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

Discovering the Truth...

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    mdebets wrote: »
    No these rules weren't man made they were following the strict interpretation of God's law. The not healing on the sabbath comes from you should not work on sabbath. This interpretation contradicts however the spirit of God's laws that you should have compassion for your neighbours. Thats why Jesus condemed it. As according to you, the bible is right, this would suggest that for Jesus the spirit was more important than a following of the laws to the last point.
    OK, agreed.
    mdebets wrote: »
    If you follow this example you could deduct that the living of a Christian life and following the 10 commandmends and cerman on the mount are more important then what you believe in some minor details. And the changes are reallyjust some minor details which have no influence whatsoever on the core Christian message.
    I accept the core of the Christian message like every other Christian. But I don't see how anyone can say that for example
    that the real presense or not of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament is of no importance. Jesus did after all say that "unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life within you" John 6:54. Nobody want to have no life within them!
    mdebets wrote: »
    Take for example the Immaculate Conception. WHat changed on the core Message of the Catholic church from the time before it became a dogma in 1854 and afterwards?
    I don't know really. Probably not a whole lot.

    God bless,
    Noel.


  • Options
    #93
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Think about what you are saying here Noel. You don't want to take the chance on contraception being evil. But yet you are taking the chance that the organisation you are loyal to may not be what it says it is.
    Yes I'm placing my trust in the Church because I believe it is the same Church referred to by Christ in Mt 16:18. You are also taking a chance by not accepting the Church founded by Christ. I know you don't believe that though :)
    JimiTime wrote: »
    I personally don't think the pill is a good idea for women, on the basis that it messes with their nature, and has a negative effect on their health IMO.
    There is a more serious effect in that the pill can prevent an fertilized egg implanting in the uterus i.e. can be an abortifacient.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    I mean, what is the difference between using a condom and withdrawl?
    none really. Withdrawl is wrong too.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    I'm sure you see the context of Onan was to do with disobedience rather than his action?
    I'm inclined not to agree. The way I read it God killed Onan because withdrew!

    9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

    I don't see any reason to believe the "detestable thing" was Onan's disobedience.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    However, you are quite happy to let an organisation call themselves 'gods representitives on earth', quite categoriacally disobey Jesus himself by burning and killing their enemies.
    Charging indulgences.
    We've been over this ground already.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Adding doctrine that has no biblical basis etc.
    Remember that the Church wrote the NT and that as John said

    Jn 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

    Christ sent the apostles in the world to teach, not a book.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    These people are the folk you advocate, and leave your spiritual health with. Should you not be more concerned with the most obvious shows of disobedience to Christ?
    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Christ never promised that any of His followers would be free from sin. Even St. Paul struggled with sin:
    15 For that which I work, I understand not. For I do not that good which I will; but the evil which I hate, that I do.....22 For I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, fighting against the law of my mind, and captivating me in the law of sin, that is in my members. 24 Unhappy man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 The grace of God, by Jesus Christ our Lord. Therefore, I myself, with the mind serve the law of God; but with the flesh, the law of sin.

    Blessing and peace brother!
    Noel.


  • Options
    #94
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Yes I'm placing my trust in the Church because I believe it is the same Church referred to by Christ in Mt 16:18. You are also taking a chance by not accepting the Church founded by Christ. I know you don't believe that though :)

    There is a more serious effect in that the pill can prevent an fertilized egg implanting in the uterus i.e. can be an abortifacient.

    none really. Withdrawl is wrong too.

    I'm inclined not to agree. The way I read it God killed Onan because withdrew!

    9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

    I don't see any reason to believe the "detestable thing" was Onan's disobedience.

    We've been over this ground already.

    Remember that the Church wrote the NT and that as John said

    Jn 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

    Christ sent the apostles in the world to teach, not a book.

    Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Christ never promised that any of His followers would be free from sin. Even St. Paul struggled with sin:



    Blessing and peace brother!
    Noel.


    Well I suppose i should be happy that you got my point at least. you know all the facts, and are content in the conclusions you've drawn. Fair enough.

    At least you consider me brother.

    God Bless:)
    Jimi.


  • Options
    #95
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    kelly1 said:
    James 5 shows that priests had the power to forgive sins

    14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church
    I'm sorry not to have responded to your most interesting posts earlier, but I have been busy on another thread and am now restricted by time.

    Let me ask two brief questions however:
    1. What version are you using that translates the Greek presbuteros as priests? The word means elders, not priests. The Greek for priests is hiereus.

    2. You originally said:
    Up to the time of the Reformation, there was only one Christian Church whose teachings never changed (and still haven't changed).
    Of course you have forgotten the Eastern Church, which split with Rome long before the Reformation; and the many believer-only churches that were hounded to death by the RCC down the centuries before the Reformation. But the question I want to ask from your statement is this:
    Are all the teachings of the Popes infallible? If not, how do we know which ones are and which ones aren't? Does that not put you in at least as much difficulty as the Protestants?


  • Options
    #96
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    kelly1 wrote:
    9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother's wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother's name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

    It was a detestable thing because Onan had disobeyed the command of the Lord, and had deprived his brothers wife of children? I don't think the spilling of the seed was detestable, it was his selfishness.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It was a detestable thing because Onan had disobeyed the command of the Lord, and had deprived his brothers wife of children? I don't think the spilling of the seed was detestable, it was his selfishness.
    I don't see how you come up with this interpretation. Notice the word "therefore". Onan was disobedient to Juda, not the Lord.

    God bless,
    Noel.


  • Options
    #98
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I don't see how you come up with this interpretation. Notice the word "therefore". Onan was disobedient to Juda, not the Lord.

    God bless,
    Noel.

    This is highly disingenous Noel. You can argue for your interpretation, fair enough. But to say 'I don't know how you come up with that interpretation' to Jackass is ridiculous. Lets see it in context.

    Genesis 38
    6And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7But Er, Judah’s firstborn,(G) was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and the LORD put him to death. 8Then Judah said to Onan, "Go in to(H) your brother’s wife and(I) perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother." 9But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. 10And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also.

    It is as plain as your face that one can interpret this as punishment for not fulfilling his duty as brother in law. Spilling his seed being the method of disobedience that caused God to see him wicked, not the act of spilling his seed itself. To say 'you can't see how jackass can get that interpretation',:confused: . Disagree with it, but don't try say that that is not a valid interpretation. :confused: I'm sure if your church said it was that way, you'd be trying to tell us, 'how we see it another way'.


  • Options
    #99
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I don't see how you come up with this interpretation. Notice the word "therefore". Onan was disobedient to Juda, not the Lord.

    Well Noel, it's disobedient to the Lord as in the Law, a brother of the deceased male was expected to provide a child to the widow, so that the deceased would not depart childless. Eusebius in his History of the Church also claims this is the reasons why the two genealogies of Christ differ, one takes into account fathers according to the law, and one takes account of biological fathers where possible.

    My cross reference Bible seems to agree with me: which led me to the following verse:
    Deuteronomy 25:5-6 wrote:
    When brothers reside together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not by married outside of the family to a stranger. Her husbands brother shall go in to her, taking her in marriage, and performing the duty of a husband's brother to her, and the firstborn whome she bears shall succeed to the name of the deceased brother, so that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.

    Refusal to fulfil the Lord's law and ultimately disobedience, was the reason for Onan's death. Not neccessarily the use of a form of contraception. It was more a outright refusal (assuming this happened on several occasions) to follow his duty to his brother while continuing to have sex with his widow making a mockery of the Law of the Lord.


  • Options
    #100
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Well Noel, it's disobedient to the Lord as in the Law, a brother of the deceased male was expected to provide a child to the widow, so that the deceased would not depart childless. Eusebius in his History of the Church also claims this is the reasons why the two genealogies of Christ differ, one takes into account fathers according to the law, and one takes account of biological fathers where possible.

    My cross reference Bible seems to agree with me: which led me to the following verse:


    Refusal to fulfil the Lord's law and ultimately disobedience, was the reason for Onan's death. Not neccessarily the use of a form of contraception. It was more a outright refusal (assuming this happened on several occasions) to follow his duty to his brother while continuing to have sex with his widow making a mockery of the Law of the Lord.

    I take your point but I still think the other interpretation is equally likely. Sometimes I wish the bible was more explicit on these things!

    God bless,
    Noel.


  • Options
    #101
    Ashanti~Rose
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2 ✭Ashanti~Rose


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I believe I did Dave. The Church wrote the New Testament under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus in John 14:26.

    My own interpretation is of no use because I don't have the authority to do so. My point is that the NT was written by the Apostles and so the Church alone has the authority to interpret scripture correctly. If you want to understand the true meaning of a book, you go to the authors don't you?

    God bless,
    Noel.

    Hi Kelly,interesting point.If you want to understand the true meaning of a book look to the authors..the bible was written by men,edited by men and who knows but God if they were divinely inspired messages or not?
    Sharonxoxo


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    kelly1 wrote: »
    I take your point but I still think the other interpretation is equally likely. Sometimes I wish the bible was more explicit on these things!

    God bless,
    Noel.


    Why? You believe contraception is wrong because your church has taken a scripture, interpretted it a certain way, and used it to say contraception is wicked. Nowhere else is their any indication of such an act being wrong, yet there are many indications of such disobedience being wrong. Looking at the scriptures in context, it is clear which interpretation is correct. Only when it is isolated can you interpret it the way the RCC do. For me its clear. 'One scripture that could possibly be interpretted in a certain way, but has nothing else to back up that interpretation'. Or, 'Another interpretation, which has lots of scripture to back it up'. Quite explicit Tbh.


  • Options
    #103
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Why? You believe contraception is wrong because your church has taken a scripture, interpretted it a certain way, and used it to say contraception is wicked. Nowhere else is their any indication of such an act being wrong, yet there are many indications of such disobedience being wrong. Looking at the scriptures in context, it is clear which interpretation is correct. Only when it is isolated can you interpret it the way the RCC do. For me its clear. 'One scripture that could possibly be interpretted in a certain way, but has nothing else to back up that interpretation'. Or, 'Another interpretation, which has lots of scripture to back it up'. Quite explicit Tbh.
    It's not clear from the passage which "detestable thing" the author was referring to. It could have been disobedience to the law or the spilling of seed, couldn't it? You have a biased view on it, just as I have.


  • Options
    #104
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    kelly1 wrote: »
    It's not clear from the passage which "detestable thing" the author was referring to. It could have been disobedience to the law or the spilling of seed, couldn't it?

    As I have said already. Taken in isolation, it could be argued, but still not strongly, that the spilling of the seed was the wicked act. However, the fact that 'nowhere' else in scripture is this backed up knocks it down. While the disobedience interpretation is backed up many times. Even to the extent where the duty of a brother in law is mentioned. You can't be more explicit than that. The confusion starts when someone has an agenda to push regarding contraception and isolates a scripture like this and tries to use it incorrectly.
    You have a biased view on it, just as I have.

    How am I biased? I can see you are biased, as you just want to stay with catholic doctrine. But how am I? I have read it in context, and see no way that the RCC interpretation is correct. Once you start taking scripture out of context, you can say alot of things that look like they could be valid interpretation. its only in context can you pluck out the weeds.


  • Options
    #105
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    JimiTime wrote: »
    As I have said already. Taken in isolation, it could be argued, but still not strongly, that the spilling of the seed was the wicked act. However, the fact that 'nowhere' else in scripture is this backed up knocks it down. While the disobedience interpretation is backed up many times. Even to the extent where the duty of a brother in law is mentioned. You can't be more explicit than that. The confusion starts when someone has an agenda to push regarding contraception and isolates a scripture like this and tries to use it incorrectly.
    If you look in Deuteronomy 25:7-10, you'll find that the penalty for not keeping up the lineage is public humiliation, not death:

    9 The woman shall come to him before the ancients, and shall take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and say: So shall it be done to the man that will not build up his brother's house: 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of the unshod.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    How am I biased? I can see you are biased, as you just want to stay with catholic doctrine. But how am I?
    Everyone is biased to some extent. The first time I heard about the Onan passage was in defense of the doctrine on contraception. So did you come to your own conclusion without having heard an interpretation beforehand?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    I have read it in context, and see no way that the RCC interpretation is correct.
    Are you being disingenuous now?? :)


  • Options
    #106
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    kelly1 wrote: »
    Everyone is biased to some extent. The first time I heard about the Onan passage was in defense of the doctrine on contraception. So did you come to your own conclusion without having heard an interpretation beforehand?

    TBH, yes. I never heard the RCC interpretation when I first read that, and I knew it wasn't speaking about contraception. Before I read it, I never heard of Onan at all.
    Are you being disingenuous now?? :)

    NO. As I said, in isolation, I can see why you would say there is two interpretations. In context though, there is only one.


  • Options
    #107
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    kelly1 wrote: »
    If you look in Deuteronomy 25:7-10, you'll find that the penalty for not keeping up the lineage is public humiliation, not death:

    9 The woman shall come to him before the ancients, and shall take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and say: So shall it be done to the man that will not build up his brother's house: 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of the unshod.

    Indeed good point Noel, I must say. But, wouldn't you think after continued unrepentant disobedience to give his seed to his deceased brothers wife, the Lord would give him his time for death?


  • Options
    #108
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Indeed good point Noel, I must say. But, wouldn't you think after continued unrepentant disobedience to give his seed to his deceased brothers wife, the Lord would give him his time for death?

    That seems a little bloodthirsty


  • Options
    #109
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    bluewolf wrote: »
    That seems a little bloodthirsty

    Well this is the Old Testament God, which is different to the New Testament God


    oh wait ....


  • Options
    #110
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Well this is the Old Testament God, which is different to the New Testament God


    oh wait ....

    Well I meant on jakass' part, demanding a death sentence when his own god didn't feel the need to


  • Options
    #111
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    As requested in another thread:
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Let me ask two brief questions however:
    1. What version are you using that translates the Greek presbuteros as priests? The word means elders, not priests. The Greek for priests is hiereus.
    I used the Douay Rheims online bible. In my own hard-copy of the Ignatius bible, it is indeed translated as elders. So who, in your opinion, were the "elders of the church"?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Are all the teachings of the Popes infallible? If not, how do we know which ones are and which ones aren't? Does that not put you in at least as much difficulty as the Protestants?
    The pope teaches infallibly when he speak "Ex Cathedra" in order to define dogma formally. Otherwise, he's fallible like the rest of us.

    See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm and
    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

    God bless,
    Noel.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    bluewolf wrote: »
    That seems a little bloodthirsty

    well, it seems less bloodthirsty than death for withdrawl on one occasion. If man continually defies the word of God for his own pleasure this was the fate before the saving death of Jesus on the cross. I don't find that so hard to deal with.


  • Options
    #113
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Jakkass wrote: »
    well, it seems less bloodthirsty than death for withdrawl on one occasion. If man continually defies the word of God for his own pleasure...
    ... then it's between him and his god.
    I don't see why you want to go around suggesting death sentences for people doing things that are really none of your business. If god wanted them dead, god would kill them or say so.


  • Options
    #114
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    bluewolf wrote:
    I don't see why you want to go around suggesting death sentences for people doing things that are really none of your business. If god wanted them dead, god would kill them or say so.

    Fair enough, isn't that the point though? God did kill Onan, through his ultimate disobedience and defiance of the rulings he had set. It seems to me to be a more logical reason than saying that God killed him for withdrawing during intercourse, as opposed to him defying God's rules continually.


  • Options
    #115
    wolfsbane
    Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    kelly1 said:
    I used the Douay Rheims online bible. In my own hard-copy of the Ignatius bible, it is indeed translated as elders. So who, in your opinion, were the "elders of the church"?
    They were comparable to the elders of the synagogue - the men more mature spiritually and (usually) in age. Not all such men, but those recognised by the church as being gifted by God to be pastors and teachers of the flock.

    Their qualifications:
    1 Timothy 3:1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

    Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.
    The pope teaches infallibly when he speak "Ex Cathedra" in order to define dogma formally. Otherwise, he's fallible like the rest of us.
    Yes, but it is what is covered by "Ex Cathedra" that proves the difficulty. It seems that a broad swathe of truth is not covered by anything yet infallibly pronounced upon. So in that Roman Catholics are just as prone to error as the rest of us.

    Then too, what exactly are the infallibly pronounced dogmas that are binding and irrevocable? How do they differ from what Evangelicals call the Fundamentals of the Faith? Evangelicals differ about non-fundamentals; it seems that RCs do so over non-infallibly defined dogmas.

    "We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church,..."
    Some practical issues - has the pope spoken infallibly on Contraception? On Creation/Evolution?


    Maybe I'm missing something. Is it really the power of excommunication that gives more unity to Roman Catholicism, rather than any supposed infallibility?


  • Options
    #116
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    kelly1 wrote: »
    The pope teaches infallibly when he speak "Ex Cathedra" in order to define dogma formally. Otherwise, he's fallible like the rest of us.

    In 1324, Pope John XXII produced his Bull Qui Quorundam, a dogmatic assertion of doctrine made to the entire Church and thus infallible by today's rules. In it he reviled the doctrine of papal infallibility as "the work of the devil" and therefore heresy.


  • Options
    #117
    jawlie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 384 ✭✭jawlie


    It seems to me that, in this mainly Irish forum, there seems to be an assumption that the truth is largely connected with what various individuals in the RCC have said over the centuries. Christianity is more than just the RCC and, for example, the RCC's obsession with matters sexual over the 20th century, seems to show that the RCC is not the most reliable or consistent source for whatever truth it is we seek.

    We are asked to believe that Jesus was born to a pure virgin thanks to the good offices of the Holy Ghost. He lived a good life, preaching and performing miracles, then died, cruelly but necessarily, to redeem the original sin of all mankind.

    But, many Christians tell me that "virgin" is a mis-translation of "girl", in other words, Jesus was not conceived by miraculous means, although he was still "God" in a spiritual sense, and still died to save us from our sin. I am also told that Genesis is largely regarded as a creation myth, which, while it embodies spiritual truths, isn't literally true. So, why did Jesus have to die to redeem us from a myth? And did he live at all? The historical facts surrounding his life are shambolically inaccurate.

    Nazareth didn't exist in the first century AD, while local historians completely failed to notice the earthquake which is said to have marked his death. You'd think God could concoct a more convincing tale, if he seriously wanted anyone to believe it.

    But never mind, Jesus is still wonderful; he hears our prayers, guides our footsteps and makes us good. It's just so odd that Christianity has caused more bloodshed and misery than any other world-wide movement. The burnings and beheadings seem to have stopped, but the ongoing "does God approve of gays?" debate is breathtakingly cruel.

    How can anyone with any sense of balance and clarity believe the RCC?


  • Options
    #118
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    wolfsbane wrote: »
    kelly1 said:

    They were comparable to the elders of the synagogue - the men more mature spiritually and (usually) in age. Not all such men, but those recognised by the church as being gifted by God to be pastors and teachers of the flock.

    Their qualifications:
    1 Timothy 3:1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

    Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

    You seem to be confirming what I said. Before a man can become a bishop, he has to be a priest first.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Yes, but it is what is covered by "Ex Cathedra" that proves the difficulty. It seems that a broad swathe of truth is not covered by anything yet infallibly pronounced upon. So in that Roman Catholics are just as prone to error as the rest of us.
    I'm not clear about what you're getting at here?
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Then too, what exactly are the infallibly pronounced dogmas that are binding and irrevocable?
    There's a list here:
    http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    How do they differ from what Evangelicals call the Fundamentals of the Faith? Evangelicals differ about non-fundamentals; it seems that RCs do so over non-infallibly defined dogmas.
    I don't know about Evangelicals articles of faith.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Some practical issues - has the pope spoken infallibly on Contraception? On Creation/Evolution?
    I'm not sure if the evilness of contraception is infallibly declared. It's dealt with in Humanae Vitae (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html)
    And no there hasn't been any declaration of evolution vs creation. The Church though has infallibly declared that God at some point created a first soul in a human being we know as Adam. There might have been humans before Adam who were without souls, who knows.
    wolfsbane wrote: »
    Maybe I'm missing something. Is it really the power of excommunication that gives more unity to Roman Catholicism, rather than any supposed infallibility?
    I don't see how excommunication can give any kind of unity?? There is unity via common doctrine, common tradition, common leadership under the pope.

    God bless,
    Noel.


  • Options
    #119
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    kelly1 wrote:
    "My own interpretation is of no use because I don't have the authority to do so. My point is that the NT was written by the Apostles and so the Church alone has the authority to interpret scripture correctly. If you want to understand the true meaning of a book, you go to the authors don't you?"

    Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, John, James, and Jude - the Christian authors of the Bible? The Catholic Church were merely the publisher.

    Where does it say in the Bible that I cannot interpret this, or is this in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church?


  • Options
    #120
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    PDN wrote: »
    In 1324, Pope John XXII produced his Bull Qui Quorundam, a dogmatic assertion of doctrine made to the entire Church and thus infallible by today's rules. In it he reviled the doctrine of papal infallibility as "the work of the devil" and therefore heresy.
    PDN, could you do me the favour of showing me where in "Quia Quorundam" it says that papal infallibility is the "work of the devil"? Are you basing this on hear-say or did you actually read this for yourself?

    God bless,
    Noel.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    kelly1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,026 ✭✭✭kelly1


    jawlie wrote: »
    How can anyone with any sense of balance and clarity believe the RCC?
    I do and I don't appreciate your insult. I pray that God will lead you to the truth.

    God bless,
    Noel.


Advertisement