting Christ as your savior will not get you into heaven. This is a great selling point of Protestantism, but is not enough to save you. It is pretty clear in James 14-26.

The answer is simple really.

GOD, and GOD alone, allowed the Bible that exists today to stand the test of time. The texts that didn't make it, were not meant to be included. If GOD had truly wanted their inclusion, GOD would have made it happen. Bara bing bara bang bara boom.

The Holy Spirit did the work it had to in order to weed out the "shaff from the wheat." No one, but GOD deserves credit for this.

Let me see if I follow you: The Holy Spirit only assisted the Catholic Church in putting together the Bible. From 30 AD to 397 AD (year when the Canon of the Bible was closed), whatever the Catholic Church did, and whatever his members wrote, even though some conversed with the Apostles themselves, is totally irrelevant. And from 397 AD to the present, again, whatever the Catholic Church did, and continues to do, is irrelevant again, because we don't know if the Holy Spirit it guiding it.

This is not an airtight argument by any means.

If I spread the message of Christ to 20 people and they repent -- I certainly don't deserve the credit. I simply did the job that Christ commissioned us to spread, but the Holy Spirit is the one that actually 'works' in people's hearts so that He can convince them of their need for GOD. The messengers [i.e the stewards, us] have the priviledge of partaking in the process - that is all. In fact, GOD doesn't need us to do His work. HE can move whether or not we do, but we are blessed, however, when we do allow Him to work through us... when we allow Him to use us.

The way the Holy Spirit operates is irrelevant. You argument is that you know the Holy Spirit aided the Catholic Church only once in history: the day the bishops and the Pope approved the Canon of the Bible. Before, or after that, you are not sure, but you are inclined to believe the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the Church.

As an undertone you make it sound as if I believe Catholics aren't capable of being true disciples of Christ. Many of them are and many of them were used for GOD's work. I do however believe that the RCC errs when it retroactively claims that the other writings are just as important on matters of doctrine as the current biblical canon, in order to conveniently suit its needs. Again, if those works were truly that important, GOD would have made them 'stick'.

How many times have I said they are not as important as the Bible? They are complements. Important complemets.

How many counterfeit texts and letters were discovered in the 3rd and 4th centuries alone?

Now you are suggesting Clement or Ignatius' Epistles are counterfeit? You must be running out of arguments because even the most prestigious Portestant scholars believe these letters are authentic.

Again, what is found in the current Bible was meant to stand the test of time. GOD wants to reveal Himself to us... He's not trying to confuse us.

You should tell this to your 20,000 brotherly Protestant denominations, because somebody in the Protestant world surely appears to be confused.

The Bible doesn't claim Mary's perpetual virginity... tradition does.

The Bible does not deny it. And tradition simply reinforces it.

Nor does it establish a human-led church

Again, we differ in the interpretation of Mt 16:18. I gave you a long and detailed explanation of the Catholic's position on how to interpret this passage, but it was not enough for you. All I can say, again, is that up until the XV century, nobody understood this passage the way Protestants do. But coming up with this twisted way of interpreting it, is the only way Protestants can make thier theology work.

No it certainly doesn't... only the teachings GOD wanted to endure were included... nothing more, nothing less.

"Only the teachings God wanted to endure were included"? And this is written where in the Bible?

Actually, you cleverly avoided answering the questions all Protestants do. Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is all God used to reveal himself?

If you answer the Sola Scriptura riddle, it will be a first.

Funny how Christ wasn't the one to initiate many of these practices and doctrines.

Tell me which ones are not referenced in the Bible.

I'll tell you one which is, and it's explicily as it gets (in the Bible), and that is the Sacrament of the Eucarist. It cannot be more explicitly stated than it is in John 6: 25-70. Why do Protestants not believe in the Real Presence beats me.

[travis2]

Nice work, smeagol...you hit several home runs with those posts.

[Phenomanul]

Nice work, smeagol...you hit several home runs with those posts.

Why?? Cause I'm to accept his viewpoint as Truth.... In fact, Smeagol misinterpreted my position on several occasions and then addressed those positions... not my own... but I won't argue about them right now. I'll get to them when I have the chance.