Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Catholic / Protestant Debate Megathread

Options
1…34689…17

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I'm OK with the term Protestant. I generally describe myself as a Christian first and foremost.


  • Options
    #153
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Right so....


  • Options
    #154
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    PDN wrote: »
    And I have children, more so than celibates who are ignoring all the verses you quoted.

    It doesn't support eating pizza - so it stands in the same light biblically as having sex without having children (although pizza is marginally less enjoyable).

    Ok then if contraception is not in the bible as a word then where is rapture? Some protestants are all over the web with the Rapture whatever that is and it appears less often in the bible than "faith alone".

    Celibacy is a gift from Jesus. Do you want to point out to Him how He is contradicting His Father? Or take it up with St. Paul who endorsed celibacy.

    Well do you?


  • Options
    #155
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    lmaopml: If you want any form of authoritative decision made on your disagreement, pop over to Sys -> Feedback and they will consider your disagreement (boards.ie admins as well as moderators). Best to do it in the early stages of the thread before it becomes too much of a normative.

    StealthRolex: No way of discussing without making everyone look like a rebellious child when they disagree with you? :)


  • Options
    #156
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Please either stick something in the Charter for us to 'abide' by or else don't imprison all RC faith related topics to one thread...

    Why do you keep repeating something that is untrue?

    RC faith related topics can be discussed in other threads. But debates between Protestants and Catholics as to who is right will remain in this thread. Learn to live with it.

    When I see the bigotry already on display in this thread (accusing others of basing their beliefs on lies), I feel the rest of the forum is already a healthier environment for all Christians to discuss everything else. It also enables us to deal with the occasional anti-Catholic statements which, at times, have spoiled the forum for others.

    We are not going to keep discussing this with you. If you have an issue with moderating decisions then address them through PM or in Feedback. Please let's avoid any more backseat modding.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    lmaopml - It isn't putting all RC topics into one thread. It's putting all RC / Protestant disputes and debates into this thread, and thus cleaning up the main forum.

    StealthRolex - The spread of HIV doesn't happen because of contraceptives, but rather due to having sexual relations outside of marriage, or in marriage with multiple partners.

    Did you even read the article or my comment to introduce it?

    read what I said and read the article. Women on the pill are at a higher risk of getting HIV and yes I know that is dependant on who their partner(s) is(are) and where they have been.

    There is only one reason for artificial contraceptives - to turn human beings into sex toys.


  • Options
    #158
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    lmaopml: If you want any form of authoritative decision made on your disagreement, pop over to Sys -> Feedback and they will consider your disagreement (boards.ie admins as well as moderators). Best to do it in the early stages of the thread before it becomes too much of a normative.

    StealthRolex: No way of discussing without making everyone look like a rebellious child when they disagree with you? :)


    That wouldn't be a back seat mod attempt now would it?


  • Options
    #159
    smurfhousing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭smurfhousing


    evil-monkeys.jpg


  • Options
    #160
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Ok then if contraception is not in the bible as a word then where is rapture? Some protestants are all over the web with the Rapture whatever that is and it appears less often in the bible than "faith alone".

    Actually, and this is rather funny, the word 'rapture' is simply an anglicised form of rapio a word that is found in your beloved Vulgate.

    deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

    So, according to your earlier posts, the word 'rapture' is lifted directly from the true Bible as authorised by your Magisterium. :)


  • Options
    #161
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Did you even read the article or my comment to introduce it?

    read what I said and read the article. Women on the pill are at a higher risk of getting HIV and yes I know that is dependant on who their partner(s) is(are) and where they have been.
    .

    And couples who use condoms are less likely to get HIV. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    smurfhousing wrote: »
    evil-monkeys.jpg

    Sorry smurf - looks like they're too busy looking for easier targets :)

    I think your post 138 and 148 has them stumped. Looks like it's your round :D


  • Options
    #163
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    smurfhousing wrote: »
    evil-monkeys.jpg

    You need to understand that not every post on boards.ie gets answered. Sometimes other posters see them as being irrelevant, or not worth answering.

    The views of early church fathers are not considered authoritative by non-Catholics (nor are the views of Luther or Calvin), so why would non-Catholics bother answering to a post that doesn't make any kind of argument as to their position?

    It's like all the times you and Stealth Rolex say that something must be true because the Roman Catholic Church says so. While you are free to believe that if you wish, it is less than convincing to anyone who doesn't share your assumptions.


  • Options
    #164
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    PDN wrote: »
    And couples who use condoms are less likely to get HIV. :rolleyes:

    Did you read the article?

    Conclusion: This meta-analysis found a significant association between oral contraceptive use and HIV-1 seroprevalence or seroincidence. For women at risk of HIV-1 infection, oral contraceptive use for prevention of pregnancy should be accompanied by condom use for prevention of HIV-1 infection.


  • Options
    #165
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    PDN wrote: »

    It's like all the times you and Stealth Rolex say that something must be true because the Roman Catholic Church says so. While you are free to believe that if you wish, it is less than convincing to anyone who doesn't share your assumptions.


    I'm interested to know if there is anything the Catholic Church says that is not true.


  • Options
    #166
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    PDN wrote: »
    Actually, and this is rather funny, the word 'rapture' is simply an anglicised form of rapio a word that is found in your beloved Vulgate.

    deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

    So, according to your earlier posts, the word 'rapture' is lifted directly from the true Bible as authorised by your Magisterium. :)

    Interesting. Another anglicisation is rape. But I'll give you half a point anyway. Good effort.


  • Options
    #167
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    I'm interested to know if there is anything the Catholic Church says that is not true.

    No, i don't think you are interested to know that at all. I think you will happily deny it as Protestant propagana no matter what evidence is presented to you.

    The Roman Catholic Church has changed its teaching many times over the years. According to the law of non-contradiction, the teaching in some past papal bulls was evidently untrue.


  • Options
    #168
    smurfhousing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭smurfhousing


    PDN wrote: »
    You need to understand that not every post on boards.ie gets answered. Sometimes other posters see them as being irrelevant, or not worth answering.

    The views of early church fathers are not considered authoritative by non-Catholics (nor are the views of Luther or Calvin), so why would non-Catholics bother answering to a post that doesn't make any kind of argument as to their position?

    It's like all the times you and Stealth Rolex say that something must be true because the Roman Catholic Church says so. While you are free to believe that if you wish, it is less than convincing to anyone who doesn't share your assumptions.

    That is interesting. Jakkass rejects 2000 years of constant Church teaching, and you feel free to reject the witness and teachings of the earliest Christians. Smacks of arrogance and pride.

    See, this is a classic case of where sola scriptura breaks down. Without recourse to Tradition, the Natural Law, common sense, the Magisterium, and human experience, all that you have is the bible, and your own fallen human condition, to make your own judgements about what is right and wrong. Cue the natural desire to ignore sin, in order that life might be more convenient and pleasurable. Moral relativity sets in, sin loses its revulsion, and condoning of sins takes place. But at what cost?
    Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

    ~Prophecy Of Isaias 5,20


  • Options
    #169
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    smurfhousing wrote: »
    That is interesting. Jakkass rejects 2000 years of constant Church teaching, and you feel free to reject the witness and teachings of the earliest Christians. Smacks of arrogance and pride.

    The earliest Christians held a wide variety of opinions on many subjects. So do you accept Tertullian's endorsement of Montanism?

    The earliest Christians were, like all of us, people who got some things right and also got some stuff wrong.


  • Options
    #170
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    PDN wrote: »
    No, i don't think you are interested to know that at all. I think you will happily deny it as Protestant propagana no matter what evidence is presented to you.

    The Roman Catholic Church has changed its teaching many times over the years. According to the law of non-contradiction, the teaching in some past papal bulls was evidently untrue.

    So lets deal with current teaching. 2000yrs of experience - I reckon most of it should be ok now.

    As for protestant propaganda - we've already had Mary worship chucked in so you can't really blame me for thinking like that.


  • Options
    #171
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    PDN wrote: »
    No, i don't think you are interested to know that at all. I think you will happily deny it as Protestant propagana no matter what evidence is presented to you.

    The Roman Catholic Church has changed its teaching many times over the years. According to the law of non-contradiction, the teaching in some past papal bulls was evidently untrue.

    Revised. I think that's actually a cop out and there is nothing that can be presented.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    So lets deal with current teaching. 2000yrs of experience - I reckon most of it should be ok now.

    As for protestant propaganda - we've already had Mary worship chucked in so you can't really blame me for thinking like that.

    So, let's get this straight. Your position is that the Roman Catholic Church taught stuff that wan't true in the past - but now it's got its act together and everything is true now?

    How fortunate of you to live in an age when there are no mistakes, rather than in previous centuries.


  • Options
    #173
    smurfhousing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭smurfhousing


    PDN wrote: »
    The earliest Christians held a wide variety of opinions on many subjects. So do you accept Tertullian's endorsement of Montanism?

    The earliest Christians were, like all of us, people who got some things right and also got some stuff wrong.

    If we really love God, if we have really turned our lives over to Him, we would want to do anything to avoid violating God's will. We wouldn't take a chance of doing anything that might offend Him, even if there's only a small chance that it might be wrong.To do otherwise is risk everything for the sake of our own personal convenience and pleasure, and shows, therefore, that we value our own reason more than the love of God. This is pride, the primordial sin.


  • Options
    #174
    smurfhousing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭smurfhousing


    PDN wrote: »
    So, let's get this straight. Your position is that the Roman Catholic Church taught stuff that wan't true in the past - but now it's got its act together and everything is true now?

    How fortunate of you to live in an age when there are no mistakes, rather than in previous centuries.
    That is a falsehood. The Church teachings on faith and morals are guaranteed to be without error by the Holy Spirit. You are unable to backup your accusations.

    The Church has taught truth without errors on matters of faith and morals over the last 2000 years.

    I should add that the tone on this thread has become quite anti-Catholic. It is the spirit of the world at work.


  • Options
    #175
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    PDN wrote: »
    So, let's get this straight. Your position is that the Roman Catholic Church taught stuff that wan't true in the past - but now it's got its act together and everything is true now?

    How fortunate of you to live in an age when there are no mistakes, rather than in previous centuries.

    Not quite and I feel a little misrepresented but that's my fault, I bit your bait
    - you seem to think that the Church has changed its teaching. I am of the opinion that the Church has not changed its teaching.

    The Catholic Church is protected from error in the teaching of faith and morals by the Holy Spirit.

    1 Timothy 3:15 is either true or not true.
    - because it is in the Bible it is true.
    - if it refers to what is known today as the Catholic Church there is only one conclusion.

    As you rightly suggested earlier we are otherwise left with protestant propoganda or truth.
    Does the truth lie with the Protestants - any particular church or none
    Or does the truth lie with the Catholic Church

    Simple - find an error in the teaching of the Catholic Church


  • Options
    #176
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    PDN wrote: »
    Why do you keep repeating something that is untrue?

    RC faith related topics can be discussed in other threads. But debates between Protestants and Catholics as to who is right will remain in this thread. Learn to live with it.

    When I see the bigotry already on display in this thread (accusing others of basing their beliefs on lies), I feel the rest of the forum is already a healthier environment for all Christians to discuss everything else. It also enables us to deal with the occasional anti-Catholic statements which, at times, have spoiled the forum for others.

    We are not going to keep discussing this with you. If you have an issue with moderating decisions then address them through PM or in Feedback. Please let's avoid any more backseat modding.

    Ok..I wasn't being backseat anything though, I was just 'asking'...

    ....and by the way 'nobody' discussed it at all really, it just happened.

    Bigotry is a two way street! and this thread is the chanell...

    So please continue...


  • Options
    #177
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Bigotry is a two way street! and this thread is the chanell...

    I honestly don't know what has been said that could constitute bigotry on the counter side of these arguments. All we have been doing is presenting our disagreement to StealthRolex and smurfhousing since they started advocating certain views on this forum.


  • Options
    #178
    smurfhousing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭smurfhousing


    PDN wrote: »
    According to the law of non-contradiction, the teaching in some past papal bulls was evidently untrue.

    Papal Bulls dealt with all sorts of issues, not just issues pertaining to official Church teachings on faith and morals.


  • Options
    #179
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I honestly don't know what has been said that could constitute bigotry on the counter side of these arguments. All we have been doing is presenting our disagreement to StealthRolex and smurfhousing since they started advocating certain views on this forum.

    Unfortunately we find ourselves in a dilemma.

    If we answer their questions we are accused of being 'anti-Catholic' because we don't agree with everything they believe.

    If we don't answer their questions then they claim to have stumped us.

    For what it's worth - I am just as much anti-Protestant as I am anti-Catholic. I think both the Catholic churches and Protestant churches make mistakes, have faults and need to be a bit more humble.


  • Options
    #180
    smurfhousing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 190 ✭✭smurfhousing


    PDN wrote: »
    If we don't answer their questions then they claim to have stumped us.

    For what it's worth - I am just as much anti-Protestant as I am anti-Catholic. I think both the Catholic churches and Protestant churches make mistakes, have faults and need to be a bit more humble.

    I think I have stumped, because my last few posts have been ignored, like totally.

    Usually, the suggestion that the Catholic Church needs to be more humble means, basically ''SHUT UP! We don't like it when you...like.. talk to us about... er... sin... and stuff.''


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I honestly don't know what has been said that could constitute bigotry on the counter side of these arguments. All we have been doing is presenting our disagreement to StealthRolex and smurfhousing since they started advocating certain views on this forum.

    Well then put it in the charter, don't make a huge 'drama' out of it...and create a huge deal...

    Stealth and Smurf where approached on this thread first to 'explain' their positions, and likewise during the week when the threads where started asking RC's to define what they meant by a certain position...like or lump the way they explain they have to 'abide' by the charter..and warnings..!

    One week when a few RC people with some gusto actually log on here...

    There are plenty of people with 'gusto' on the forum..and they all stand down when approached, but don't get a thread donated to them after one week...


Advertisement