Catholic Q&A Continues

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Since the Roman Church is not the same as the universal church[/quote]

I don’t get this, can you explain this to me? Well mainly why you call her the Roman Church.[/quote]
Well, very briefly. But you should know this because it’s standard Protestant understanding.[/quote]

I was a Protestant for 6 years. I never held this and neither did even the most rabid anti-Catholic friends that I kept. Mostly because they actually knew history. Further this is an ad Populum diversion.

Baptism. [/quote]
What verse of Scripture please do you base your answer on?

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Do you think the convicted priests should be defrocked Pat? Were they?[/quote]

Yes, they were defrocked. But, guess what Priests have canonical rights, like you and I have civil rights. Their is a process in which is to be established to defrock a priest. Though the Modus op. is now to suspend a priest indefinitely from public ministry from a single accusation. Which, is dangerous in itself.

Note the Catholic Authority had to restate existing policy that reminded the Bishops to report incidents to the officials.[/quote]
In my view this is a point against the bishops.

[quote]pat wrote:
Basically, Mr. Chen is trying have a long-dong contest between his flavor of faith and Catholicism. Basically, I am showing my dong to be bigger, by showing the short comings of ‘sola scriptura’ in that, if it were obvious as Luther believed, then everybody would get the same thing out of scripture, but they do not. To the point were people build completely different belief systems on preferred parts of scripture to detriment of others.
[/quote]

Thanks for responding. I didn’t realize I barged in on a long dong contest, so my apologies for that. To take my point a little further, why is it important that everyone ‘get the same thing’ out of the scriptures? People are different. In different phases and stages of ‘spiritual evolution’, if you will. They are going to naturally look for, and get what they need from scripture – whatever that it. That’s the beauty of it.

As far as the mass development of ‘preferred parts of scripture to the detriment of others’ I think any organized religion is going to do that. For example, the Catholics have a different scriptural focus than say, the southern evangelical prosperity churches. The former can have an ‘I am an unworthy sinner who is underserving of Grace’ mentality and the latter can have a "I am the light of the world and rich in all things’ mentality. Both can be valid and there are different strokes for different folks. The point I’m mostly disagreeing with is the presumption that there is only ONE TRUE CHURCH (meaning one true religious denomination).

Of course, if you can expand the definition of ‘One True Church’ to mean the conglomerate of all God-loving, God-respecting and God-obeying (the basics) peoples, irrespective of denomination…then, perhaps we start to see things as God may see them - Being the Overall Kahuna and all.

[quote]Leanna wrote:<<< <then, perhaps we start to see things as God may see them - Being the Overall Kahuna and all.[/quote]Where has God said He sees things this way.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Leanna wrote:<<< <then, perhaps we start to see things as God may see them - Being the Overall Kahuna and all.[/quote]Where has God said He sees things this way.
[/quote]

I regret using the word Kahuna. It really should be Creator.
God created the world and everything in it, right or wrong?

[quote]Leanna wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Leanna wrote:<<< <then, perhaps we start to see things as God may see them - Being the Overall Kahuna and all.[/quote]Where has God said He sees things this way.
[/quote]

I regret using the work Kahuna. It really should be Creator.
God created the world and everything in it, right or wrong?[/quote]How do you know God sees anything the way you say He does?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Leanna wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Leanna wrote:<<< <then, perhaps we start to see things as God may see them - Being the Overall Kahuna and all.[/quote]Where has God said He sees things this way.
[/quote]

I regret using the work Kahuna. It really should be Creator.
God created the world and everything in it, right or wrong?[/quote]How do you know God sees anything the way you say He does?
[/quote]

Haha. The old answer the question with another question; a delay and diversionary tactic!
Answer mine first. ‘God created the world and everything in it’, right or wrong?
A yes or no answer is fine. We can proceed from that starting point.
If you need to check scripture…the very begining of Genesis is a good start.

[quote]Leanna wrote:<<< Answer mine first. ‘God created the world and everything in it’, right or wrong? A yes or no answer is fine.[/quote]Yes.
EDIT a half hour later: Hello? (looks like we have another live one here folks. A girl this time. Possibly an old alternate account for somebody) We should take this somewhere else btw if she’s really interested.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
You have said that some bad people have done some bad things, to which I pointed out that not only is that everywhere, but also in various protestant denominations. You have been less then clear. [/quote]

Let’s see, I referenced the John Jay Report: John Jay Report - Wikipedia

You said something about only a few cases were proven and something about them being old. Sorry, I can’t find the post, so I may not be accurately reproducing your words.

The report states:

  • substantiated 6,700 accusations
  • 384 were charged resulting in 252 convictions and 100 prison sentences

“The Church was widely criticized when it was discovered that some bishops knew about some of the alleged crimes committed, but reassigned the accused instead of seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood.”

Do you think the convicted priests should be defrocked Pat? Were they?

Note also the civil authority had to make a special law to remind the church that child abuse by priests is to be reported to the police.

Yes, this stuff happens in all kinds of churches, but you have to admit the number of incidents taking place in RC churches is no less than STAGGERING.
[/quote]
Anybody found guilty of sexually abusing a child should be jailed for life in the worse of conditions. I have no sympathy for those who hurt a child.
The preist who, of those that were still alive and were convicted were relieved of their duties and sentenced to prison. Now, you cannot say an accusation equals an actual event. There have been plenty of people looking for a free money by making false claims.

You know what happens to people who get falsely accused of sexual abuse? Their lives are ruined. You know what happens to the accusers? Nothing. Do you think it’s right for people to make false accusations against other people for a check.
Should a priest falsely accused of abuse, be defrocked?

Further, I challenge you to find me a shred of Catholic doctrine that supports the abuse of a minor? Does your church have such doctrines? Do you think protestants haven’t sexually abused minors? What do you have to say for them. Is it ok, because they are protestant? Is this something you are going to pretend like it doesn’t exist? Oh it does, and in far greater numbers than you will admit. Why doesn’t it make big news? Is it so common that it isn’t news anymore?

Seems to me you need to clean up your own house, we have cleaned up ours…

Maybe you should take a hike until you are interest in fair honest dialog. For a religious person, you have been anything but fair and honest, here. [/quote]

Just shut him up with this;

Who is the church, then?

“Oh, it’s x-denomination”

I see, so Christ’s church didn’t actually exist until x-protestant created it many centuries later. And has anyone in that church ever sinned? Because if failure to be ‘church’ is defined by man’s sinfulness, then hell prevailed against it from the start. And always would’ve, if dependent on man’s sinful nature.

Now, if the ‘church’ is just Christians reading bibles…are they trying to claim these can’t/don’t sin? Nullifying the definition of ‘Christian.’

I never thought I’d say this about him… EVER, but Sloth is clueless here.

Make him identify the uninterrupted church established in the New Testament. Don’t answer another question until he points it out directly. He has to admit that Christ’s church was defeated, or that it continued to exist uninterrupted. Or, make him point out some johnny-come-lately that wasn’t on the scene until many centuries later. Then attack it for containing sinful men–and if there’s men in it, there’s been/will be/is plenty of sin, among laity and clergy alike. Because, hey, a church apparently can’t contain sin. And if he just identifies the guy and gal sitting a home reading their bibles, absent any clergy, as the church, make him actually claim that those folks wouldn’t/couldn’t sin.

Heck, make him condemn the bible, because it’s readers have sinned, are sinning as we speak, and will continue to sin. Stop answering his questions until he deals with all of this. Right now, he’s flailing, hoping to land a wild punch. Running from the shellacking he got over scripture to the predictable ‘your Church had/has/will have sin and sinners.’ The problem for him with this though, Christ’s church never had a chance on a world populate with human beings. It was prevailed against long ago.


Is that you peeping out of the corner Sloth?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Make him identify the uninterrupted church established in the New Testament. Don’t answer another question until he points it out directly. He has to admit that Christ’s church was defeated, or that it continued to exist uninterrupted. Or, make him point out some johnny-come-lately that wasn’t on the scene until many centuries later. Then attack it for containing sinful men–and if there’s men in it, there’s been/will be/is plenty of sin, among laity and clergy alike. Because, hey, a church apparently can’t contain sin. And if he just identifies the guy and gal sitting a home reading their bibles, absent any clergy, as the church, make him actually claim that those folks wouldn’t/couldn’t sin.

Heck, make him condemn the bible, because it’s readers have sinned, are sinning as we speak, and will continue to sin. Stop answering his questions until he deals with all of this. Right now, he’s flailing, hoping to land a wild punch. Running from the shellacking he got over scripture to the predictable ‘your Church had/has/will have sin and sinners.’ The problem for him with this though, Christ’s church never had a chance on a world populate with human beings. It was prevailed against long ago.[/quote]Sloth has been one of my all time favorite people on this site by my own open public declaration for YEARS. I have genuine heartfelt affection for him. It is therefore with further regret that I say that if he would take me off ignore I would spank him like a red headed Catholic stepchild for this. Yer gittin awful sloppy my old friend. You are entirely mal, ill and just generally UNinformed of your opponents position. The kiss of death in a debate.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Leanna wrote:<<< Answer mine first. ‘God created the world and everything in it’, right or wrong? A yes or no answer is fine.[/quote]Yes.
EDIT a half hour later: Hello? (looks like we have another live one here folks. A girl this time. Possibly an old alternate account for somebody) We should take this somewhere else btw if she’s really interested.
[/quote]

OK, sorry. I’m gonna have to fly – I’ve got the dentist, the tax guy and company coming for dinner today.

So that’s great that you agree that God created the world and everything in it.
Do you think God The Creator still creates the world and everything in it or did he get beat somewhere? Take your time.

Well I don’t have time to figure out Sloth’s confusion tonight, or tomorrow either. Maybe I’ll look at it on Monday and see if I can’t make sense of what he’s trying to say.

[quote]Leanna wrote:<<< Do you think God The Creator still creates the world and everything in it or did he get beat somewhere? Take your time. [/quote] http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_key_to_everything?id=5080368&pageNo=22

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Well I don’t have time to figure out Sloth’s confusion tonight, or tomorrow either. Maybe I’ll look at it on Monday and see if I can’t make sense of what he’s trying to say.[/quote]He’s not confused. He’s not stupid either. He’s also up until recently been an admirably honorable man and I’ve said so, but when it comes to protestantism he is smug, dismissive, lazy and ignorant. A real disappointment. HE IS BETTER THAN THIS. Believe it. These guys have really got my attitude toward them just heart wrenchingly wrong.

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Do you think the convicted priests should be defrocked Pat? Were they?[/quote]

Yes, they were defrocked. But, guess what Priests have canonical rights, like you and I have civil rights. Their is a process in which is to be established to defrock a priest. Though the Modus op. is now to suspend a priest indefinitely from public ministry from a single accusation. Which, is dangerous in itself.

Note the Catholic Authority had to restate existing policy that reminded the Bishops to report incidents to the officials.[/quote]
In my view this is a point against the bishops.[/quote]

Well I made several, want to be specific?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Like I said, heavy “liberation” influence. Can’t do it now though Chris but I will attempt some examples when I can. Thanks btw, sincerely. You saved me some work.[/quote]

Yeah, the most anti-liberation theologian to ever grace the papal house is now preaching liberation theology.

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Maybe you should take a hike until you are interest in fair honest dialog. For a religious person, you have been anything but fair and honest, here. [/quote]
I thought you said we were going according to the rules on the street. On the street only substance counts Pat, and no whining. You make a post, then I make a post. We take turns; it’s fair.

Did I lie? I missed that. Did you point it out to me? I mean with detailed facts? Not just your interpretation remember, and I explained what that means. If you disagree, go back to that post and show me how I was wrong.[/quote]

You haven’t dropped any facts proving your side, so your demand for facts on the part of Pat is laughable at best.