Religion of Forgiveness (Now with 25% More Hypocrisy)

Cockney_Blue · November 21, 2009, 2:22am

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

But as Jesus is God (on another thread people have been very clear that the church is monotheistic not polytheistic as it appears at a glance.) This would depend on whether God is Haploid or Diploid. One can assume that as mankind was made in God’s image then he is Diploid but that would imply that he was created which ruins the whole cosmological argument.

Unless the whole thing is made up of course, that would explain it

We’re not talking about gametes here, so the flesh of Jesus would consist of diploid cells. However, being made in the likeness of God’s image doesn’t suggest we’re of the same substance.
Which should be clear just from scripture alone.

I’m contending that God could raise up sons of Abraham from stones, as John the Baptist tells us. That biologically he was the blood line of David, because God raised up a Son of David. Possibly, biologically on Mary’s side too. If she married within the tribe, to Joseph. But, that’s not explicitly stated as far I can recall.

And further, that Joseph named Jesus and raised him as his own. So, for all intents and purposes I don’t think Jesus would’ve even been regarded as a foster son. Those who knew the family would simply believed it to be Joseph’s son.

Also, there is no other biological father of whose tribe and line Jesus would inherit. There would be no conflict there.[/quote]

Or it could all be made up stories. And personally I am going to go with the more logical explanation on this one.

Sloth · November 21, 2009, 2:27am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

Or it could all be made up stories. And personally I am going to go with the more logical explanation on this one.[/quote]

Can you just say that from the beginning?

Cockney_Blue · November 21, 2009, 2:50am

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Or it could all be made up stories. And personally I am going to go with the more logical explanation on this one.

Can you just say that from the beginning?[/quote]

I have.

Sloth · November 21, 2009, 3:25am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Or it could all be made up stories. And personally I am going to go with the more logical explanation on this one.

Can you just say that from the beginning?

I have.[/quote]

My mistake. I thought you were arguing in good faith. That is, trying to make a theological argument, which we’d then mull over.

Cockney_Blue · November 21, 2009, 4:52am

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:

Or it could all be made up stories. And personally I am going to go with the more logical explanation on this one.

Can you just say that from the beginning?

I have.

My mistake. I thought you were arguing in good faith. That is, trying to make a theological argument, which we’d then mull over.
[/quote]

I think I have made it pretty clear that I am atheist on numerous threads that notwithstanding I find religion fascinating and am always interested in the way people interpret it.

Brother_Chris · November 21, 2009, 9:48pm

[quote]Mr Anderson wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Mak, I think you missed a few.

Let’s call it a warm up.

I am guessing you are here waiting to listen to my reply. You won’t like it, but here it goes:

You are talking at the Protestants. Sorry, the Catholics have their stuff covered, the Protestants, yes you would have a case against. Most Protestants are what I call literalistic. They take everything literally as they read it in the Bible. Catholics do not claim that the Bible is made up of facts, it is made up of truths about God. There is technically three creations in the Bible in Genesis 1, 2, 3 and all are correct. I would not say that I believe that Adam and Eve was a true story. Orthodox Jews do not believe it be true, Catholics neither.

The reason for the different numbers, etc. Is because tradition and translation, when they would put the canon together, they would have basically an editor. He would take the stories and put them together, so you can get different angles of the story, and fully understand the truth.

Stuff like Jesus judges, and Jesus doesn’t judge. You are being a little to demanding with proof text. Jesus said He wouldn’t judge on earth, I am guessing because of his material nature. He however does judge, he judges harshly but that is after death/before purgatory.

Am I missing something? You asked for proof from the bible that they were contradictions, he then showed them to you, and now you say that it doesn’t really matter because you don’t take the bible literally? Am I reading this right or am I extremely off base because if I am reading it how I think, that makes absolutely no sense.

You can’t ask someone to show you proof and then upon receiving the proof, say that it doesn’t apply to you.[/quote]

No, you must not be understanding what I am saying.

This thread is about the Catholic Church, I said I am a Catholic. Protestant religions are much different than Catholics in certain ways, one of them being Protestants take their Bible literally. I do not take the Bible as facts, but more on the lines of Truths about God, and I do not take the word literally when it comes to certain things (7 days of creation and rest, Adam and Eve, etc.). Most Protestants will proof text, most Catholics (in my circle) do not, because the truth is in the story told and that is hard to get a story through a sentence or two. So when I asked for him to prove to me the contradictions I was asking for stories (truths of God) that contradict each other. Instead I was given proof texting that easily proves the protestant religions wrong with their doctrines.

And I pointed out from the one example what I was talking about, the Jesus judges, and Jesus does not judge. When it says Jesus judges if my memory is correct Mak was talking about when Jesus was material (man) and on earth He said he would not judge because of his human form (he was trying to be an example to Christians to not Judge). However the other line that says Jesus will judge, that is talking about the other whole part of Him, God. That when Jesus comes back for the day of Judgement, He will judge then.

I can understand how it would be confusing as most people are much more used to debating Protestants on these topics than Catholics that our doctrine could be misunderstood.

Makavali · November 21, 2009, 9:57pm

So where does Catholic prohibition on condom use and homosexuality come from? They pulled it out their asses?

Brother_Chris · November 21, 2009, 10:37pm

[quote]Makavali wrote:
So where does Catholic prohibition on condom use and homosexuality come from? They pulled it out their asses?[/quote]

Eh, I cannot say I agree with everything the Catholic Church says, but I am not a fan of homosexuality I guess that is tradition. I can tell you where it came from, the prohibition of condoms came from several areas but the idea is that Condoms kept the Church from prospering. This was before there was deadly STD’s going around. Now the Church (at least laity) is moving towards advocating condoms for safety reasons, since they understand that it is important to save lives from HIV and AIDs.

Read: http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19561

Good read on the understanding of how some Catholics believe.

Sloth · November 23, 2009, 3:45am

[quote]Makavali wrote:
So where does Catholic prohibition on condom use and homosexuality come from? They pulled it out their asses?[/quote]

No. The Catholic argument is clearly presented and easy to find.

Cockney_Blue · November 23, 2009, 10:28pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Mr Anderson wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Mak, I think you missed a few.

Let’s call it a warm up.

I am guessing you are here waiting to listen to my reply. You won’t like it, but here it goes:

You are talking at the Protestants. Sorry, the Catholics have their stuff covered, the Protestants, yes you would have a case against. Most Protestants are what I call literalistic. They take everything literally as they read it in the Bible. Catholics do not claim that the Bible is made up of facts, it is made up of truths about God. There is technically three creations in the Bible in Genesis 1, 2, 3 and all are correct. I would not say that I believe that Adam and Eve was a true story. Orthodox Jews do not believe it be true, Catholics neither.

The reason for the different numbers, etc. Is because tradition and translation, when they would put the canon together, they would have basically an editor. He would take the stories and put them together, so you can get different angles of the story, and fully understand the truth.

Stuff like Jesus judges, and Jesus doesn’t judge. You are being a little to demanding with proof text. Jesus said He wouldn’t judge on earth, I am guessing because of his material nature. He however does judge, he judges harshly but that is after death/before purgatory.

Am I missing something? You asked for proof from the bible that they were contradictions, he then showed them to you, and now you say that it doesn’t really matter because you don’t take the bible literally? Am I reading this right or am I extremely off base because if I am reading it how I think, that makes absolutely no sense.

You can’t ask someone to show you proof and then upon receiving the proof, say that it doesn’t apply to you.

No, you must not be understanding what I am saying.

This thread is about the Catholic Church, I said I am a Catholic. Protestant religions are much different than Catholics in certain ways, one of them being Protestants take their Bible literally. I do not take the Bible as facts, but more on the lines of Truths about God, and I do not take the word literally when it comes to certain things (7 days of creation and rest, Adam and Eve, etc.). Most Protestants will proof text, most Catholics (in my circle) do not, because the truth is in the story told and that is hard to get a story through a sentence or two. So when I asked for him to prove to me the contradictions I was asking for stories (truths of God) that contradict each other. Instead I was given proof texting that easily proves the protestant religions wrong with their doctrines.

And I pointed out from the one example what I was talking about, the Jesus judges, and Jesus does not judge. When it says Jesus judges if my memory is correct Mak was talking about when Jesus was material (man) and on earth He said he would not judge because of his human form (he was trying to be an example to Christians to not Judge). However the other line that says Jesus will judge, that is talking about the other whole part of Him, God. That when Jesus comes back for the day of Judgement, He will judge then.

I can understand how it would be confusing as most people are much more used to debating Protestants on these topics than Catholics that our doctrine could be misunderstood.[/quote]

It would appear you only have a very narrow experience of protestants. Most C of E Christians don’t take the literal word of the Bible for instance.

Brother_Chris · November 24, 2009, 5:15am

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Mr Anderson wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Mak, I think you missed a few.

Let’s call it a warm up.

I am guessing you are here waiting to listen to my reply. You won’t like it, but here it goes:

You are talking at the Protestants. Sorry, the Catholics have their stuff covered, the Protestants, yes you would have a case against. Most Protestants are what I call literalistic. They take everything literally as they read it in the Bible. Catholics do not claim that the Bible is made up of facts, it is made up of truths about God. There is technically three creations in the Bible in Genesis 1, 2, 3 and all are correct. I would not say that I believe that Adam and Eve was a true story. Orthodox Jews do not believe it be true, Catholics neither.

The reason for the different numbers, etc. Is because tradition and translation, when they would put the canon together, they would have basically an editor. He would take the stories and put them together, so you can get different angles of the story, and fully understand the truth.

Stuff like Jesus judges, and Jesus doesn’t judge. You are being a little to demanding with proof text. Jesus said He wouldn’t judge on earth, I am guessing because of his material nature. He however does judge, he judges harshly but that is after death/before purgatory.

Am I missing something? You asked for proof from the bible that they were contradictions, he then showed them to you, and now you say that it doesn’t really matter because you don’t take the bible literally? Am I reading this right or am I extremely off base because if I am reading it how I think, that makes absolutely no sense.

You can’t ask someone to show you proof and then upon receiving the proof, say that it doesn’t apply to you.

No, you must not be understanding what I am saying.

This thread is about the Catholic Church, I said I am a Catholic. Protestant religions are much different than Catholics in certain ways, one of them being Protestants take their Bible literally. I do not take the Bible as facts, but more on the lines of Truths about God, and I do not take the word literally when it comes to certain things (7 days of creation and rest, Adam and Eve, etc.). Most Protestants will proof text, most Catholics (in my circle) do not, because the truth is in the story told and that is hard to get a story through a sentence or two. So when I asked for him to prove to me the contradictions I was asking for stories (truths of God) that contradict each other. Instead I was given proof texting that easily proves the protestant religions wrong with their doctrines.

And I pointed out from the one example what I was talking about, the Jesus judges, and Jesus does not judge. When it says Jesus judges if my memory is correct Mak was talking about when Jesus was material (man) and on earth He said he would not judge because of his human form (he was trying to be an example to Christians to not Judge). However the other line that says Jesus will judge, that is talking about the other whole part of Him, God. That when Jesus comes back for the day of Judgement, He will judge then.

I can understand how it would be confusing as most people are much more used to debating Protestants on these topics than Catholics that our doctrine could be misunderstood.

It would appear you only have a very narrow experience of protestants. Most C of E Christians don’t take the literal word of the Bible for instance.[/quote]

Are we in fucking England (sorry for the people that are in England) I am talking about Protestants in America. Church of England is a whole different ball game of Protestants, when I think Protestants (especially after what Mak threw up on the thread) I am talking about the Literal to the letter Protestants. Like the Southern Baptists that still make their women wear veils and hats to church because a verse in scripture says so. I am talking about the churches that use snakes in worship to show their dominion over everything.

My view is not narrow, I happened to visit many Protestants churches and learn a decent amount about them through my years.

dmaddox · November 24, 2009, 2:47pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Mr Anderson wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Mak, I think you missed a few.

Let’s call it a warm up.

I am guessing you are here waiting to listen to my reply. You won’t like it, but here it goes:

You are talking at the Protestants. Sorry, the Catholics have their stuff covered, the Protestants, yes you would have a case against. Most Protestants are what I call literalistic. They take everything literally as they read it in the Bible. Catholics do not claim that the Bible is made up of facts, it is made up of truths about God. There is technically three creations in the Bible in Genesis 1, 2, 3 and all are correct. I would not say that I believe that Adam and Eve was a true story. Orthodox Jews do not believe it be true, Catholics neither.

The reason for the different numbers, etc. Is because tradition and translation, when they would put the canon together, they would have basically an editor. He would take the stories and put them together, so you can get different angles of the story, and fully understand the truth.

Stuff like Jesus judges, and Jesus doesn’t judge. You are being a little to demanding with proof text. Jesus said He wouldn’t judge on earth, I am guessing because of his material nature. He however does judge, he judges harshly but that is after death/before purgatory.

Am I missing something? You asked for proof from the bible that they were contradictions, he then showed them to you, and now you say that it doesn’t really matter because you don’t take the bible literally? Am I reading this right or am I extremely off base because if I am reading it how I think, that makes absolutely no sense.

You can’t ask someone to show you proof and then upon receiving the proof, say that it doesn’t apply to you.

No, you must not be understanding what I am saying.

This thread is about the Catholic Church, I said I am a Catholic. Protestant religions are much different than Catholics in certain ways, one of them being Protestants take their Bible literally. I do not take the Bible as facts, but more on the lines of Truths about God, and I do not take the word literally when it comes to certain things (7 days of creation and rest, Adam and Eve, etc.). Most Protestants will proof text, most Catholics (in my circle) do not, because the truth is in the story told and that is hard to get a story through a sentence or two. So when I asked for him to prove to me the contradictions I was asking for stories (truths of God) that contradict each other. Instead I was given proof texting that easily proves the protestant religions wrong with their doctrines.

And I pointed out from the one example what I was talking about, the Jesus judges, and Jesus does not judge. When it says Jesus judges if my memory is correct Mak was talking about when Jesus was material (man) and on earth He said he would not judge because of his human form (he was trying to be an example to Christians to not Judge). However the other line that says Jesus will judge, that is talking about the other whole part of Him, God. That when Jesus comes back for the day of Judgement, He will judge then.

I can understand how it would be confusing as most people are much more used to debating Protestants on these topics than Catholics that our doctrine could be misunderstood.

It would appear you only have a very narrow experience of protestants. Most C of E Christians don’t take the literal word of the Bible for instance.

Are we in fucking England (sorry for the people that are in England) I am talking about Protestants in America. Church of England is a whole different ball game of Protestants, when I think Protestants (especially after what Mak threw up on the thread) I am talking about the Literal to the letter Protestants. Like the Southern Baptists that still make their women wear veils and hats to church because a verse in scripture says so. I am talking about the churches that use snakes in worship to show their dominion over everything.

My view is not narrow, I happened to visit many Protestants churches and learn a decent amount about them through my years.[/quote]

I dont know what Southern Baptist church you went to, but there is no law that states you have to wear a veil or hat to church, that is in the Bible though. Old ladies just like the way it looks. Second there are several references in the Bible on Homosexuality.

Genisis 19 the story of Sodom and Gomorrah
Leviticus has a couple of references.
Romans 1 has a references.
There are more, but I dont want to throw up on this thread.

The non use of condoms is also in the Bible. Genisis 38:9-10. I personally think that all should abstain first, but I understand man’s sexual urgess so please use a condom.

This is where the Catholic and Protestant Churches get it from. Brother Chris how often do you go to Mass? We are on the same side brother. There are many things wrong with some churches and individuals. We all make mistakes the question is who is willing to work through those mistakes and forgive.

pat · November 24, 2009, 4:04pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
CB what you are thinking is true about Jesus not being a direct blood relative of David, but that is not the only way to be a decendent. When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant and he was not the father he had every right to leave, but he decided to take Jesus as his own son. By doing this he placed all rights and inheritances of himself onto his first born son Jesus. So even though not a blood relative of David he is considered, by Hebrew custom, a decendent of David.

Do you know anyone who is adopted? They call their adopted father, Dad, and they get the last name.

I think CB was looking for a Maury Povich paternity test type of deal. Though I suspect this would’ve shown Davidian descent anyways.[/quote]

It’s not stated directly that Mary had lineage ties to David, but it’s possible as many wives and concubines he had (it’s good to be the king). But the David question is really answered in the Talmud which states:
“The Talmud states, “Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded…as thought the child had been born to him.” (Sanhedrin 119b).”

Scientifically you are dealing with unattainable info. You’d need Jesus’s flesh and the flesh of another Davidian decedent to DNA test. Not having that, it’s wild speculation at best.

Cockney_Blue · November 24, 2009, 5:52pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Mr Anderson wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Mak, I think you missed a few.

Let’s call it a warm up.

I am guessing you are here waiting to listen to my reply. You won’t like it, but here it goes:

You are talking at the Protestants. Sorry, the Catholics have their stuff covered, the Protestants, yes you would have a case against. Most Protestants are what I call literalistic. They take everything literally as they read it in the Bible. Catholics do not claim that the Bible is made up of facts, it is made up of truths about God. There is technically three creations in the Bible in Genesis 1, 2, 3 and all are correct. I would not say that I believe that Adam and Eve was a true story. Orthodox Jews do not believe it be true, Catholics neither.

The reason for the different numbers, etc. Is because tradition and translation, when they would put the canon together, they would have basically an editor. He would take the stories and put them together, so you can get different angles of the story, and fully understand the truth.

Stuff like Jesus judges, and Jesus doesn’t judge. You are being a little to demanding with proof text. Jesus said He wouldn’t judge on earth, I am guessing because of his material nature. He however does judge, he judges harshly but that is after death/before purgatory.

Am I missing something? You asked for proof from the bible that they were contradictions, he then showed them to you, and now you say that it doesn’t really matter because you don’t take the bible literally? Am I reading this right or am I extremely off base because if I am reading it how I think, that makes absolutely no sense.

You can’t ask someone to show you proof and then upon receiving the proof, say that it doesn’t apply to you.

No, you must not be understanding what I am saying.

This thread is about the Catholic Church, I said I am a Catholic. Protestant religions are much different than Catholics in certain ways, one of them being Protestants take their Bible literally. I do not take the Bible as facts, but more on the lines of Truths about God, and I do not take the word literally when it comes to certain things (7 days of creation and rest, Adam and Eve, etc.). Most Protestants will proof text, most Catholics (in my circle) do not, because the truth is in the story told and that is hard to get a story through a sentence or two. So when I asked for him to prove to me the contradictions I was asking for stories (truths of God) that contradict each other. Instead I was given proof texting that easily proves the protestant religions wrong with their doctrines.

And I pointed out from the one example what I was talking about, the Jesus judges, and Jesus does not judge. When it says Jesus judges if my memory is correct Mak was talking about when Jesus was material (man) and on earth He said he would not judge because of his human form (he was trying to be an example to Christians to not Judge). However the other line that says Jesus will judge, that is talking about the other whole part of Him, God. That when Jesus comes back for the day of Judgement, He will judge then.

I can understand how it would be confusing as most people are much more used to debating Protestants on these topics than Catholics that our doctrine could be misunderstood.

It would appear you only have a very narrow experience of protestants. Most C of E Christians don’t take the literal word of the Bible for instance.

Are we in fucking England (sorry for the people that are in England) I am talking about Protestants in America. Church of England is a whole different ball game of Protestants, when I think Protestants (especially after what Mak threw up on the thread) I am talking about the Literal to the letter Protestants. Like the Southern Baptists that still make their women wear veils and hats to church because a verse in scripture says so. I am talking about the churches that use snakes in worship to show their dominion over everything.

My view is not narrow, I happened to visit many Protestants churches and learn a decent amount about them through my years.[/quote]

You first admit that your view is narrow then state ‘My view is not narrow’. Funny! Protestant covers a huge range of different beliefs within Christianity. You are referring to a narrow subset of those beliefs.

Cockney_Blue · November 24, 2009, 5:55pm

[quote]pat wrote:
Sloth wrote:
dmaddox wrote:
CB what you are thinking is true about Jesus not being a direct blood relative of David, but that is not the only way to be a decendent. When Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant and he was not the father he had every right to leave, but he decided to take Jesus as his own son. By doing this he placed all rights and inheritances of himself onto his first born son Jesus. So even though not a blood relative of David he is considered, by Hebrew custom, a decendent of David.

Do you know anyone who is adopted? They call their adopted father, Dad, and they get the last name.

I think CB was looking for a Maury Povich paternity test type of deal. Though I suspect this would’ve shown Davidian descent anyways.

It’s not stated directly that Mary had lineage ties to David, but it’s possible as many wives and concubines he had (it’s good to be the king). But the David question is really answered in the Talmud which states:
“The Talmud states, “Whoever brings up an orphan in his home is regarded…as thought the child had been born to him.” (Sanhedrin 119b).”

Scientifically you are dealing with unattainable info. You’d need Jesus’s flesh and the flesh of another Davidian decedent to DNA test. Not having that, it’s wild speculation at best.
[/quote]

But Jesus wasn’t an Orphan was he? He was a Bastard child.

Brother_Chris · November 24, 2009, 6:33pm

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Mr Anderson wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Mak, I think you missed a few.

Let’s call it a warm up.

I am guessing you are here waiting to listen to my reply. You won’t like it, but here it goes:

You are talking at the Protestants. Sorry, the Catholics have their stuff covered, the Protestants, yes you would have a case against. Most Protestants are what I call literalistic. They take everything literally as they read it in the Bible. Catholics do not claim that the Bible is made up of facts, it is made up of truths about God. There is technically three creations in the Bible in Genesis 1, 2, 3 and all are correct. I would not say that I believe that Adam and Eve was a true story. Orthodox Jews do not believe it be true, Catholics neither.

The reason for the different numbers, etc. Is because tradition and translation, when they would put the canon together, they would have basically an editor. He would take the stories and put them together, so you can get different angles of the story, and fully understand the truth.

Stuff like Jesus judges, and Jesus doesn’t judge. You are being a little to demanding with proof text. Jesus said He wouldn’t judge on earth, I am guessing because of his material nature. He however does judge, he judges harshly but that is after death/before purgatory.

Am I missing something? You asked for proof from the bible that they were contradictions, he then showed them to you, and now you say that it doesn’t really matter because you don’t take the bible literally? Am I reading this right or am I extremely off base because if I am reading it how I think, that makes absolutely no sense.

You can’t ask someone to show you proof and then upon receiving the proof, say that it doesn’t apply to you.

No, you must not be understanding what I am saying.

This thread is about the Catholic Church, I said I am a Catholic. Protestant religions are much different than Catholics in certain ways, one of them being Protestants take their Bible literally. I do not take the Bible as facts, but more on the lines of Truths about God, and I do not take the word literally when it comes to certain things (7 days of creation and rest, Adam and Eve, etc.). Most Protestants will proof text, most Catholics (in my circle) do not, because the truth is in the story told and that is hard to get a story through a sentence or two. So when I asked for him to prove to me the contradictions I was asking for stories (truths of God) that contradict each other. Instead I was given proof texting that easily proves the protestant religions wrong with their doctrines.

And I pointed out from the one example what I was talking about, the Jesus judges, and Jesus does not judge. When it says Jesus judges if my memory is correct Mak was talking about when Jesus was material (man) and on earth He said he would not judge because of his human form (he was trying to be an example to Christians to not Judge). However the other line that says Jesus will judge, that is talking about the other whole part of Him, God. That when Jesus comes back for the day of Judgement, He will judge then.

I can understand how it would be confusing as most people are much more used to debating Protestants on these topics than Catholics that our doctrine could be misunderstood.

It would appear you only have a very narrow experience of protestants. Most C of E Christians don’t take the literal word of the Bible for instance.

Are we in fucking England (sorry for the people that are in England) I am talking about Protestants in America. Church of England is a whole different ball game of Protestants, when I think Protestants (especially after what Mak threw up on the thread) I am talking about the Literal to the letter Protestants. Like the Southern Baptists that still make their women wear veils and hats to church because a verse in scripture says so. I am talking about the churches that use snakes in worship to show their dominion over everything.

My view is not narrow, I happened to visit many Protestants churches and learn a decent amount about them through my years.

I dont know what Southern Baptist church you went to, but there is no law that states you have to wear a veil or hat to church, that is in the Bible though. Old ladies just like the way it looks. Second there are several references in the Bible on Homosexuality.[/quote]

Go to the South and it is required in some churches, maybe not SB anymore. But it is the rule of the church.

[quote]Genisis 19 the story of Sodom and Gomorrah
Leviticus has a couple of references.
Romans 1 has a references.
There are more, but I dont want to throw up on this thread.[/quote]

My views on homosexuality is that just like a lot of sexual acts no one can actually prove it to me that it was condemned by God, except when it hurt others. You can take Lev 18:22 as a clear statement not to sleep with men, or as it was referenced in Gen 19, that you shouldn’t have sex with a man like you would a woman when you make them your servant. When the Jews took someone as their servant (if it was a woman) they had ownership of their sexual property. So a Jew that took a woman as a servant could have sex with her, but from what I understand it is saying do not have sex with your man servant.

The non use of condoms is also in the Bible. Genisis 38:9-10. I personally think that all should abstain first, but I understand man’s sexual urgess so please use a condom.

This is where the Catholic and Protestant Churches get it from. Brother Chris how often do you go to Mass? We are on the same side brother. There are many things wrong with some churches and individuals. We all make mistakes the question is who is willing to work through those mistakes and forgive.[/quote]

The idea of not using a condom using Genesis 38:9-10 as the reason is another case of proof texting that has been blown way out of portion. God did not smite Him because Onan pulled out (or used a condom) or that how some denominations pervert it “masturbated.” God killed Onan because he did not follow God’s commandment of continuing his brother’s blood line.

I cannot find in the Bible where abstaining is required, some apostles and Saints wrote/spoke about being celibate, but that was for devotion (monastic life, apostles, doing God’s work) to God, not being a Child of God.

I go to Mass when I am supposed to. I’ll clarify if you need me to.

Yes, there is many things wrong with the Church and some individuals and I stand up for what I see that is wrong and I also accept what can be shown to me logically (evidence from the Bible).

Brother_Chris · November 24, 2009, 6:30pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Mr Anderson wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Mak, I think you missed a few.

Let’s call it a warm up.

I am guessing you are here waiting to listen to my reply. You won’t like it, but here it goes:

You are talking at the Protestants. Sorry, the Catholics have their stuff covered, the Protestants, yes you would have a case against. Most Protestants are what I call literalistic. They take everything literally as they read it in the Bible. Catholics do not claim that the Bible is made up of facts, it is made up of truths about God. There is technically three creations in the Bible in Genesis 1, 2, 3 and all are correct. I would not say that I believe that Adam and Eve was a true story. Orthodox Jews do not believe it be true, Catholics neither.

The reason for the different numbers, etc. Is because tradition and translation, when they would put the canon together, they would have basically an editor. He would take the stories and put them together, so you can get different angles of the story, and fully understand the truth.

Stuff like Jesus judges, and Jesus doesn’t judge. You are being a little to demanding with proof text. Jesus said He wouldn’t judge on earth, I am guessing because of his material nature. He however does judge, he judges harshly but that is after death/before purgatory.

Am I missing something? You asked for proof from the bible that they were contradictions, he then showed them to you, and now you say that it doesn’t really matter because you don’t take the bible literally? Am I reading this right or am I extremely off base because if I am reading it how I think, that makes absolutely no sense.

You can’t ask someone to show you proof and then upon receiving the proof, say that it doesn’t apply to you.

No, you must not be understanding what I am saying.

This thread is about the Catholic Church, I said I am a Catholic. Protestant religions are much different than Catholics in certain ways, one of them being Protestants take their Bible literally. I do not take the Bible as facts, but more on the lines of Truths about God, and I do not take the word literally when it comes to certain things (7 days of creation and rest, Adam and Eve, etc.). Most Protestants will proof text, most Catholics (in my circle) do not, because the truth is in the story told and that is hard to get a story through a sentence or two. So when I asked for him to prove to me the contradictions I was asking for stories (truths of God) that contradict each other. Instead I was given proof texting that easily proves the protestant religions wrong with their doctrines.

And I pointed out from the one example what I was talking about, the Jesus judges, and Jesus does not judge. When it says Jesus judges if my memory is correct Mak was talking about when Jesus was material (man) and on earth He said he would not judge because of his human form (he was trying to be an example to Christians to not Judge). However the other line that says Jesus will judge, that is talking about the other whole part of Him, God. That when Jesus comes back for the day of Judgement, He will judge then.

I can understand how it would be confusing as most people are much more used to debating Protestants on these topics than Catholics that our doctrine could be misunderstood.

It would appear you only have a very narrow experience of protestants. Most C of E Christians don’t take the literal word of the Bible for instance.

Are we in fucking England (sorry for the people that are in England) I am talking about Protestants in America. Church of England is a whole different ball game of Protestants, when I think Protestants (especially after what Mak threw up on the thread) I am talking about the Literal to the letter Protestants. Like the Southern Baptists that still make their women wear veils and hats to church because a verse in scripture says so. I am talking about the churches that use snakes in worship to show their dominion over everything.

My view is not narrow, I happened to visit many Protestants churches and learn a decent amount about them through my years.

You first admit that your view is narrow then state ‘My view is not narrow’. Funny! Protestant covers a huge range of different beliefs within Christianity. You are referring to a narrow subset of those beliefs.[/quote]

How is my view narrow, just because I am talking about Protestants in America does not mean I do not understand the broadness of Protestant religions. If you do not narrow your topic though it is hard to debate anything when you can just switch over to another denomination.

Cockney_Blue · November 24, 2009, 7:47pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Mr Anderson wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Mak, I think you missed a few.

Let’s call it a warm up.

I am guessing you are here waiting to listen to my reply. You won’t like it, but here it goes:

You are talking at the Protestants. Sorry, the Catholics have their stuff covered, the Protestants, yes you would have a case against. Most Protestants are what I call literalistic. They take everything literally as they read it in the Bible. Catholics do not claim that the Bible is made up of facts, it is made up of truths about God. There is technically three creations in the Bible in Genesis 1, 2, 3 and all are correct. I would not say that I believe that Adam and Eve was a true story. Orthodox Jews do not believe it be true, Catholics neither.

The reason for the different numbers, etc. Is because tradition and translation, when they would put the canon together, they would have basically an editor. He would take the stories and put them together, so you can get different angles of the story, and fully understand the truth.

Stuff like Jesus judges, and Jesus doesn’t judge. You are being a little to demanding with proof text. Jesus said He wouldn’t judge on earth, I am guessing because of his material nature. He however does judge, he judges harshly but that is after death/before purgatory.

Am I missing something? You asked for proof from the bible that they were contradictions, he then showed them to you, and now you say that it doesn’t really matter because you don’t take the bible literally? Am I reading this right or am I extremely off base because if I am reading it how I think, that makes absolutely no sense.

You can’t ask someone to show you proof and then upon receiving the proof, say that it doesn’t apply to you.

No, you must not be understanding what I am saying.

This thread is about the Catholic Church, I said I am a Catholic. Protestant religions are much different than Catholics in certain ways, one of them being Protestants take their Bible literally. I do not take the Bible as facts, but more on the lines of Truths about God, and I do not take the word literally when it comes to certain things (7 days of creation and rest, Adam and Eve, etc.). Most Protestants will proof text, most Catholics (in my circle) do not, because the truth is in the story told and that is hard to get a story through a sentence or two. So when I asked for him to prove to me the contradictions I was asking for stories (truths of God) that contradict each other. Instead I was given proof texting that easily proves the protestant religions wrong with their doctrines.

And I pointed out from the one example what I was talking about, the Jesus judges, and Jesus does not judge. When it says Jesus judges if my memory is correct Mak was talking about when Jesus was material (man) and on earth He said he would not judge because of his human form (he was trying to be an example to Christians to not Judge). However the other line that says Jesus will judge, that is talking about the other whole part of Him, God. That when Jesus comes back for the day of Judgement, He will judge then.

I can understand how it would be confusing as most people are much more used to debating Protestants on these topics than Catholics that our doctrine could be misunderstood.

It would appear you only have a very narrow experience of protestants. Most C of E Christians don’t take the literal word of the Bible for instance.

Are we in fucking England (sorry for the people that are in England) I am talking about Protestants in America. Church of England is a whole different ball game of Protestants, when I think Protestants (especially after what Mak threw up on the thread) I am talking about the Literal to the letter Protestants. Like the Southern Baptists that still make their women wear veils and hats to church because a verse in scripture says so. I am talking about the churches that use snakes in worship to show their dominion over everything.

My view is not narrow, I happened to visit many Protestants churches and learn a decent amount about them through my years.

You first admit that your view is narrow then state ‘My view is not narrow’. Funny! Protestant covers a huge range of different beliefs within Christianity. You are referring to a narrow subset of those beliefs.

How is my view narrow, just because I am talking about Protestants in America does not mean I do not understand the broadness of Protestant religions. If you do not narrow your topic though it is hard to debate anything when you can just switch over to another denomination.[/quote]

You are not even talking Protestants in the US though, you are talking about a small subset of US Protestants.

dmaddox · November 24, 2009, 8:34pm

Is this not prejudice or racism and how it gets started. We see a small subset of a particular group and then we lump them into the category of all these people do the same thing. Atheists do this of Christians. Catholics say things about Protestants, and Protestants do this towards Catholics. Races to this towards other Races. People who dont ride motorcycles think that people who ride motorcycles all do wheelies at 100 mph on the freeway. I do this all the time and I really need to stop that not the motorcycle thing, but lumping subsets of people into one pool.

Jesus did not come here to separate the church, but to bring all people to him. I think he is really angry with the church as a whole. We are all human, and when humans try to take control we screw it up. Christians need to understand that they are not perfect and some people do not believe in the Bible and jaming it down their throat is not acceptable. Non Christians need to understand that Christians have certain beliefs and there is no law that will force them to not continue to believe those things. Christians through out history had died for their beliefs.

Brother_Chris · November 24, 2009, 11:30pm

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Mr Anderson wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Mak, I think you missed a few.