[quote]
Obviously it wasn’t the Catholic Church that burned him at the stake, but the Emperor that ordered it.[/quote]
No, it was the Holy Roman Emperor who was the secular power of the Pope. Sounds sort of like Charles Manson’s defense: “I didn’t kill no one, them kids did it on their own.”
Just out of curiosity, what were some of Tyndale’s mistranslations? Simply insulting the Roman clergy may be horrific to a Catholic but it’s hardly heretical to anyone else. When I read of the horrors of the Inquisition, many insults come to mind but, if you called me a heretic, I’d simply laugh at you.
Hi this is a question for any knowledgeable Christian
Christians believe that God took human form as Jesus Christ and that God is present today through the work of the Holy Spirit and evident in the actions of believers, so when Jesus died and was resurrected, who looked after the universe in the period in between?
This question is not meant to offend anyone, i truly want to know the answer.
[quote]weby wrote:
Hi this is a question for any knowledgeable Christian
Christians believe that God took human form as Jesus Christ and that God is present today through the work of the Holy Spirit and evident in the actions of believers, so when Jesus died and was resurrected, who looked after the universe in the period in between?
This question is not meant to offend anyone, i truly want to know the answer.[/quote]
I think this was already asked, but G-d, the Father, and the Holy Ghost. Jesus, the Son was the one in Hell.
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
[quote]
Obviously it wasn’t the Catholic Church that burned him at the stake, but the Emperor that ordered it.[/quote]
No, it was the Holy Roman Emperor who was the secular power of the Pope. Sounds sort of like Charles Manson’s defense: “I didn’t kill no one, them kids did it on their own.”
Just out of curiosity, what were some of Tyndale’s mistranslations? Simply insulting the Roman clergy may be horrific to a Catholic but it’s hardly heretical to anyone else. When I read of the horrors of the Inquisition, many insults come to mind but, if you called me a heretic, I’d simply laugh at you.[/quote]
The King of Italy at the time was the Holy Roman Emperor. The Pope did not hold that power.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
In 1530, Charles V was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Clement VII. Charles was asked by Henry VIII to apprehend William Tyndale and return him to England. Ultimately he was tried and condemned to death for heresy in Belgium. Yes, Tyndale pissed off a lot of powerful people but, then again, so did John the Baptist.
My question is, were Tyndale’s heresies true perversions of scripture or were they simply a defiant opposition to some of Rome’s questionable doctrines?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
There isn’t a right religion. There are definitely wrong religions though. These are ones that close minds, tell people it’s right to do something they are against, or wrong to do something they agree with.
If you disagree with something, but follow it, I would say you’re following the wrong religion. Use your heart and mind as a guide in this world first and foremost. Any path that leads to helping of others and the removal of suffering of all things around you is a good one.[/quote]
So, Child molesters and serial killers should just find a religion that goes along with their heart and mind? Wonderful.[/quote]
They would have to invent a new one. One thing that most religions (ast least Judeo-Christian relgions) DO have in common is a core of morality. Largely rooted in the 10 commandments. Thou shalt not kill, etc…The rituals differ. Beliefs differ. But those truths persist
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
In 1530, Charles V was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Clement VII. Charles was asked by Henry VIII to apprehend William Tyndale and return him to England. Ultimately he was tried and condemned to death for heresy in Belgium. Yes, Tyndale pissed off a lot of powerful people but, then again, so did John the Baptist.
My question is, were Tyndale’s heresies true perversions of scripture or were they simply a defiant opposition to some of Rome’s questionable doctrines?
[/quote]
You are comparing someone who couldn’t hold his water to someone that was prophesied in the Bible and was the precursor to Jesus’ public ministry? And, are you comparing the Pharisees who were against Jesus, to the Holy Roman Church that is authorized by Jesus?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, this is an act of G-d, I cannot judge G-d. If something like that happens, I ask for mercy on their souls. G-d has his reasons, and it may seem harsh, but He has a reason for it. And I cannot argue against it.
Yes, they were correct. I think this falls in to Mosaic laws more than G-d’s laws but I could be incorrect as I am going off memory fumes and not dogma. The fact is that kings had slaves, there is a right way and a wrong way to treat even those that are slaves. Do I think slavery is wrong as we knew it in America, yes. They were not won as war booty in a battle.
Yes, this is what I call a Mosaic law, this was more of a protective law than a law made by G-d. Eating pork back then is dangerous. Especially back then would I adhere to that law. I think the laws like these were more for safety and proper treatment than actually being something that was against G-d, which is why Jesus spoke of them they way He did.
I can’t bring myself to believe in the Truth of the old testament. I do think it was appropriate for the time and contains good advice, but I cannot accept it as divinely inspired.
Well, that is troublesome for sure, however I wish you would look at it this way, man was distant very distant from G-d at this time and age. The way G-d is looked at during this time period by the Jews is different than we seem Him today, because of Jesus. G-d did some things that people consider horrendous, which He still does today. However, when something happens like genocide, G-d can still use evil for good.
I will definitely find you some things to read, hopefully they have them on Google books. You seem very interested in all this, and answers are needed.
My answer still stands though, when searching for truth, rationally, you do not conform what you find to what you think, but you conform your knowledge to the truth. It is hard to accept that G-d can smite someone, that He can strike down a soldier in battle because another man asks Him to. It is hard to accept that He did such a harsh thing to Adam and Eve, but the matter of fact is that He did it, and even though it seems evil, and it maybe an evil thing that happened, He can make good out of it.
Peace be with you.[/quote]
How do you differentiate between mosaic (levitical) law and “gods law”. Mosaic law was also from god. Are you saying mosaic law is somehow less official?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You are comparing someone who couldn’t hold his water to someone that was prophesied in the Bible and was the precursor to Jesus’ public ministry? And, are you comparing the Pharisees who were against Jesus, to the Holy Roman Church that is authorized by Jesus?[/quote]
So you are saying that the Catholic Church can not fall away from its original decree? God chose the Jews to take his message to the entire world. Did they fall away from this decree? I would say yes. Had the Jews acomplished what they were created for then Jesus would not have been needed, but God knew that man is falible so the utlimate sacrifice was needed. Whether God took his hand off of the Jews or not is up for speculation, but it is obvious the church is the new vehicle of which God is using. I would say the same thing happened during the Reformation. Did God take his hand off the Roman Catholic Chruch and is he using the Protestant Chruches to spread the Gospel? The Roman Catholic Chruch still has the opportunity to turn back to God. I pray a pope will be lifted up by God to bring his people back to him. I just hope they listen. Tradition does not trump scripture.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
You are comparing someone who couldn’t hold his water to someone that was prophesied in the Bible and was the precursor to Jesus’ public ministry? And, are you comparing the Pharisees who were against Jesus, to the Holy Roman Church that is authorized by Jesus?[/quote]
So you are saying that the Catholic Church can not fall away from its original decree?[/quote]
Well Jesus did say evil will never prevail against it.
Um, Jesus was prophesied as early as Genesis 3:15.
[quote]
Whether God took his hand off of the Jews or not is up for speculation, but it is obvious the church is the new vehicle of which God is using. I would say the same thing happened during the Reformation. Did God take his hand off the Roman Catholic Chruch and is he using the Protestant Chruches to spread the Gospel? The Roman Catholic Chruch still has the opportunity to turn back to God.[/quote]
So you are saying Jesus didn’t really tell the truth when he said evil will not prevail against his Church? Interesting.
For teh lulz. No one reads what I say.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
In 1530, Charles V was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Clement VII. Charles was asked by Henry VIII to apprehend William Tyndale and return him to England. Ultimately he was tried and condemned to death for heresy in Belgium. Yes, Tyndale pissed off a lot of powerful people but, then again, so did John the Baptist.
My question is, were Tyndale’s heresies true perversions of scripture or were they simply a defiant opposition to some of Rome’s questionable doctrines?
[/quote]
You are comparing someone who couldn’t hold his water to someone that was prophesied in the Bible and was the precursor to Jesus’ public ministry? And, are you comparing the Pharisees who were against Jesus, to the Holy Roman Church that is authorized by Jesus?[/quote]
You’re not quite answering my question but I appreciate the comparison between the Pharisees and Baby…, I mean Rome. It wasn’t my intention but, now that you mention it…
I think you’re aware that I’m not comparing the character of William Tyndale that of Jesus’ famous cousin. The point was that when you say bad things about bad people, often bad things happen to you. In other words, both the religious and secular authorities were probably motivated by something a little more selfish than preserving the integrity of Scripture. So your comparison between the Pharisees and the cheap imposters that came later was very astute.
Not everyone is as mesmerized by the sounds, the smells and the impressive buildings as you. They make for some nice childhood memories but, when you look at the actual fruit of this institution and the character of some of its Popes, the sensual beauty of the Catholic Mass begins to weaken and buckle under the weight of hypocrisy.
Some of the guilt of the Inquisition can be shifted outside the authority of the RCC. When villages were slaughtered, you can say that the self-righteous anger of the laity took on a life of it’s own and couldn’t be reined in by the Catholic authorities. You may even be right about that. Most of the public executions were probably carried out by the secular authorities, but the tortures took place within the Holy Office.
You say the gates of Hell will never prevail over your church. I say they already have. Christ could never establish such a monstrous perversion of Christian charity.
You are probably as good a man as any. I’m sure you sincerely love God as have many Catholics in the laity as well as the clergy. I’d even guess that your love has inspired many good and charitable works. I’ve even read some of the official Catholic Catechism as I have a copy, given to me by my father. There are many truths in that book. But there are also errors that just don’t jibe with Scripture.
These are just a few reasons why I cannot, in good conscience, accept the RCC’s claim as the One True Church.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< So you are saying Jesus didn’t really tell the truth when he said evil will not prevail against his Church? Interesting.[/quote]
Jesus, as always, told the absolute truth. We don’t see biblical evidence that He meant the same thing by “church” that Rome does.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< So you are saying Jesus didn’t really tell the truth when he said evil will not prevail against his Church? Interesting.[/quote]
Jesus, as always, told the absolute truth. We don’t see biblical evidence that He meant the same thing by “church” that Rome does.
[/quote]
Well you already know my argument.
What does Rome mean by Church?
What does Jesus mean by Church?
How did you figure that out?
On what authority?
W
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
In 1530, Charles V was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Clement VII. Charles was asked by Henry VIII to apprehend William Tyndale and return him to England. Ultimately he was tried and condemned to death for heresy in Belgium. Yes, Tyndale pissed off a lot of powerful people but, then again, so did John the Baptist.
My question is, were Tyndale’s heresies true perversions of scripture or were they simply a defiant opposition to some of Rome’s questionable doctrines?
[/quote]
You are comparing someone who couldn’t hold his water to someone that was prophesied in the Bible and was the precursor to Jesus’ public ministry? And, are you comparing the Pharisees who were against Jesus, to the Holy Roman Church that is authorized by Jesus?[/quote]
You’re not quite answering my question but I appreciate the comparison between the Pharisees and Baby…, I mean Rome. It wasn’t my intention but, now that you mention it…
I think you’re aware that I’m not comparing the character of William Tyndale that of Jesus’ famous cousin. The point was that when you say bad things about bad people, often bad things happen to you. In other words, both the religious and secular authorities were probably motivated by something a little more selfish than preserving the integrity of Scripture. So your comparison between the Pharisees and the cheap imposters that came later was very astute.
[/quote]
Ad hominem. Please come back with another argument that doesn’t involve name calling and accusations of invested interest.
I was not raised in the Church, I came to it last spring. I have been in a Cathedral all of three times. And so you are saying that their fruit of 2000 years of more hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, homeless shelters, insurance, miracles, mass conversions to have Jesus as their savior, &c. are humbug? Yes, with great institutes there tends to be people that try to lead it astray, and your point? We have declared them anti-popes for their actions. You sound more like a pharisee than that Catholic Church does, you judge those based on yourself but you forget we judge ourselves based on G-d. So, with all these things of helping the poor and the downtrodden that the Catholic Church does, yet we still recognized that without G-d, nothing would be possible, you stand on the sidelines and do what brother? If hypocrisy is what keeps you from church, that just means the hypocrites are just that much closer to G-d than you are.
I don’t say anything of the sort, it was Catholic people who did it and we pray for our sins everyday, all our sins. Don’t judge us like the Pharisee judges the tax collector, because at least the tax collector beats his chest in penance to G-d.
Please stop using straw man (not a good one either) this has nothing to do with Ty being a heretic.
I never said that, Jesus did. I quoted him. Go ahead and direct that one to the sky. Lol at declaring what Christ cannot do. I doubt all those people that we helped would call us a monstrous pervesion of Christian charity. In love, I just think you have an agenda and instead of having a friendly debate over theological issues you would rather bash, and that is fine. All actions have consequences. If you wish to argue in love, I’m fine with that but when you talk about our sins, look at our fruits first.
I am not a good man, thanks for the compliment. I cannot go one day without committing mortal sins.
Well, once you have authority over the scriptures you can declare that. Until then you are just making private interpretations. You should be careful about those, they go against your Bible as well as mine.
[quote]
These are just a few reasons why I cannot, in good conscience, accept the RCC’s claim as the One True Church.[/quote]
Spill them, see if we cannot hash those out. I’ll get my apologetic hat on.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< So you are saying Jesus didn’t really tell the truth when he said evil will not prevail against his Church? Interesting.[/quote]
Jesus, as always, told the absolute truth. We don’t see biblical evidence that He meant the same thing by “church” that Rome does.
[/quote]
Well you already know my argument.
What does Rome mean by Church?
What does Jesus mean by Church?
How did you figure that out?
On what authority?
W[/quote]
I was simply making a statement that we do agree with Jesus that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church because His church is wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in His name (Matthew 18:19) to be very very short. You know what I’m gonna say about all this or at least you should. I do not recognize ANY church or denomination’s authority to bind my conscience beyond that which is revealed in the bible. I am always open to counsel and possible correction from ANY godly person and God has used some unlikely sources for this purpose in my life. However, NO church will ever tell me “we’re it, and you are in sin if you disobey our tradition”.
I’ll let this other guy fill you in on some of the horrific history of the roman catholic church, which to me would not be necessarily fatal in itself BTW.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
In 1530, Charles V was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Clement VII. Charles was asked by Henry VIII to apprehend William Tyndale and return him to England. Ultimately he was tried and condemned to death for heresy in Belgium. Yes, Tyndale pissed off a lot of powerful people but, then again, so did John the Baptist.
My question is, were Tyndale’s heresies true perversions of scripture or were they simply a defiant opposition to some of Rome’s questionable doctrines?
[/quote]
You are comparing someone who couldn’t hold his water to someone that was prophesied in the Bible and was the precursor to Jesus’ public ministry? And, are you comparing the Pharisees who were against Jesus, to the Holy Roman Church that is authorized by Jesus?[/quote]
You’re not quite answering my question but I appreciate the comparison between the Pharisees and Baby…, I mean Rome. It wasn’t my intention but, now that you mention it…
I think you’re aware that I’m not comparing the character of William Tyndale that of Jesus’ famous cousin. The point was that when you say bad things about bad people, often bad things happen to you. In other words, both the religious and secular authorities were probably motivated by something a little more selfish than preserving the integrity of Scripture. So your comparison between the Pharisees and the cheap imposters that came later was very astute.
[/quote]
Ad hominem. Please come back with another argument that doesn’t involve name calling and accusations of invested interest.
I was not raised in the Church, I came to it last spring. I have been in a Cathedral all of three times. And so you are saying that their fruit of 2000 years of more hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, homeless shelters, insurance, miracles, mass conversions to have Jesus as their savior, &c. are humbug? Yes, with great institutes there tends to be people that try to lead it astray, and your point? We have declared them anti-popes for their actions. You sound more like a pharisee than that Catholic Church does, you judge those based on yourself but you forget we judge ourselves based on G-d. So, with all these things of helping the poor and the downtrodden that the Catholic Church does, yet we still recognized that without G-d, nothing would be possible, you stand on the sidelines and do what brother? If hypocrisy is what keeps you from church, that just means the hypocrites are just that much closer to G-d than you are.
I don’t say anything of the sort, it was Catholic people who did it and we pray for our sins everyday, all our sins. Don’t judge us like the Pharisee judges the tax collector, because at least the tax collector beats his chest in penance to G-d.
Please stop using straw man (not a good one either) this has nothing to do with Ty being a heretic.
I never said that, Jesus did. I quoted him. Go ahead and direct that one to the sky. Lol at declaring what Christ cannot do. I doubt all those people that we helped would call us a monstrous pervesion of Christian charity. In love, I just think you have an agenda and instead of having a friendly debate over theological issues you would rather bash, and that is fine. All actions have consequences. If you wish to argue in love, I’m fine with that but when you talk about our sins, look at our fruits first.
I am not a good man, thanks for the compliment. I cannot go one day without committing mortal sins.
Well, once you have authority over the scriptures you can declare that. Until then you are just making private interpretations. You should be careful about those, they go against your Bible as well as mine.
[quote]
These are just a few reasons why I cannot, in good conscience, accept the RCC’s claim as the One True Church.[/quote]
Spill them, see if we cannot hash those out. I’ll get my apologetic hat on.[/quote]
I don’t think you’re very good at reading between the lines. When I speak in hypotheticals, using words like “can”, “could”, “might”, you seem to miss the point.
I tried to compliment you by saying I imagine you’re as good a man AS ANY other. You seem to frown on that, as if I don’t understand Jesus’ warning about calling men good.
You act as if I’m judging individuals by pointing out an institutional failure that went far beyond a little backsliding. There’s a distinction between individual believers like you and I and an institution that claims infallibity.
And, finally, straw man? If that’s not the pot calling the kettle black. You infer arguments that I never tried to make and then make me out to be some self-righteous prick. I don’t know if you’re willfully manipulating the conversation or if I’m just a poor communicator.
Anyway, I think a debate would be pointless and unnecessary as we’ve both made up our minds. Anything I say will either be dismissed or misconstrued as a straw man, argumentun ad hominem, or self-righteous hypocrisy. And anything you say will be seen as cognitive dissonance. If I can live with Catholicism in my family, I can certainly live with it here … as long as they don’t bring back the Inquisition, lol.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< So you are saying Jesus didn’t really tell the truth when he said evil will not prevail against his Church? Interesting.[/quote]
Jesus, as always, told the absolute truth. We don’t see biblical evidence that He meant the same thing by “church” that Rome does.
[/quote]
Well you already know my argument.
What does Rome mean by Church?
What does Jesus mean by Church?
How did you figure that out?
On what authority?
W[/quote]
I was simply making a statement that we do agree with Jesus that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church because His church is wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in His name (Matthew 18:19) to be very very short. You know what I’m gonna say about all this or at least you should. I do not recognize ANY church or denomination’s authority to bind my conscience beyond that which is revealed in the bible. I am always open to counsel and possible correction from ANY godly person and God has used some unlikely sources for this purpose in my life. However, NO church will ever tell me “we’re it, and you are in sin if you disobey our tradition”.
I’ll let this other guy fill you in on some of the horrific history of the roman catholic church, which to me would not be necessarily fatal in itself BTW.[/quote]
I was an avid critic of the church before I took a look at the early church father’s writing. Any body that says that to you is a retard. I’m sorry, they can come and send them to me and I’ll punch them in the face intelligently, because obviously they know not what they say.
This is how I look at it (and I can back it up with some Catechesis) when it comes the Church and you lovely heretics. 
The Catholic Church is the Church, Jesus’ Church, his Church, the wife, the handmaid, the slave, the adopted sons and daughters of the Father, the one with which his Ghost dwells in. The one true church.
Now do not take this as condescending. Remember think of it from the Catholic perspective.
We look at some of the people who are Protestants and say they are of G-d. The reason is the same as why we said some pagans could go to Heaven. Protestants have been out of the Church for so long they do not know about the truth of the Church (just like some people that are Catholic do not seem to know what the Catholic Church believes).
We see them in the same position as the pagans and some Christians, who because of no fault of their own do not know the truth, but believe they do. That if they have a heart for G-d, are baptized (either by physical baptism as protestants usually are or desired baptism like pagans), do not die in Mortal Sin (either live perfectly or commit a perfect act of contrition before they die) they maybe about to go to Heaven.
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]mcdugga wrote:
In 1530, Charles V was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Clement VII. Charles was asked by Henry VIII to apprehend William Tyndale and return him to England. Ultimately he was tried and condemned to death for heresy in Belgium. Yes, Tyndale pissed off a lot of powerful people but, then again, so did John the Baptist.
My question is, were Tyndale’s heresies true perversions of scripture or were they simply a defiant opposition to some of Rome’s questionable doctrines?
[/quote]
You are comparing someone who couldn’t hold his water to someone that was prophesied in the Bible and was the precursor to Jesus’ public ministry? And, are you comparing the Pharisees who were against Jesus, to the Holy Roman Church that is authorized by Jesus?[/quote]
You’re not quite answering my question but I appreciate the comparison between the Pharisees and Baby…, I mean Rome. It wasn’t my intention but, now that you mention it…
I think you’re aware that I’m not comparing the character of William Tyndale that of Jesus’ famous cousin. The point was that when you say bad things about bad people, often bad things happen to you. In other words, both the religious and secular authorities were probably motivated by something a little more selfish than preserving the integrity of Scripture. So your comparison between the Pharisees and the cheap imposters that came later was very astute.
[/quote]
Ad hominem. Please come back with another argument that doesn’t involve name calling and accusations of invested interest.
I was not raised in the Church, I came to it last spring. I have been in a Cathedral all of three times. And so you are saying that their fruit of 2000 years of more hospitals, schools, orphanages, charities, homeless shelters, insurance, miracles, mass conversions to have Jesus as their savior, &c. are humbug? Yes, with great institutes there tends to be people that try to lead it astray, and your point? We have declared them anti-popes for their actions. You sound more like a pharisee than that Catholic Church does, you judge those based on yourself but you forget we judge ourselves based on G-d. So, with all these things of helping the poor and the downtrodden that the Catholic Church does, yet we still recognized that without G-d, nothing would be possible, you stand on the sidelines and do what brother? If hypocrisy is what keeps you from church, that just means the hypocrites are just that much closer to G-d than you are.
I don’t say anything of the sort, it was Catholic people who did it and we pray for our sins everyday, all our sins. Don’t judge us like the Pharisee judges the tax collector, because at least the tax collector beats his chest in penance to G-d.
Please stop using straw man (not a good one either) this has nothing to do with Ty being a heretic.
I never said that, Jesus did. I quoted him. Go ahead and direct that one to the sky. Lol at declaring what Christ cannot do. I doubt all those people that we helped would call us a monstrous pervesion of Christian charity. In love, I just think you have an agenda and instead of having a friendly debate over theological issues you would rather bash, and that is fine. All actions have consequences. If you wish to argue in love, I’m fine with that but when you talk about our sins, look at our fruits first.
I am not a good man, thanks for the compliment. I cannot go one day without committing mortal sins.
Well, once you have authority over the scriptures you can declare that. Until then you are just making private interpretations. You should be careful about those, they go against your Bible as well as mine.
[quote]
These are just a few reasons why I cannot, in good conscience, accept the RCC’s claim as the One True Church.[/quote]
Spill them, see if we cannot hash those out. I’ll get my apologetic hat on.[/quote]
I don’t think you’re very good at reading between the lines. When I speak in hypotheticals, using words like “can”, “could”, “might”, you seem to miss the point.[/quote]
I am not sure what you are talking about, but okay.
[quote]
I tried to compliment you by saying I imagine you’re as good a man AS ANY other. You seem to frown on that, as if I don’t understand Jesus’ warning about calling men good.[/quote]
No, I know that verse as the same thing as “call no man father” verse. I said thank you for the compliment.
As Ignatius* said, “For neither am I worthy, being the least among [men].” There are many that are above me, and I only hope that G-d’s mercy extends to me, I know his word and his asking of us to be perfect, and I am not where close.
[quote]
You act as if I’m judging individuals by pointing out an institutional failure that went far beyond a little backsliding. There’s a distinction between individual believers like you and I and an institution that claims infallibity.[/quote]
The Catholic Church’s actions where never claimed to be infallible, their teachings and only some of their teachings are infallible. If the institutes actions were to be infallible then no one in the Catholic Church’s clergy would have to go to confession, yet all of us do (okay not all of us, but a lot of us do).
[quote]
And, finally, straw man? If that’s not the pot calling the kettle black. You infer arguments that I never tried to make and then make me out to be some self-righteous prick. I don’t know if you’re willfully manipulating the conversation or if I’m just a poor communicator.[/quote]
I am not trying to make you out to be anything, I am just asking you not to lead it that way or do certain things that it seems would lead the argument off track. Sorry if I offended you.
A debate is never pointless. Debates are not for the purpose of converting those that which you argue with, but to in good showmanship have fun and form arguments.
*Another good quote from Ignatius, â??We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchic Church defines it thus.â??
Another good quote: â??The enemy is like a woman, weak in face of opposition, but correspondingly strong when not opposed. In a quarrel with a man, it is natural for a woman to lose heart and run away when he faces up to her; on the other hand, if the man begins to be afraid and to give ground, her rage, vindictiveness and fury overflow and know no limit.â??
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, this is an act of G-d, I cannot judge G-d. If something like that happens, I ask for mercy on their souls. G-d has his reasons, and it may seem harsh, but He has a reason for it. And I cannot argue against it.
Yes, they were correct. I think this falls in to Mosaic laws more than G-d’s laws but I could be incorrect as I am going off memory fumes and not dogma. The fact is that kings had slaves, there is a right way and a wrong way to treat even those that are slaves. Do I think slavery is wrong as we knew it in America, yes. They were not won as war booty in a battle.
Yes, this is what I call a Mosaic law, this was more of a protective law than a law made by G-d. Eating pork back then is dangerous. Especially back then would I adhere to that law. I think the laws like these were more for safety and proper treatment than actually being something that was against G-d, which is why Jesus spoke of them they way He did.
I can’t bring myself to believe in the Truth of the old testament. I do think it was appropriate for the time and contains good advice, but I cannot accept it as divinely inspired.
Well, that is troublesome for sure, however I wish you would look at it this way, man was distant very distant from G-d at this time and age. The way G-d is looked at during this time period by the Jews is different than we seem Him today, because of Jesus. G-d did some things that people consider horrendous, which He still does today. However, when something happens like genocide, G-d can still use evil for good.
I will definitely find you some things to read, hopefully they have them on Google books. You seem very interested in all this, and answers are needed.
My answer still stands though, when searching for truth, rationally, you do not conform what you find to what you think, but you conform your knowledge to the truth. It is hard to accept that G-d can smite someone, that He can strike down a soldier in battle because another man asks Him to. It is hard to accept that He did such a harsh thing to Adam and Eve, but the matter of fact is that He did it, and even though it seems evil, and it maybe an evil thing that happened, He can make good out of it.
Peace be with you.[/quote]
How do you differentiate between mosaic (levitical) law and “gods law”. Mosaic law was also from god. Are you saying mosaic law is somehow less official?
[/quote]
I’m not really studied up on the whole what part of the law was dealt with by Jesus, all I know is that Jesus fulfilled the law. I know that much.
…comparing of the Holy Catholic Church to the Pharisees…
Well there is a lot in common with the Pharisees, there is no doubt. However there is quite a lot that is different. …I will make this short as I have to get back to my duties…
The sons and daughters that which make up the Holy Catholic Church and the Pharisees have a lot in common, they both upheld the law, they both had hypocrites in them, and the both do many Holy things.
However, the difference is that the Pharisees, which Jesus had condemned, had done these things out of Pride. Yes, they did them out of pride, and as we can suspect or assume Pride is what holds us back from Holiness. Do not mistake my words, Holy people can be sinners, and there are a lot of sinners that are Holy. King David, a sinner amongst sinners was a Holy man. As is said of King David, he was a man after Our Father’s heart. As a Holy Catholic should be, as well. As any a man should be, even though I pray that all also hold the title of Holy Catholic, that is of your own free will.
For a Holy Catholic man should hold no pride, he should humble himself before Our Father, our Holiest Father. And, when he–a Holy Catholic man–like our Jewish brethren, do holy things, he should not do them with the same motive as the Pharisees. For their motive was out of Pride, as Jesus warned us against.
Do not fast and moan on about your sufferings, do not pray on the street corner so others can see, do not Tithe and proclaim your works. Do them because you are in love (Gk. agape) with Our Father.
With this love may come gifts like that of Blessed Mother Teresa, who for many years even though her works were many, rarely heard the voice of Our Father in prayer. Or, our gifts may be like that of St. Thomas Aquinas, who repeatedly fell into ecstasy through the Holy Ghost, and who heard that of Our Father and was blessed of many things, among them greatest was the gift of reason.
And, that is the difference between Holy Catholics and the Pharisees.
…back to having fun…I guess he don’t want me to sleep tonight…