Catholic Church is at Fault

[smh23]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Slavery
Jim Crow
Segregation
Prohibition
New Deal
War on Drugs
Welfare
Prison system
Vietnam
Iraq War
Legalized Contraception
Legalized Abortion
Rejection of DOMA
Pornography

With such wonderful things that democracy (actually closer to a Republic) has provided our country. I’m more inclined to agree with him, though I’d be interested why he should move to the Vatican City if he wants a Catholic Monarch (whether that is absolute or constitutional, as most monarchists want)?[/quote]

Good thing kings never did any wrong by their people, huh?

Or Popes for that matter.

[JayPierce]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
we are uniquely judged because we were uniquely blessed and uniquely declared our dependence upon the God of the bible as a nation as we set forth our trajectory at our founding.[/quote]

Yes, just as a Christian individual will struggle with sin and corruption all the days of his life, so will a nation this side of the final resurrection.

You don’t see why I asked about prophecy? This doesn’t read like prophesy to you?

THE foundational rudder in this nation by which the whole is steered is the absolute bedrock principles of marriage, family and sex.

Wrong. Show me any document from our founding fathers that says this.

The poison was already being drunk though. The tidal wave of perversion and whoredom was in full swing and today’s debt stangled, bleeding whimpering dying United States was already inevitable on the path she was then talking.

More prophesy. This stuff reads almost exactly like the Oracles from the Prophets.

Why was she taking this path? Because THE CHURCH, by which I do not mean Catholic (Big C), was already gagging on modernist liberalism in the form of denigrating the authenticity and authority of scripture and the Satanic deception of macro bio-evolution. She was in the midst of surrender right when the country needed her most.

Wrong again. Many of our founding fathers publicly questioned the authority of the Scriptures and even questioned the divinity of Christ Himself. If you were correct in your reasoning, the Father never would have let this country become the powerful nation it is.

The Roman Catholic Church however had no place of significant influence in this country until JFK. Right when Voris quite accurately states that our decline and judgement was about to begin. Rome has never been a force for righteousness anywhere in this world for many dozens of centuries.

At least we agree on something.

I am an ambassador representing God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who for the manifestation of the glory of his eternal power, wisdom, and goodness, in the beginning created from nothing the world, and all things therein, whether visible or invisible, in the space of six days, and all very good. I pray that I might decrease so that He might increase and that my every thought and Word bring glory to His magnificent name in this discussion. You can represent your church.

You claim to represent God?

Tell me where I’m wrong.

I’m trying.

[JayPierce]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

JayPierce wrote:<<< Have you been directed by Him to speak in His name? >>>[/quote]Every Christian has.

So then, knowing the duties of a Christian and the error of overstepping those bounds, show me where, in the Scriptures, you are getting this stuff

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< Do you understand what it means to speak in His name without His instruction?[/quote] That would be to proclaim doctrine and or practice which He Himself condemns in His word.

You know you’re wrong, Ti. To speak for Him, outside of the Scriptures, without Him telling you to, is to be a false prophet. The statements you have made are from your own mind, and not from Him.

You are not comparing the actions of this nation with those of a biblical nation that was punished for them. That would be permissible. You are administering an outright Oracle against it from your own thought.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:Tell me where I’m wrong.[/quote]I’m trying.[/quote]No offense JP. Honest, but I’m asking Chris. I am totally overwhelmed with owed responses already. I’m not typing all this twice again though I’ve typed most of it a thousand times already. As far as your question about representing God? EVERY Christian represents God or they aren’t one. That’s why we are commanded to believe, think, speak and act in a certain way and why if you are actually born of the Spirit of the God who is actually there you WILL WANT to believe, think, speak and act in this certain way. Because you worship and adore your savior and are grateful to Him for having raised you from death to life in Himself. It is a war on one hand and peace indescribable on the other. You, however would not accept anything I may quote to you in that regard as scripture so I won’t.

As soon as you are finally brought to the realization that New Testament ethics and morality were the private component that enabled our constitution to work at all, you’ll understand why the family, which is THE defining social structure of the whole bible, was absolutely indispensable. It started in the first chapters of Genesis. The most detailed New Testament theology on marriage and family is found in the writings of Paul who you hate so, as I say, I won’t bother with that with you. This thread was started by Brother Chris for what is in my opinion a stupendously valid reason. It is also a perfect segue into the debate on ecclesiology he says he’s been dyin to have. I hope we now have it.

Chris doesn’t understand me all. That I actually hold him in very high regard. Maybe he won’t for a long time.

EDIT: I apologize to the the mods. I really do.

[JayPierce]

No offense taken. I won’t hound you. I was just trying to help.

And I don’t hate Paul. I don’t hate anybody.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
No offense taken. I won’t hound you. I was just trying to help.

And I don’t hate Paul. I don’t hate anybody.[/quote]You’re not houndin me man. I didn’t mean it like that. You also have the right to say anything you want. This isn’t even my thread. I didn’t mean to sound like I was telling you to be quiet either if I came off that way.

[pat]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Again, I’m not Cat-Bashing. I know a few Catholics and they are genuinely good people. (what I’m saying is: I have a few Catholic friends, so that proves I’m not a religionist)[/quote]

Isn’t that like saying your not racist because you have a couple of black friends???

[pat]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
There’s not going to be a monarchy in the US. Not a Catholic one, not any kind. What a waste of time.[/quote]

WHAT?!?!? You didn’t realize that I am the King of the U.S.?

[JayPierce]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Again, I’m not Cat-Bashing. I know a few Catholics and they are genuinely good people. (what I’m saying is: I have a few Catholic friends, so that proves I’m not a religionist)[/quote]

Isn’t that like saying your not racist because you have a couple of black friends???[/quote]
Exactly! I also voted for a Catholic… twice, just to drive the point home.

[KingKai25]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:<<< With gracious, loving, humble posts like this, one has to wonder why in the world Sloth would put you on ignore.[/quote]This is post is very gracious. And humble. I am crediting a big C Catholic with one of the best 15 minutes I’ve spent this year. In all sincerity. Made me WANT to be Catholic even more than I usually do.
I’m not gonna get into Sloth in this thread.
[/quote]
Since when does gloating over some imaginary victory; verbally rubbing someone’s nose in the fact that they see something from your point of view, qualify as grace or humility?

You don’t mean to be insulting to him, but you do mean to intentionally aggravate him? Again, this is neither graceful or humble.

Sometimes you just strike me as the over-the-top-obnoxious-mega-brah in a really bad frat movie. Not exactly what I would expect from an associate pastor.[/quote]I am not a pastor of any kind. And I’m not gloating. At all. You do not understand. I would very much prefer to be wrong with him and there’s a God in heaven who knows my heart and that I am telling you the truth. I’m sorry you feel the way you do about what is happening in this magnificent thread, but you are wrong. [/quote]

My apologies. It was Kai that said he’s an assistant pastor.
[/quote]

I didn’t say that. I said…

And if you went to church, you would know that the purpose of giving money to your local church is (1) to support the ministers and their ministry (Matt. 10:9-10) and (2) to provide funds to help the poor and destitute in the community. Believe it or not, the Catholic church is one of the most generous institutions in the world, but even the smallest local churches I know collect money to give the poor. My church certainly does. I am the pastoral assistant, and I know for a fact that my pastor gets NO paycheck from our small church because, as he has said, “that wouldn’t leave any money for the poor.” So my pastor works another full time job in addition to pastoring in order to support his family.

You can find this on the Bad Religion thread, page 13. I am the pastoral assistant, and again, someone who is as bad at interpreting statements written in your own language should not be telling ANYONE what the Scriptures “say.”

[JayPierce]

Please accept my apologies.

So what’s the difference between a pastoral assistant and an assistant pastor?

[undoredo]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Again, I’m not Cat-Bashing. I know a few Catholics and they are genuinely good people. (what I’m saying is: I have a few Catholic friends, so that proves I’m not a religionist)
[/quote]
Isn’t that like saying your not racist because you have a couple of black friends???
[/quote]
Pretty sure the “proof” inside the parentheses is just joshin’.

[KingKai25]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Please accept my apologies.

So what’s the difference between a pastoral assistant and an assistant pastor?

[/quote]

Apologies, genuine or facetious, are entirely unnecessary. I was not in the least bothered by your misconstrual of my previous statement. The difference is not particularly significant - an assistant pastor has most of the same responsibilities of the head pastor, whereas a pastoral assistant is simply a pastor’s aid, doing research for sermons, helping the pastor at various events, etc.

My point was simply that you have once again shown yourself inattentive to details, and for someone who wants to upend nearly 2000 years of Christian thought, you should be able to show yourself an excellent handler of evidence. Instead, you have consistently shown that you do NOT have a solid grasp on or sensitivity for details. Like most critical thinkers, I learned a very long time ago that if I misconstrue the very details my overarching theories are meant to explain, then my overarching theories are probably wrong. You, on the other hand, consistently mishandle and misinterpret the details of texts written in your own language, the language you know and speak and think in, and yet you somehow still believe that your basic theories are correct. That’s a huge problem, JP.

[JayPierce]

Is inattention to insignificant details any more a problem than getting hung up on them?

More directly;
If the details that you focus on don’t support the overall thesis; is the thesis wrong, or are you focusing on the wrong details?

Or;
If your thesis is wrong, and you focus only on the details that vindicate it, does that make your thesis correct?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
The insinuation I get from the video is that it’s the church’s fault for not taking over the government and forcing people to do right. The church was never supposed to rule over people.

It’s the people’s fault, not the Catholic church. Nor the Protestants, nor the Jewish, nor any other. This country was founded on freedom from religion, and it should stay that way.[/quote]

Until people realize that religion and loving God are opposites, we’re doomed to hear such prattling as in the vid.
[/quote]

Actually religion is justice to God. It is what we owe God.[/quote]

How do you figure?
[/quote]

Do you read anything besides Ayn Rand and infowars.com? ;)[/quote]

Religion is based on faith. Faith requires, by definition, that you accept something as true without evidence. So…you use your mind to figure out that you shouldn’t use your mind?

But if you’re not supposed to use your mind, how do figure that you’re not supposed to use your mind?

I don’t get it.
[/quote]

That’s called equivocation. There are several definitions of faith. Faith itself has no definition that incorporates not having evidence. Obviously if there is no evidence for something to be believed, why would we believe it? However, you are referring to “having faith” yes you are correct partially. Nevertheless, the theological virtue of faith has nothing to do with having evidence or not.

In case some are not aware of what the virtue of faith is, it is believing what Jesus and the Church has put forth for all believers to hold and believe. This in itself does not reject reason or evidence, it actually is according to reason and evidence, though we may not be able to show logically that something is true does not eliminate it from being logical.

You may have some points about believing in the mysteries, which provide no solution at the moment how two seemingly contradictory truths can be true at the same time. This in itself does not make you correct in your assertion. The reason why it is believed is because of witness, which in itself is evidence. So, though we may not be able to explain something logically, that does not exactly mean it is not logical, but in the cases of the Mysteries means that we do not have the capacity (having finite minds) to – at the moment – see how those Mysteries are true. Example, is the oneness of God and the trinity of God. Why can we believe this? Because of the witness of the Church. We know from evidence and logic that Jesus was real and what he said was real, so is the Church both through evidence and logic. With the Church being true, we can believe that which she purposes to believe is true based on the evidence of her being founded by Jesus.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
This guy is a fucking idiot. Listening to 15 minutes of this made me want to punch him square in the balls.[/quote]

Why is he an idiot?[/quote]

His assertion that the Presidents entire agenda is the “proliferation of evil”, his assertion that the US is evil (at least half of it) his assinine belief that somehow he (rather than anyone else) knows what is right/wrong, good/bad, just leads me to that rather clear observation. he is a jackass.[/quote]

How is it not the proliferation of evil?

Did he say that the US is evil?

So, he can’t know what is right/wrong, but you know he is wrong? How do you know if he is wrong if he (rather anyone else) can’t know right/wrong, good/bad?

Sounds contradictory. You’ll have to explain how someone can’t know right/wrong, but you can.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Slavery
Jim Crow
Segregation
Prohibition
New Deal
War on Drugs
Welfare
Prison system
Vietnam
Iraq War
Legalized Contraception
Legalized Abortion
Rejection of DOMA
Pornography

With such wonderful things that democracy (actually closer to a Republic) has provided our country. I’m more inclined to agree with him, though I’d be interested why he should move to the Vatican City if he wants a Catholic Monarch (whether that is absolute or constitutional, as most monarchists want)?[/quote]

Good thing kings never did any wrong by their people, huh?

Or Popes for that matter.[/quote]

I don’t believe that was anyone assertion. However, if someone was to be faithful to the teachings of the Church (“Catholic”) they would be a very virtuous monarch indeed.

Just
Courageous
Temperate
Prudent
Faithful
Hopeful
Loving

Respect private property and take care of the needy.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Please accept my apologies.

So what’s the difference between a pastoral assistant and an assistant pastor?

[/quote]

Difference between the Secretary and Executive Secretary. One is an executive, one assists the executive.

[Tiribulus]

What’s the difference between myself and everybody else in this thread that you don’t answer me Christopher?

[Tiribulus]

Wherefore avoidest thou me Christopher? You have not told me where I’m wrong.