Misconceptions of Christianity 2

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1041

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Um…what? American foriegn policy and the treatment of women in Islamic countries are nothing close to being as equivalent similies or metaphors to the Catholic Church. In America you are not blocked because you do not like foreign policy, you can hate foreign policy of America, throw a tantrum, commit civil disobedience, protest, and even possibly change foreign policy. You can speak out against it. I do not know much about Islam besides that Religious studies says they got their idea of treatment of women from Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians.

The Catholic Church is nothing like America. When people mention the Catholic Church they are talking about every Christian that is in communion with the Rome. If you do not hold every piece of dogma as truth, that doesn’t mean you need to know every word in it them, then you are excommunicated until you reconcile your difference with said dogma.

People for some reason think the Catholic Church is a building, or palace or something. You could take every single piece of real estate away from us. You could leave us in the streets. And we’d still be the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is made up of people, not buildings. So, again, to hate the Catholic Church is to hate the Catholics. The Catholics make up the Catholic Church[/quote]

And the Catholic Church has an organization and a hierarchy, but never mind.

1042

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Um…what? American foriegn policy and the treatment of women in Islamic countries are nothing close to being as equivalent similies or metaphors to the Catholic Church. In America you are not blocked because you do not like foreign policy, you can hate foreign policy of America, throw a tantrum, commit civil disobedience, protest, and even possibly change foreign policy. You can speak out against it. I do not know much about Islam besides that Religious studies says they got their idea of treatment of women from Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Christians.

The Catholic Church is nothing like America. When people mention the Catholic Church they are talking about every Christian that is in communion with the Rome. If you do not hold every piece of dogma as truth, that doesn’t mean you need to know every word in it them, then you are excommunicated until you reconcile your difference with said dogma.

People for some reason think the Catholic Church is a building, or palace or something. You could take every single piece of real estate away from us. You could leave us in the streets. And we’d still be the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is made up of people, not buildings. So, again, to hate the Catholic Church is to hate the Catholics. The Catholics make up the Catholic Church[/quote]

And the Catholic Church has an organization and a hierarchy, but never mind.[/quote]

I understood your point. Can you point out something you have a problem with with out being accused of hating the whole thing. The answer to that is yes. If you argue, “I don’t like the Catholic Church’s stance on birth control, it’s bullshit.” I am cool with that, it gives us a focal point something to discuss. However, if you say I hate the Catholic Church, every thing it’s about and everything it says, that does not lend itself to a reasoned conversation. You can’t say “I hate you all and everything you stand for, but I don’t mean that personally” and expect anyone with half a brain to fall for that.

The only argument made was that a small portion of the funds to build St. Peter’s Basilica, were ill gotten…500 years ago. So that makes the whole thing evil and invalid. Yet, he expects the church to abandon it’s main cathedral for that reason. If we were to do that, I guess we’d be all good in everyone’s eyes. Who would it be given to? Who deserves St. Peter’s? I didn’t hear how said poster had reached into his own pocket to make reparations for slavery. Should one not lead by example?

Make sense? No, it does not to me either, but cest la vie.

1043

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I don’t understand the using of a fictitious passage as a tool of argument AT ALL.[/quote]

Me neither…When your done with that fucking stick, can I borrow it? I love it to…damn two timing stick.

1044

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I don’t understand the using of a fictitious passage as a tool of argument AT ALL.[/quote]
The point I’m making is it wouldn’t make any difference how clearly or how specifically scripture denounced the RCC or differed from RCC teaching, they have the authority of the apostles and hence the only “authorized” translations or interpretations. How convenient.

So I came up with a fictitious passage wherein God Himself is foretelling the rise of the RCC, even including the address of the vatican and warning not to give weight to her traditions because they will not be not be from Him. IF that were actually in the Old Testament it wouldn’t matter. They would come up with something explaining it away.

Here’s an example
Matthew 6:7[quote]"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.[/quote]
Yes, there’s context here and yes I am fully aware of the exegesis. All that said you could hardly ask for anything more clearly denouncing the practice of praying the rosary http://www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm than this. Not to mention that nothing bearing even the broadest or vaguest similarity is anywhere prescribed by Christ or the apostles. OR praying to Mary at all for that matter. See you you have to have those things already fixed in your mind before going to the scriptures to somehow see those there or to see them as compatible.

That’s what tradition from apostolic succession is all about. Watch what happens and you’ll understand why I have once again come to see that this will go nowhere

1045

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I don’t understand the using of a fictitious passage as a tool of argument AT ALL.[/quote]

Me neither…When your done with that fucking stick, can I borrow it? I love it to…damn two timing stick.[/quote]

There’s enough stick for everybody…provided you’re quick.

1046

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I don’t understand the using of a fictitious passage as a tool of argument AT ALL.[/quote]
The point I’m making is it wouldn’t make any difference how clearly or how specifically scripture denounced the RCC or differed from RCC teaching, they have the authority of the apostles and hence the only “authorized” translations or interpretations. How convenient.

So I came up with a fictitious passage wherein God Himself is foretelling the rise of the RCC, even including the address of the vatican and warning not to give weight to her traditions because they will not be not be from Him. IF that were actually in the Old Testament it wouldn’t matter. They would come up with something explaining it away.

Here’s an example
Matthew 6:7[quote]"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.[/quote]
Yes, there’s context here and yes I am fully aware of the exegesis. All that said you could hardly ask for anything more clearly denouncing the practice of praying the rosary http://www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm than this. Not to mention that nothing bearing even the broadest or vaguest similarity is anywhere prescribed by Christ or the apostles. OR praying to Mary at all for that matter. See you you have to have those things already fixed in your mind before going to the scriptures to somehow see those there or to see them as compatible.

That’s what tradition from apostolic succession is all about. Watch what happens and you’ll understand why I have once again come to see that this will go nowhere [/quote]

I follow these threads with great interest.I don’t pretend to have anything more than a cursory knowledge of the Bible,I’m not a religious man.But I do have some knowledge of logical fallacies…and creating a passage in order to disprove something actually written is a bit of a howler.I’m sure you know the name.
The question Pat posed earlier of whether the Protestant break from the Catholic church leads to Jesus being made a liar is an interesting one that I haven’t really seen answered adequately yet.

I’ve been to the Vatican,and while I appreciate your point about what may or may have not payed for the building of it,or some of it, and its opulence,I don’t see how that can be used as a negation of the Catholic church as being the original one linked to Jesus(within the confines of this current discussion).Man builds buildings.Slavery has built countries and empires.It’s a very slippery slope to use that argument to negate just one particular institution one has a dislike of.I think it was Sloth that made that point earlier,and he’s spot on.

Tirib,you do seem to have moved this into a personal arena with the Catholics on here.I know that inflection and tone is often lost and hard to portray online,so I’m just saying.But it’s hard to say to people ‘What you believe is shit,but I like you anyways’,especially when it’s something as deeply personal to to those involved.Just an observation.

Apologies if I have mixed up different peoples views and arguments,but this is a monster thread,and I think you get my drift.

Carry on,I look forward to the continuation.

1047

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I don’t understand the using of a fictitious passage as a tool of argument AT ALL.[/quote]
The point I’m making is it wouldn’t make any difference how clearly or how specifically scripture denounced the RCC or differed from RCC teaching, they have the authority of the apostles and hence the only “authorized” translations or interpretations. How convenient.

So I came up with a fictitious passage wherein God Himself is foretelling the rise of the RCC, even including the address of the vatican and warning not to give weight to her traditions because they will not be not be from Him. IF that were actually in the Old Testament it wouldn’t matter. They would come up with something explaining it away.

Here’s an example
Matthew 6:7[quote]"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.[/quote]
Yes, there’s context here and yes I am fully aware of the exegesis. All that said you could hardly ask for anything more clearly denouncing the practice of praying the rosary http://www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm than this. Not to mention that nothing bearing even the broadest or vaguest similarity is anywhere prescribed by Christ or the apostles. OR praying to Mary at all for that matter. See you you have to have those things already fixed in your mind before going to the scriptures to somehow see those there or to see them as compatible.

That’s what tradition from apostolic succession is all about. Watch what happens and you’ll understand why I have once again come to see that this will go nowhere [/quote]

I follow these threads with great interest.I don’t pretend to have anything more than a cursory knowledge of the Bible,I’m not a religious man.But I do have some knowledge of logical fallacies…and creating a passage in order to disprove something actually written is a bit of a howler.I’m sure you know the name.
The question Pat posed earlier of whether the Protestant break from the Catholic church leads to Jesus being made a liar is an interesting one that I haven’t really seen answered adequately yet.

I’ve been to the Vatican,and while I appreciate your point about what may or may have not payed for the building of it,or some of it, and its opulence,I don’t see how that can be used as a negation of the Catholic church as being the original one linked to Jesus(within the confines of this current discussion).Man builds buildings.Slavery has built countries and empires.It’s a very slippery slope to use that argument to negate just one particular institution one has a dislike of.I think it was Sloth that made that point earlier,and he’s spot on.

Tirib,you do seem to have moved this into a personal arena with the Catholics on here.I know that inflection and tone is often lost and hard to portray online,so I’m just saying.But it’s hard to say to people ‘What you believe is shit,but I like you anyways’,especially when it’s something as deeply personal to to those involved.Just an observation.

Apologies if I have mixed up different peoples views and arguments,but this is a monster thread,and I think you get my drift.

Carry on,I look forward to the continuation.

[/quote]

That was a well done assessment actually…

1048

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
I don’t understand the using of a fictitious passage as a tool of argument AT ALL.[/quote]
The point I’m making is it wouldn’t make any difference how clearly or how specifically scripture denounced the RCC or differed from RCC teaching, they have the authority of the apostles and hence the only “authorized” translations or interpretations. How convenient.

So I came up with a fictitious passage wherein God Himself is foretelling the rise of the RCC, even including the address of the vatican and warning not to give weight to her traditions because they will not be not be from Him. IF that were actually in the Old Testament it wouldn’t matter. They would come up with something explaining it away.

Here’s an example
Matthew 6:7[quote]"And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.[/quote]
Yes, there’s context here and yes I am fully aware of the exegesis. All that said you could hardly ask for anything more clearly denouncing the practice of praying the rosary http://www.rosary-center.org/howto.htm than this. Not to mention that nothing bearing even the broadest or vaguest similarity is anywhere prescribed by Christ or the apostles. OR praying to Mary at all for that matter. See you you have to have those things already fixed in your mind before going to the scriptures to somehow see those there or to see them as compatible.

That’s what tradition from apostolic succession is all about. Watch what happens and you’ll understand why I have once again come to see that this will go nowhere [/quote]

Just keep ignoring the OT Prophesies.

1049

[quote]Necromancer wrote:
<<< I follow these threads with great interest.I don’t pretend to have anything more than a cursory knowledge of the Bible,I’m not a religious man.But I do have some knowledge of logical fallacies…and creating a passage in order to disprove something actually written is a bit of a howler. I’m sure you know the name. >>>[/quote]It was not intended as proof. It was intended as an illustration of the fact that there cannot exist under any circumstances such a thing AS biblical proof establishing any other conclusion than the pre-settled ones that the all authoritative church dictates. The bible carries no weight of it’s own with catholics. It’s owned and operated exclusively by the RCC. A fatal error.[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< The question Pat posed earlier of whether the Protestant break from the Catholic church leads to Jesus being made a liar is an interesting one that I haven’t really seen answered adequately yet. >>>[/quote] Try this, it will also illustrate the above: http://vintage.aomin.org/Epitetaute.html The whole thing really does need to be read. Nobody bit my rosary bait, but this they won’t be able to resist. The RCC rests directly on this.[quote]Necromancer wrote: <<<I’ve been to the Vatican,and while I appreciate your point about what may or may have not payed for the building of it,or some of it, and its opulence, I don’t see how that can be used as a negation of the Catholic church as being the original one linked to Jesus (within the confines of this current discussion). Man builds buildings. Slavery has built countries and empires. It’s a very slippery slope to use that argument to negate just one particular institution one has a dislike of.I think it was Sloth that made that point earlier,and he’s spot on. >>>[/quote] I mean this as no insult, but this is a secular viewpoint. Man can build whatever he wants, but as soon as he attaches the name of Christ to it then Christian (bible) principles should be used by Christians to assess, not just buildings, but everything. For the record there are plenty of ridiculous non catholic edifices as well and if there were any other outfit I knew of with an obscene palace complex I’d be on them too even if they weren’t claiming to be the “one true most holy apostolic church” and especially if they had financed it by fraud and extortion. The building thing, as I say, is merely one extremely public symptom. It’s the theology, which I am lately becoming reacquainted with in detail that is what’s really horrible. >>>[quote]Necromancer wrote:
Tirib,you do seem to have moved this into a personal arena with the Catholics on here.I know that inflection and tone is often lost and hard to portray online,so I’m just saying. But it’s hard to say to people ‘What you believe is shit,but I like you anyways’,especially when it’s something as deeply personal to to those involved.Just an observation.[/quote]From a biblical standpoint I disagree entirely. Pay attention fellas please. I am commanded to hate evil while loving the brethren AND my enemies… to pray for them that spitefully use me. That covers everybody. I don’t count you/them as enemies, but if I did I wouldn’t be released from loving you/them no matter what “religion” you/they happened to be. I am commanded to love you/them and hate their/your church. I do both. Just to use Pat as an example if I were to run into him tonight and find out it was him, though with that very distinctive face he’d be pretty easy to spot =] I’d be genuinely happy to both meet him and see him. >>>[quote]Necromancer wrote:
Carry on,I look forward to the continuation.[/quote]I don’t and will probably need a break soon.

1050

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Necromancer wrote:
<<< I follow these threads with great interest.I don’t pretend to have anything more than a cursory knowledge of the Bible,I’m not a religious man.But I do have some knowledge of logical fallacies…and creating a passage in order to disprove something actually written is a bit of a howler. I’m sure you know the name. >>>[/quote]It was not intended as proof. It was intended as an illustration of the fact that there cannot exist under any circumstances such a thing AS biblical proof establishing any other conclusion than the pre-settled ones that the all authoritative church dictates. The bible carries no weight of it’s own with catholics. It’s owned and operated exclusively by the RCC. A fatal error.[quote]Neuromancer wrote:<<< The question Pat posed earlier of whether the Protestant break from the Catholic church leads to Jesus being made a liar is an interesting one that I haven’t really seen answered adequately yet. >>>[/quote] Try this, it will also illustrate the above: http://vintage.aomin.org/Epitetaute.html The whole thing really does need to be read. Nobody bit my rosary bait, but this they won’t be able to resist. The RCC rests directly on this.[quote]Necromancer wrote: <<<I’ve been to the Vatican,and while I appreciate your point about what may or may have not payed for the building of it,or some of it, and its opulence, I don’t see how that can be used as a negation of the Catholic church as being the original one linked to Jesus (within the confines of this current discussion). Man builds buildings. Slavery has built countries and empires. It’s a very slippery slope to use that argument to negate just one particular institution one has a dislike of.I think it was Sloth that made that point earlier,and he’s spot on. >>>[/quote] I mean this as no insult, but this is a secular viewpoint. Man can build whatever he wants, but as soon as he attaches the name of Christ to it then Christian (bible) principles should be used by Christians to assess, not just buildings, but everything. For the record there are plenty of ridiculous non catholic edifices as well and if there were any other outfit I knew of with an obscene palace complex I’d be on them too even if they weren’t claiming to be the “one true most holy apostolic church” and especially if they had financed it by fraud and extortion. The building thing, as I say, is merely one extremely public symptom. It’s the theology, which I am lately becoming reacquainted with in detail that is what’s really horrible. >>>[quote]Necromancer wrote:
Tirib,you do seem to have moved this into a personal arena with the Catholics on here.I know that inflection and tone is often lost and hard to portray online,so I’m just saying. But it’s hard to say to people ‘What you believe is shit,but I like you anyways’,especially when it’s something as deeply personal to to those involved.Just an observation.[/quote]From a biblical standpoint I disagree entirely. Pay attention fellas please. I am commanded to hate evil while loving the brethren AND my enemies… to pray for them that spitefully use me. That covers everybody. I don’t count you/them as enemies, but if I did I wouldn’t be released from loving you/them no matter what “religion” you/they happened to be. I am commanded to love you/them and hate their/your church. I do both. Just to use Pat as an example if I were to run into him tonight and find out it was him, though with that very distinctive face he’d be pretty easy to spot =] I’d be genuinely happy to both meet him and see him. >>>[quote]Necromancer wrote:
Carry on,I look forward to the continuation.[/quote]I don’t and will probably need a break soon. [/quote]

Your Rosary rant was a strawman, that’s why nobody bit. It was a false argument based on false premises.

Further, I don’t see the point in further engaging in debate if you will answer questions or present reasoned arguments based on facts. I can make shit up all day, it doesn’t prove a thing.

The only thing you’ve managed to prove is you hate Catholics. Bully for you, may it serve you well. When you are willing to be honest and forth right and engage in meaningful fact based debate on things that actually exist, let me know.

I have answered questions with scripture reference, I have presented and backup with scripture. If you have any sincerity with in you, answer those and prove you are will in to engage in honest discussion.

Until you show good faith, I see no reason to continue at all.
I’ve got walls all around me, I can talk to them if I want to waste my time.

1051

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I’ve got walls all around me, I can talk to them if I want to waste my time.
[/quote]I’ve been sitting on this for 2 days spending significant time in prayer and reading, including many pages back in this thread.

A further response for the moment is indeed pointless. We are in different dimensions altogether.

1052

Difference between DRB and other Bibles (even Catholic Bibles):

Sirach 24:23â??31 (DRB)

23 As the vine I have brought forth a pleasant odour: and my flowers are the fruit of honour and riches.
24 I am the Mother of Fair Love, and of fear, and of knowledge, and of holy hope.
25 In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue.
26 Come over to me, all ye that desire me, and be filled with my fruits.
27 For my spirit is sweet above honey, and my inheritance above honey and the honeycomb.
28 My memory is unto everlasting generations.
29 They that eat me, shall yet hunger: and they that drink me, shall yet thirst.
30 He that hearkeneth to me, shall not be confounded: and they that work by me, shall not sin.
31 They that explain me shall have life everlasting.

And:

Sirach 24:17â??22 (RSVCE)

17 Like a vine I caused loveliness to bud,
and my blossoms became glorious and abundant fruit.
19 â??Come to me, you who desire me,
and eat your fill of my produce.
20 For the remembrance of me is sweeter than honey,
and my inheritance sweeter than the honeycomb.
21 Those who eat me will hunger for more,
and those who drink me will thirst for more.
22 Whoever obeys me will not be put to shame,
and those who work with my help will not sin.â??

See something missing? I do. The DRB is directly translated from the Latin Vulgate, which was translated from the first copies of the NT and St. Jerome knew Hebrew and Greek fluently, taught by Jewish Rabbi’s something we do not have anymore, very much anyway.

1053

Chris what are you talkin about buddy? Sirach was written hundreds of years before Christ and what is the significance of English from the Vulgate? Sirach was in the Septuagint.

1054

Prophecy. Just like Psalm 123: 7-8.

It’s a direct uncorrupted link to the originals.

St. Jerome was taught by Jewish Rabbis, he had a direct connection with Jewish teaching around Jesus time. He was fluent in both Greek and Hebrew, he translated the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament into the Vulgate from original copies of the books in the New Testament.

The Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB) was translated by the Douay College (OT) and the Rheims College (NT), from the Latin Vulgate. Which, the Latin Vulgate, is of course without inerrant in faith and morals and contains no errors. The DRB is the only Bible that gives insight into the tradition of the Latin Vulgate.

1055

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:<<< I’ve got walls all around me, I can talk to them if I want to waste my time.
[/quote]I’ve been sitting on this for 2 days spending significant time in prayer and reading, including many pages back in this thread.

A further response for the moment is indeed pointless. We are in different dimensions altogether. [/quote]

It is indeed sad that you cannot argue your points in good faith, using real, not made up passages. Did you think that by insulting my practice of faith, that you would win me over? Really?

I forgive you for your insults. But I do think you need to spend some serious time reflecting before you try to make your points. You brought nothing to the table except you hate Catholicism. You could not even really prove why which leads me to believe it is completely baseless and completely emotive.

Again, unless you can prove you can argue with an open mind in the heart of faith, we do have nothing to talk about.

1056

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Prophecy. Just like Psalm 123: 7-8.

It’s a direct uncorrupted link to the originals.

St. Jerome was taught by Jewish Rabbis, he had a direct connection with Jewish teaching around Jesus time. He was fluent in both Greek and Hebrew, he translated the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament into the Vulgate from original copies of the books in the New Testament.

The Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB) was translated by the Douay College (OT) and the Rheims College (NT), from the Latin Vulgate. Which, the Latin Vulgate, is of course without inerrant in faith and morals and contains no errors. The DRB is the only Bible that gives insight into the tradition of the Latin Vulgate.[/quote]

Personally I am a fan of the ESV translations of the scriptures. All the original language texts were revisited and translated directly in to English, including the apocryphal books. I think it’s the gold standard. No translation of translations, no word to perceived meaning translation, but Hebrew to English, Greek to English. It’s good stuff, very well done. Painstakingly so.

1057

Is Sirach an apocryphal book?

1058

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Is Sirach an apocryphal book?[/quote]

Yes, but it’s a bitchin’ book. It has some “WOW” wisdom in it…If you read any of the apocryphal books that’s the one…Wisdom of Solomon is pretty cool too.

1059

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Prophecy. Just like Psalm 123: 7-8.

It’s a direct uncorrupted link to the originals.

St. Jerome was taught by Jewish Rabbis, he had a direct connection with Jewish teaching around Jesus time. He was fluent in both Greek and Hebrew, he translated the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament into the Vulgate from original copies of the books in the New Testament.

The Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB) was translated by the Douay College (OT) and the Rheims College (NT), from the Latin Vulgate. Which, the Latin Vulgate, is of course without inerrant in faith and morals and contains no errors. The DRB is the only Bible that gives insight into the tradition of the Latin Vulgate.[/quote]

Personally I am a fan of the ESV translations of the scriptures. All the original language texts were revisited and translated directly in to English, including the apocryphal books. I think it’s the gold standard. No translation of translations, no word to perceived meaning translation, but Hebrew to English, Greek to English. It’s good stuff, very well done. Painstakingly so.[/quote]

I have a Latin Vulgate, and I’m learning Latin so hopefully I can get to the point of being able to read Latin. Then I’ll learn Greek and Hebrew.

That’s on top of French, German, Celtic, and Spanish I have semi-learned. Hopefully Latin will help with my French and Spanish.

1060

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Is Sirach an apocryphal book?[/quote]

Yes, but it’s a bitchin’ book. It has some “WOW” wisdom in it…If you read any of the apocryphal books that’s the one…Wisdom of Solomon is pretty cool too.[/quote]

I concur.