Total posts: 107
-->
@Dr.Franklin
If you are a Christian, it is of the utmost importance. Your very soul may depend on it.
Additionally it is a debate website. The same question could be asked of everything on here.
Created:
My interpretation is through the book and the spirit. God by divine providence protects his word, but that doesnt mean he instantly mutes people who speak wrongly of it, or misinterpret it.
Yet every person will say that they interpret through the spirit. And they all come to different conclusions. So how can you trust your interpretation is the correct one?
My argument never was that God mutes anyone who speaks wrongly, but rather He protects His Church against teaching error.
I have yet to disagree with scripture, what i disagree with is the idea that man has to interpret it by traditions they establish.
That is a statement we both agree upon.
Ill stick to the word of God and be saved, you keep your "oral traditions" and not obey God. Unless yall repent and obey scripture, you will be damned.
The ability to independently choose how to interpret the Bible as you have chosen to do, is a tradition not found in the Bible.
A couple of last questions. Why do you believe the Bible is the Bible? Who said it was? Did Jesus leave a book or a Church?
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
So you deny the power of the Holy Spirit to protect the teachings of God's Church? Funny that you have already discounted the part of the Bible that you disagree with.
How do you deal with something like the Eucharist? Do you believe that it is the body of Christ as he says or not? If not, you are simply following a different "tradition".
A perfect book is useless without a perfect interpretation of that book.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Yet the rule about women is something it arbitrarily made up, directly against Jesus' own post rebirth actions regarding Mary, even while the church only exists with belief in the resurrection due to said actions.
Can you show me where Jesus made Mary an apostle/bishop/priest?
Your point is that the early church rejected the example set by Jesus... Wow!
There is no rejection. The apostles passed on what they had been given. If female priests were to be a thing, they would have had female priests.
You seem to miss the part where priests are not acting as themselves. Unless God is very limited, matching genitalia should not matter when through the divine power of God someone is not acting as themselves. Plus if that arbitrary physical bit is too much for the power of God to overcome, why not various others?
God chose to make them "Male and Female". He gave them different roles to perform on earth. It is like saying why are you limiting God by saying only women can conceive children. God chose things to be this way for a reason. If you have a problem with that take it up with Him.
On a real side, every time there are women religious leaders, earth worship develops without exception. It might just be God understands our natures a bit better than we do.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the idea of an infallible leader wasn't present in the early church. it slowly grew over hundreds of years. if that was a true doctrine it would have been present more explicitly.
Are you sure about that? It may have taken time to flush it out into formal doctrine, but it was always there.
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. - Matthew 16:16-17
So here Jesus has shown that the first pope had the ability to speak infallibly.
A voice came to him, “Get up, Peter, kill and eat!” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean.” Again a voice came to him a second time, “What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy.” This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky. - Acts 10:13-16
So Peter unilaterally set forth a practice for the entire Church through an infallible means.
After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. “And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? “But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. - Acts 15:7-12
All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. - Acts 15:7-12
So Peter listened to both sides. Once Peter spoke, none disagreed with him - the decision was made.
In about 95-96 AD, Corinth wrote to Rome for clarification on a matter of faith. Pope Clement responded. What is curious is that the Apostle John was still alive and physically closer to Corinth. Thus it would have been more logical to ask St. John for clarification if Rome did not possess special authority.
“Rome has spoken; the cause is finished” - St. Augustine
It is quite clear that Peter and his successors had a special status above the other apostles. The Church operates as it does until there is some dispute. It is only at that time of dispute that it makes a formal proclamation.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
Its not my argument, its the truth. The letters paul wrote are what was cosidered traditions. And they are part of the inspired writings.
So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15
So Catholics would completely agree. We are adhering to the writings in accordance to the oral traditions that were established in the 1st Century.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
So your argument is that in the second century the Church was sola scriptura and the modern Church uses Tradition?
I'm trying to limit each person to a single argument at a time - for clarity sake.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
One additional point, I would say it was established in the first century on Pentecost, not the second century.
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
I would say there is no distinction between the two. That is like saying who is the real Melcharaz? The one 10 years ago, or the one today?
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Here you have to make the distinction between the individual and official teaching.
The doctrine of the Church is without error. Individuals can be in error. So not everything every priest, bishop or Pope says is protected against error.
However, every Protestant would have to admit that Moses was given the ability to infallibly speak on God's behalf. So if God did it once, is he not able to make sure that the Church he founded does not teach error?
As for Peter, he was not teaching that Christians had to follow the Jewish dietary laws. He simply held the personal belief that he had to continue the Jewish dietary laws. He was informed otherwise.
Can the Catholic church admit to error (at times)?
The Church is bound to its teachings and doctrine. That isn't to say that individuals have not made errors. So as an example, the Church cannot change its stance on Transubstantiation; it can say that the actions of individuals done in the name of the Church were not right/just/etc...
Created:
-->
@Melcharaz
The Catholic Church - or what most people would call the Roman Catholic Church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The Galileo thing popped up at the same time at the Protestant revolt was in full swing. The Protestants were accusing the Papacy of denying the Bible for not condemning Galileo outright. Galileo on the other hand was saying that not only did you have to believe him, but that the Church had to change its teachings. As the Church's claim that it is the sole authority issues of Faith, this made it extremely difficult on the Pope.
When Galileo wrote a defense of his position, what he wrote could be interpreted as calling Pope Urban VII "Simplicio" - a simpleton. He forced the Pope to act. He was however protected by the Pope from a much harsher sentence than he could have been convicted with.
The Church's position was to follow the consensus of the best scientists. When they asked Galileo to prove his position by showing the parallax that must exist if his position was true, he couldn't. Yet he demanded that they accept his position as true. When there is an objection that you cannot answer, you cannot demand that standard model must be rejected. As noted Copernicus said the same thing, but he was not labelled a heretic - the Church took it into consideration with interest.
There seems to be some Catholic sources that say it's blasphemy to deny a geocentric model because of those given authority to speak as an oracle for God had declared it so.
Yeah. The Church itself has said that its authority does not extend into the scientific realm. Jesus did not leave that authority to the Apostles. If by some means the flat earthers are correct and the Geocentric model is correct, the Church would accept that. The salvation of souls is not dependent on the relative movement of the sun and earth.
If a scientific theory conflicted with scripture, how could they accept it?
It didn't. However, the Protestants screaming that it did made patience to resolve the situation difficult. As the Pope's primary concern is the salvation of souls and the unity of the faith he was forced to act.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Yeah,
I had been looking forward to a solid discussion with Mopac1, but he is gone. It really comes down to the Papacy (oddly enough the same real problem for many Protestants). The rest of the issues could be resolved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Well it is a spiritual cleansing agent!
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. - Acts 2:38
The very act of baptism forgives sin.
There was considerable historical debate as to whether children under the age of reason or the mentally handicapped required baptism as they would be free of personal sin, but still stained with original sin. This is where the theological concept of Limbo came from.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And as I have previously stated. There is no factual evidence that the Jewish Elders had had their right to stone blasphemers to death revoked.
We've dealt with that in the other thread where Josephus shows that the Sanhedrin had their ability to meet without approval revoked. Since they cannot provide a death sentence without it, their ability to sentence someone to death was effectively removed.
So this argument is done as well.
Created:
Well, that should be incendiary enough to get a discussion going on between Christians.
Basically I want you to put forth one argument as to why you believe the above to be false, and we'll try to flesh it out in an adversarial but fraternal manner.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I know him, but I think his life has moved on.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
It only makes your interpretation a sham.
You just mixed together Jewish and Roman law - another logical error. The fact that the Jews no longer had the ability to condemn anyone to death after the destruction of the Temple does not mean they didn't have that ability before, but that it was restricted by Roman rule.
It was also illegal for the Jews to rebel against Rome. Does that mean it didn't happen? Must according to your logic.
I just proved with Josephus my point when you explicitly said he didn't say it. Nobody knows the exact relationship between the Jewish religious leaders and the Roman occupiers. However, the account in the Bible is justifiable with what is known.
The Gospel account stands without blemish.
Better luck next time.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
One further addition. It seems that Josephus does write about the Killing of James and others.
CONCERNING ALBINUS UNDER WHOSE PROCURATORSHIP JAMES WAS SLAIN; AS ALSO WHAT EDIFICES WERE BUILT BY AGRIPPA.
AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
- Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book XX, Chapter 9
So Josephus explicitly states that the Sanhedrin could not assemble without the consent of the Roman Governor. The people were not permitted to put someone to death without a ruling from the Sanhedrin. Hence, the Jews lost the right to put someone to death without approval from Rome.
This is in perfect agreement with the Gospel where the Jews state tell Pilate that they do not have the authority to put a man to death.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
On the contrary. You see the prefect only had about 3000 troops in the entire province. He too was in a tentative position as the legions were based a considerable distance away. In the event of a major event he didn't have enough men to enforce his will. So mob lynchings where Jews killed another solitary Jew for Jewish reasons would have been tolerated so long as they didn't disturb the order.
Now the killing of Jesus was a different matter all together for both sides. Here is a man of considerable note for whom the city turned out to greet with great fanfare. The number of his followers and the hopes for the end to Roman rule put him on a completely different level than the odd heretic or prostitute killed by mob justice. There is a big difference between an official ruling that puts someone to death, and a mob that lynches someone. One is a challenge to Roman authority, the other, so long as it doesn't happen too often and doesn't affect the taxes, can be ignored - they aren't Roman citizens after all.
When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul. - Acts 7:54-58
So you can see the stoning of Stephen was a spontaneous action and not an official ruling. And Stephen was a nobody. Then, like now, justice is not blind.
Also for the Sanhedrin, they were teetering and if they were seen to be the ones to kill Jesus, the messiah, they could have been victims of a mob retribution. So like when they tried to trap Jesus with the Prostitute and with Paying taxes, they made Rome do the dirty work and face the consequences. They have shown a track record and their actions in killing Jesus were consistent with previous attempts to have him dealt with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The infinite is not possible with matter as matter is by definition finite in nature.
The argument is that the spirit is not necessarily finite as it does not have the same nature, hence why God is not matter. The Kalam does not define God, only His necessity as something outside of the physical universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Baptism is more than symbolic. It is entry (birth) into the body Christ which is necessary for salvation.
Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. - John 3:5
for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. - 1 Peter 1:23
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. - 1 Coritnthins 12:13
Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. - 2 Corinthians 5:17
having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. - Colossians 2:12
Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. - Romans 6:3-4
For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. - Galatians 3:27
He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, - Titus 3:5
He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. - Mark 16:16
They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. - Acts 16:31-33
Peter himself noted that baptism was more than symbolic, it actually forgave sin:
Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. - Acts 2:38
This washing with water was prefigured by the great flood with Noah
who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. - 1 Peter 3:20
The Apostles and early Church clearly saw baptism as more than symbolic, it was essential to salvation.
Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, - Matthew 28:19
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
There can never be an infinite amount of events in the pastWhy not?
Because now would never come to exist because an infinite amount of time would have had to elapse to get to now. Since nothing physical/temporal can ever reach an infinite state this is a truism.
It has to start somewhereWhy?
As noted above, an infinite regress is impossible. As such a beginning is logically necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The whole Galileo thing was more political than scientific.
Galileo was also in error - the sun is not stationary and the orbits are not circular. It was ultimately about Galileo being arrogant.
Copernicus was a Catholic priest and when he presented his theory to the Pope it was well received. However, the problem was the same reason that a heliocentric model was rejected by the Greeks. There was no means of seeing a parallax. The Jesuits and universities were not forbidden from investigating a heliocentric model - only that they were not able to say it was true until it had been proven to be so.
The Church has always been open to science. Faith & Reason combined have always been at the centre of Catholicism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Hasn't the Catholic church changed it's views on social issues at times?
Nope.
Take artificial contraception. Up until the Lambeth conference in 1930 where the Anglican Church made a minor exception to the use of Artificial contraception, every Christian denomination condemned its use. Now every Christian denomination except for the Catholic Church permits its use.
The Catholic Church's official teachings do not change with time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you feel you have the correct answer to these various doctrines and social issues?
Yes, because I hold fast to the Church Jesus Christ established and has 2000 years of consistent teaching.
The Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are the only ones that even attempt to make that claim. I would argue the Catholic Church is the correct of the two.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Nevertheless, my point stands that denominations are a reflection of culture not the other way around. Denominations are not a reflection of theology or difference of theology.
So your argument would be that until 1500 the culture of Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, England, etc... were all identical because they all had the same religion? Because that must be the conclusion of culture creating denominations.
Denominations did not arise until when?
Yes. But before that there were different orders within Catholicism.
You'd have Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits (yes they came after the Reformation), etc...
They were all united in a single belief, but would have different practices and devotions. There can be great diversity while maintaining the exact same faith. This creates a diverse cultures all formed by common beliefs.
Until the Reformation - which itself arose due to the renaissance. Prior to that time there was one religion - called Christianity even if it was divided into several different camps. The orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the far Eastern churches, the Anglican church (itself which was noted as existing in AD 43 and recognised at several of the early church councils.
Precisely my point. Denominations are caused by what people believe to be true, not by culture. The culture of the US has been formed by protestants who make themselves into Popes. They each get to choose what the Truth is. Hence when they disagree, they just go and start a new denomination.
The Anglican Church began with Henry VIII. Nobody will argue that. The real question is whether they maintain validity and Apostolic Succession or not.
Yes, Jesus clearly taught that leaders in the church needed to be servants. This was his clear teaching with the washing of their feet - and many other comments. It is the way of the world - to lead from the top, demanding and riding rough over everyone else. Authority is not mutually exclusive from servant teaching. the Catholic church gives lip service to this teaching - it used to be much more part of what they did. In many churches around the world - it is a problem. But this is the teaching of Jesus.
So a man who gives up marriage and children in order to exclusively tend to his parishioners isn't a servant of all? The Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes are all servants, but servants with authority. They serve the people by ensuring first and foremost that they receive the fullness of the faith passed down from the Apostles. Second they ensure access to the sacraments. Their calling is one of service.
the Reformation was never really meant to be a start of another church - nor even of denomination. It started in essence because the Roman church was being top down in authority and refusing other legitimate rights to worship God in the Christian tradition.
HAHAHAHA!!! The reformation was a complete break with Christian tradition. It introduced complete novelties into Christianity at the whim of one man - Martin Luther. He in turn was upset when other people chose to introduce additional novelties. He thought he should be final arbiter of the Faith - as did everyone who came after him. Traditional Christian worship is best shown by Catholic and Orthodox masses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
You keep showing more and more guidelines they've made up and later changed.
My full quote:
The Church does not make up guidelines, it passes on what it has received.
The Church passes on the fullness of what was taught by Jesus. The content of what it teaches cannot change. How it chooses to teach it, is within the authority of the individuals according to the times and locations in which it does so. No conflict and no making up stuff.
How is Jesus post-rebirth immediately showing favor to a woman they chose to exclude, me making a case against myself? Fallible humans did something, and Jesus seemed to shun that decision, opting to chose a woman to be the primary messenger of his rebirth.
Precisely my point. Even though Mary Magdalene was the first person recorded to have been visited by Jesus after His resurrection (there is good reason to believe that He appeared to His mother Mary first) she was not a priest in the early Church. Jesus chose men to be his 12. They passed that on to men alone. The Church is bound by the Tradition established by the early Christians. It does not make up the faith, it passes on what it has received.
"Not as himself." Exactly. While we could not dress up a donkey and have it stand in the place of Christ, humans are all equally made in the same image of God. Even at the lowest points of humanity, we did not rule out any ethnicity from the priesthood, even while they look physically more different from Christ than another.
That we are made equally in the value of our souls, we are not made identically to carry out the same functions. Jesus came as a man, chose men to be his 12 disciples, and they chose men to pass their authority to. This has to do with the masculine and the feminine. To God we are all "feminine". The masculine is the giver, the feminine is the receiver. God is pure actuality, the giver. Men are the image of the masculine and women are the image of the feminine. If you have a problem with this, it isn't the Catholic Church, but God Himself you have to take this up with.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
The Jews had lost the unilateral right to capital punishment had been removed from the Jews in 6 AD.
So while in remote areas, the locals may sometimes have taken justice into their own hands, and the locals might chance that the Romans would never find out about it - or be bothered to investigate it.
In Jerusalem itself, where the Roman Governor himself resided, the Sanhedrin would be risking their own lives by disobeying Roman law and putting Jesus to death.
So you see. I can read, and I did answer your question fully the first time.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
How do you know? The mosaic law was clear. Death by stoning for adultery.
The right for the Sanhedrin to carry out capital punishment had been removed in 6 A.D. when Rome downgraded the status of Judea from a kingdom to a Roman Province.
One can postulate for eternity but sentence would have been the same for him.
It is more than postulation.
"Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act." - John 8:4
How did they catch her in the very act? They were obviously waiting for this to happen. The fact that they didn't also bring the man shows that they were not there for the purpose of upholding the law but catching Jesus in a trap he could not escape.
If he said don't stone her, he would be breaking Mosaic Law. If he said stone her, he would be breaking Roman Law and also acting against his message of mercy.
We don't know she was a prostitute, the scriptures do not say.
Now one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. And there was a woman in the city who was a sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume, and standing behind Him at His feet, weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears, and kept wiping them with the hair of her head, and kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume. Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.” - Luke 7:36-39
Or a actress playing the part of an adulteress so Jesus can display his worldly wisdom?
Now that is one serious actress! Someone willing to get stoned to death in order to play a part. We just don't have people these days who take the craft so seriously.
That is a ridiculous argument. It was the Pharisees who brought her to Jesus, and not someone whom Jesus presented to the people.
Not if she was a real adulteress, she wouldn't have. The mosaic law states clearly that she AND HE should be put to death.
As previously noted, the Jews were an occupied people and the Romans had removed the right of the Sanhedrin unilaterally meet and carry out a death sentence.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Nothing. I have heard it postulated that they only apprehended the woman in order to bring her to Jesus (where was the man? he would have been equally guilty). In other instances you see that the Pharisees know that a woman is a prostitute, but don't try to kill her. She was just a pawn whose intended use was to discredit Jesus.
Had she not been brought before Jesus she would have lived out her days in sin and likely gone to hell.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Was Israel occupied at the time?
Could it just maybe be that since Rome was the authority that they made it illegal for the Jews to carry out capital punishment outside of Roman Law?
Blasphemy isn't a violation of Roman Law. Hence the reason that they came to seek Rome's permission to execute someone?
Maaaayyyyyybe?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Actually I believe that there is great ability for diversity within complete unity of belief.
All the different denominations agree on the things that matter - those things which are primary, but when it comes to secondary matters, there is diversity. Most denominations exist because of the secondary things not the primary things.
I would greatly disagree. There is no basic unity.
Is the Eucharist truly the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ - or is it only a symbol?
Once saved always saved? Or can you lose your salvation?
Do you normatively need water baptism?
Is divorce permissible?
Is abortion permissible?
Is contraception permissible?
and on and on and on...
The denomination cannot even agree on the major elements necessary for salvation, never mind the minor ones.
it is to do with culture - the way we worship - and how our culture impacts upon us and the way we worship.
Actually, I think you have it backwards.
lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi - the way you pray, is the way you believe, is the way you live. Culture is downstream of the way you pray, not the other way around. All you've shown is that the there is an error in the way Americans live.
No - you are saying that everything about culture is truth. Yet this clearly not the case. Denominations reflect culture not truth.
Yes culture is about truth. What the culture determines to be true will affect how they live. Denominations are about what is considered to be true, which in turn causes those people to live a certain way - which forms the culture.
Jesus taught leadership as servant leadership - not as top down power. He who serves is the leader amongst you.
Didn't he? The Apostles must have gotten in wrong right from the beginning then because the Apostles all seemed to be leaders in the early Church passing on the Gospel and correcting people. Sounds like they had a top down authority. Now they were there to serve and not be served.
Jesus had authority, and he sent them as he was sent, so it seems they were given authority to speak on his behalf.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
You discuss practice and not doctrine. It is not possible to change doctrine.
There is no problem with the Inquisition or the Crusades - both are very defensible if you would like to discuss those (just seems a side argument at the moment).
If you can show me any document where the Church said that Pedophilia was moral and licit I would entertain the discussion that the Church has changed its doctrine. If you want to say that the Church changed the way that it punishes priests who broke their vow of celibacy with underage youth that is a different discussion.
The Church has changed practice on certain things many times. Take the Eucharist. The manner of reception of the Eucharist by the faithful has changed over the years. From what I understand, there was an early heresy that stated that the people could receive the body, but only the Priest was worthy to receive the blood. So the Church said everyone should receive both. Then there was another heresy that stated that unless you receive both you have not received communion. So the Church said that everyone is only going to receive the body to show that the fullness of the Eucharist is fully present in both the Body and the Blood. These days the blood is being made available to the faithful again. No change in doctrine about what the Eucharist is and the necessity of receiving it, but a change in the manner of reception in order to teach the truth of the faith.
Ceremonial vestments are just that - ceremonial vestments. They have a reason to exist and craftsmanship and materials change through time resulting in changes to them - just like the style of suits changes over time. The ceremonial/formal wear remains fundamentally the same even though the style changes. Those of course mean nothing to the doctrine being preached. Organic growth has always been an aspect of Christianity - it is evidenced in the Acts of the Apostles.
Ummm... you are making a case against yourself by mentioning the succession of Judas.
“Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. - Acts 1:21-23
So the Aposltes who had traveled with Jesus understood that it was necessary to promote somebody into a leadership position. They also understood that it was only men whose names were to be put forward. Jesus had explicitly given them authority. So it would seem that your entire point has failed.
One's personal holiness does not mean the right to be a priest. As previously mentioned, Catholics consider nobody more Holy than Mary - that doesn't change eligibility for priesthood because the role that the priest fulfills is reserved for men. The priest stands in Persona Christi and not as himself. As Jesus Himself said that He's the Bridegroom it requires a man to stand in his place. Catholics hope that they are given a Holy Pope to lead them, they don't believe that the Pope is necessarily the most saintly person alive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
"It has served us well, this myth of Christ." - Pope Leo X
It depends on what you mean under the definition of Myth. As JRR Tolkien noted to C.S. Lewis, the incarnation of Jesus was "True Myth".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
You cannot give what you do not have. Thus if you have logic, it is necessary for God to have logic in order for Him to have given it to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Melcharaz
It is a silly question when you consider that when you lift any object, you have actually moved the entire Earth. The movement is such that the centre of gravity remains the same.
Now the movement of the planet is ridiculously small due to the relative mass of the two objects, but you do move the entire earth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
I believe your basic premise is in error. Multiple denominations is the exact opposite of what Christianity is about.
Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” - John 18:37
If Jesus is the truth and his denominations all teach different things then there is no truth is having multiple denominations and they cannot be one in Christ.
“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me..." - John 15:26
So the Holy Spirit is the spirit of Truth that proceeds from the Father. How can Truth be contradictory? Another proof that multiple denominations is fundamentally un-Christian.
“I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me." - John 17:20-21
So Jesus' prayer for the Church at the last supper was unity, not division. Seems to be the nail in the coffin for multiple denominations being a Christian strength.
Additionally Christianity is not supposed to be decentralized. The early church had Apostles who raised others to be leaders. When they were unsure as to what to teach, they would ask back to the apostles. The apostles met to discuss the need for circumcision so that there would be unity in the Church. It was a Centralized organization right from the beginning.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Why wouldn't eternal punishment as described in the Bible be similar to life imprisonment? The latter term only presents a time limitation because we have no ultimate control over life and death. However, we do try. The medics try and keep humans alive as much as possible. The judicial system tries to prevent the convicted from taking their own life.
Well there was supposedly one woman (Sr. Faustina) who was permitted to view hell. Here is what she wrote:
Let the sinner know that he will be tortured throughout all eternity, in those senses which he made use of to sin. I am writing this at the command of God, so that no soul may find an excuse by saying there is no hell, or that nobody has ever been there, and so no one can say what it is like...how terribly souls suffer there! Consequently, I pray even more fervently for the conversion of sinners. I incessantly plead God's mercy upon them. O My Jesus, I would rather be in agony until the end of the world, amidst the greatest sufferings, than offend you by the least sin."
"Today, I was led by an angel to the Chasms of Hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw:
The First Torture that constitutes hell is:
The loss of God.
The First Torture that constitutes hell is:
The loss of God.
The Second is:
Perpetual remorse of conscience.
The Third is
That one's condition will never change.
The Fourth is:
The fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it. A terrible suffering since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God's anger.
The Fifth Torture is:
Continual darkness and a terrible suffocating smell, and despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil, both of others and their own.
The Sixth Torture is:
The constant company of Satan.
The Seventh Torture is:
Horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies.
These are the Tortures suffered by all the damned together, but that is not the end of the sufferings. There are special Tortures destined for particular souls. These are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings related to the manner in which it has sinned. There are caverns and pits of torture where one form of agony differs from another.
I would have died at the very sight of these tortures if the omnipotence of God had not supported me.
So there you go, now you know the likely fate of those who are destined to hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
A Pope cannot change certain things.
A Pope cannot change things that the Church has already ruled on. The Pope is akin to a steward and not a king. The actual "job" of the Pope is to lead the Church and at times to clarify what the continual teaching of the Church has been. He does not have the authority to introduce "novel" ideas into the Church, because the Church is not his; he's just tending it on behalf of the owner.
Any bishop who ordains a woman a priest, does not make the woman a priest, but rather excommunicates himself. A bishop is like a minister that operates under and in co-operation with the steward. If he acts against the king's laws his action is not valid.
A hat is not part of Catholic doctrine, it is a ceremonial vestment - the style of which changes gradually over time. The bishop is the bishop whether he is wearing his mitre, and anyone else wearing a mitre does not become a bishop. It is for the faithful to recognize his station whether they know him or not. The shape has been adopted to signify the tongue of fire that descended upon the apostles at Pentecost. Thus the faithful understand that this person has been elevated to a position of official successor of the apostles within the Church.
As noted in my original reply to you. The Catholic Church considers Mary to be the most exemplary human ever. They believe her to be the Queen of Heaven. If there was ever any woman that would have been a priest it would have been Mary. Except it didn't happen. What about Mary Magdalene? She accompanied Jesus she was given the honour to find the open tomb, and he even talked to her directly on Easter Sunday. If Jesus had intended any other woman to be priest it would have been her, but she wasn't.
Lastly the Old Testament was a prefigurement of the New. The Jewish priesthood likewise was male only - this was a prefigurement of the new priesthood that was established in the New.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
It cannot happen. The Church does not make up guidelines, it passes on what it has received. Pope John Paul II settled it.
If there was ever any woman who would have been a priest it would have been the Blessed Virgin Mary - as the church teaches that she is the Queen of Heaven. Yet she was not ordained. Jesus took 12 men as apostles. Those men only ordained men. As the priest acts in Persona Christi it is only men who can be priests. There is no way for the Church to ordain women.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Actually inalienable and irrevocable are not synonyms. Inalienable means that the right is effectively part of the being and that it is not possible to grant or remove this right it simultaneously exists with the being. Irrevocable means not that it cannot be removed, it does not mean that it is always given.
Granting a fetus inalienable rights while inside, and part of, another body with inalienable (irrevocable) rights is nonsensical.
You see, you made an error with the first word. Granting. Inalienable rights are not and cannot be granted. Negative rights are not granted, they exist by the very virtue of being. A better synonym for inalienable would be inherent. So there is no conflict for one being with inalienable rights to exist within another being with inalienable rights. They both possess their full inalienable (negative) rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
(IFF) you don't care if deportees are harmed or killed after deportation (THEN) you don't care if embryos are harmed or killed after deportation.
'care' is a very loose term. To have or lack concern over a negative consequence is different than to cause a negative consequence.
Whether I'm concerned about somebody driving on icy roads with bald tires, has no bearing on whether I can ram the car next to me off a cliff.
Ectogenesis elegantly solves the problem of abortion.
Except that it does nothing of the sort. It isn't currently available, and it would likely be highly immoral to implement in the vast majority if not all cases.
(IFF) citizenship, human rights and the full protection of the law are bestowed on a blastocyst at the moment of conception (THEN) every miscarriage should be thoroughly investigated as a potential manslaughter, murder, or child endangerment criminal case. Every conception should be registered immediately with the proper authorities so a certificate of citizenship can be issued. Any pregnant woman engaging in high-risk behavior should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
There is actually no need for any of that unless there were reason to suspect foul play. As life at a young age is tenuous, there is a natural high level of death. It was historically assumed that the majority of people were not evil monsters who willed the death of their own children. As such citizenship recognition can wait until birth as this will pass the time when most deaths are likely to occur and minimize useless bureaucracy.
(IFF) every life is precious (THEN) we should protect every precious human being within our sovereign territory. Including those accused of crimes. Including those drinking water contaminated with lead.
If the person is drinking the lead laden water with the intention of harming the child, then fine charge them once you have proof harm has been done. If they do not realize they are inflicting harm then they are guiltless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Irrevocable right is a term you just made up. Nothing says that abortion is an irrevocable right, except your desire for it to be so.
An inalienable right is attached to the organism itself by definition. It cannot be attached to an event, because that means that it is not an inalienable right, but rather a granted right. Since the life of the unborn begins at fertilization, inalienable rights are tied to fertilization. Or to be more precise:
P1 - Humans have inalienable rights.
P2 - A new human life begins with the zygote at fertilization.
C1 - Zygotes have inalienable rights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
So murdering your offspring is omni-considerate?
If considerate now means considering yourself and ignoring your child...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Aren't inalienable rights also the unborn children? If rights are inalienable then they are intrinsically linked to the moment your life commences and hence fertilization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
So now you want to kill undocumented infants?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Very, very few late term abortions are due to pregnant women changing their mind about having a baby at the last minute. Almost all late abortions are performed for medical reasons.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Now that is funny.
According to the Guttmacher Institute (no friend of the Pro-Life side) there were "five general profiles of women who sought later abortions, describing 80% of the sample"... “raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous [had never given birth].”
Created:
-->
@Mopac
Proof? No. Evidence? Yes.
Why would Corinth write to Rome to settle a dispute when St. John himself was not only alive, but physically closer? Maybe because authority resided with Peter's successor? You know the keys of the kingdom and all that.
The orthodox do not tie their faith to the emperor? I must be in error, and so must the ancient Orthodox:
Are you referring to the Donation of Constantine? Sure it is possible that some Popes believed it to be true. Error in, or even abuse of (if your conspiratorial in this matter) temporal and non-theological matters is irrelevant as to the authority of the Pope in theological matters.
Created: