Help/Advice

Phototoxin

I was 'made' to go to 'midnight mass' (actually a vigil mass at 8pm but its irrelavant!) and I kinda got ticked off. Maybe it was just the mostly terrible singing I dont know but it got me thinking.

6 1/2 months ago I was diagnosed with a serious long term illness and now I get physically stressed while at mass. I initally hadn't the energy or interest to go. Now I just dont have the interest. When I go I get annoyed at stupid things like communion in the hand, women with no headcoverings (rule is still in effect), the hypocracy of people who only go to mass following the 'Number of masses in a given year = 2 + F + B + M' formula of Catholicsm. The sort of wishy washyness that priests are forced to conted with. I get annoyed at the idea that there are people who take communion and dont realise what it/is supposed to mean(s). I think I may be envious of thier ignorance.
Since going to uni I have met CU/Evangelical types and never realsied the different branches of Chrsitianity so I had to educate myself. I went to a couple of Latin masses and stuff too. Yet I disagree with the extreme 'be afraid of the priest' old style 'uber trad' Catholicism as well as the neo-evangelical shenangicans of Y2K type 'we're so happy all the time' rubbish.

I now know more church teachings than your average Irish Catholic and I find I disagree with some of them [initally purgatory, then original sin, then immaculate conception, then assumption,(most of the mary stuff!) , then transubstantiaton.] so find it pointless to go to mass. However I have a slight worry about easter as then it is crunch time when I am supposed to get communion (minimum 1 year near easter) but I cannot as its sacreligious to get it if in mortal sin (most probably) or dont belive in transubstantiaon (which I dont). There have been times (before I got ill) when I have lost sleep worrying about these things but I dont anymore.

My next concern GF is an Anglican though her church is quite 'low' [FYI high anglican ~ tradtiional catholic-y] so are more relaxed and non-judgemental yet a bit more bible-y. She is quite religous and if we got married (very real possibility) I worry about the religious differnces being problematic. However at the moment I dont agree with protestantism as to me to accept the bible means that one would have to accept the RC councils that state its infallible/the books are correct. The only reason to belive the RCC is right is because of the bible so it gets circular but either way seems to preculde protestantism which is based on a book that has no backup as to where it came from [not dissing protestanism just saying it like how it seems to me and where my confusion lies.] Also the whole premise of god killing his son to save us from his wrath which he damned us to because some guy ate an apple/pomegranite 6000 years ago seems a bit thin at the moment. [comes back to original sin and my difficulty in the RC teaching of it]

I am also still angry at God for me being ill though that now seems a little irrational as its probably all the dioxins in the air from the disasterously managed dump about 5 miles from where I live. My faith was/is important to me.. I used to read at Mass, and say the rosary at funerals and do all the little 'extras' in catholicsim. Now its all dead to me.

As for alternatives I find islam and judaism based on books which to me means I could base a religion on lord of the rings or dune and it would be equally as valid. All sorts of Paganism sounds like someone with an over active imagination has read dungeons and dragons and mixes up fantasy and reality. Buddhism isn't technically a religon as it has no deity. Most other religons then seem more cultural. Non-theistic satanism I disagree with in terms of logic and morals so that's out.

I realise I am very confused and this mightn't make much sense but has anyone else been here and if so would they have advice.

Húrin

Phototoxin wrote: »

I now know more church teachings than your average Irish Catholic and I find I disagree with some of them [initally purgatory, then original sin, then immaculate conception, then assumption,(most of the mary stuff!) , then transubstantiaton.] so find it pointless to go to mass. However I have a slight worry about easter as then it is crunch time when I am supposed to get communion (minimum 1 year near easter) but I cannot as its sacreligious to get it if in mortal sin (most probably) or dont belive in transubstantiaon (which I dont). There have been times (before I got ill) when I have lost sleep worrying about these things but I dont anymore.

My next concern GF is an Anglican though her church is quite 'low' [FYI high anglican ~ tradtiional catholic-y] so are more relaxed and non-judgemental yet a bit more bible-y. She is quite religous and if we got married (very real possibility) I worry about the religious differnces being problematic. However at the moment I dont agree with protestantism as to me to accept the bible means that one would have to accept the RC councils that state its infallible/the books are correct. The only reason to belive the RCC is right is because of the bible so it gets circular but either way seems to preculde protestantism which is based on a book that has no backup as to where it came from [not dissing protestanism just saying it like how it seems to me and where my confusion lies.] Also the whole premise of god killing his son to save us from his wrath which he damned us to because some guy ate an apple/pomegranite 6000 years ago seems a bit thin at the moment. [comes back to original sin and my difficulty in the RC teaching of it]

I am also still angry at God for me being ill though that now seems a little irrational as its probably all the dioxins in the air from the disasterously managed dump about 5 miles from where I live. My faith was/is important to me.. I used to read at Mass, and say the rosary at funerals and do all the little 'extras' in catholicsim. Now its all dead to me.

All Christian denominations are based on the Bible including Catholicism and (Anglican) Protestant belief. The reason for this is because the Bible is the book which gives accounts of the life of Jesus.

I think your beliefs would actually be more in line with your girlfriend's denomination, because they presumably also reject purgatory and literal transubstantiation.

I have my doubts about original sin being a true doctrine as well (in either a literal, figurative or symbolic way). This doctrine is asserted by all Christian denominations. However I still feel that we need Jesus Christ because sin is a reality in our lives that makes communion with God difficult - whether or not the original sin story is a true representation of why sin exists.

I think it's alright to be angry with God, just keep talking with him and keep your faith and he will help you.

Helix

Phototoxin wrote: »

When I go I get annoyed at stupid things like communion in the hand, women with no headcoverings (rule is still in effect), the hypocracy of people who only go to mass following the 'Number of masses in a given year = 2 + F + B + M' formula of Catholicsm. The sort of wishy washyness that priests are forced to conted with. I get annoyed at the idea that there are people who take communion and dont realise what it/is supposed to mean(s).

would you rather those people didnt go, and left you and about 20 other people in church?

Húrin

Helix wrote: »

would you rather those people didnt go, and left you and about 20 other people in church?

What would be the problem with that?

Helix

nothing from my point of view, but im sure the catholics wouldnt like it all that much

kelly1

Phototoxin wrote: »

I was 'made' to go to 'midnight mass' (actually a vigil mass at 8pm but its irrelavant!) and I kinda got ticked off. Maybe it was just the mostly terrible singing I dont know but it got me thinking.

6 1/2 months ago I was diagnosed with a serious long term illness and now I get physically stressed while at mass. I initally hadn't the energy or interest to go. Now I just dont have the interest. When I go I get annoyed at stupid things like communion in the hand, women with no headcoverings (rule is still in effect), the hypocracy of people who only go to mass following the 'Number of masses in a given year = 2 + F + B + M' formula of Catholicsm. The sort of wishy washyness that priests are forced to conted with. I get annoyed at the idea that there are people who take communion and dont realise what it/is supposed to mean(s). I think I may be envious of thier ignorance.
Since going to uni I have met CU/Evangelical types and never realsied the different branches of Chrsitianity so I had to educate myself. I went to a couple of Latin masses and stuff too. Yet I disagree with the extreme 'be afraid of the priest' old style 'uber trad' Catholicism as well as the neo-evangelical shenangicans of Y2K type 'we're so happy all the time' rubbish.

I now know more church teachings than your average Irish Catholic and I find I disagree with some of them [initally purgatory, then original sin, then immaculate conception, then assumption,(most of the mary stuff!) , then transubstantiaton.] so find it pointless to go to mass. However I have a slight worry about easter as then it is crunch time when I am supposed to get communion (minimum 1 year near easter) but I cannot as its sacreligious to get it if in mortal sin (most probably) or dont belive in transubstantiaon (which I dont). There have been times (before I got ill) when I have lost sleep worrying about these things but I dont anymore.

My next concern GF is an Anglican though her church is quite 'low' [FYI high anglican ~ tradtiional catholic-y] so are more relaxed and non-judgemental yet a bit more bible-y. She is quite religous and if we got married (very real possibility) I worry about the religious differnces being problematic. However at the moment I dont agree with protestantism as to me to accept the bible means that one would have to accept the RC councils that state its infallible/the books are correct. The only reason to belive the RCC is right is because of the bible so it gets circular but either way seems to preculde protestantism which is based on a book that has no backup as to where it came from [not dissing protestanism just saying it like how it seems to me and where my confusion lies.] Also the whole premise of god killing his son to save us from his wrath which he damned us to because some guy ate an apple/pomegranite 6000 years ago seems a bit thin at the moment. [comes back to original sin and my difficulty in the RC teaching of it]

I am also still angry at God for me being ill though that now seems a little irrational as its probably all the dioxins in the air from the disasterously managed dump about 5 miles from where I live. My faith was/is important to me.. I used to read at Mass, and say the rosary at funerals and do all the little 'extras' in catholicsim. Now its all dead to me.

As for alternatives I find islam and judaism based on books which to me means I could base a religion on lord of the rings or dune and it would be equally as valid. All sorts of Paganism sounds like someone with an over active imagination has read dungeons and dragons and mixes up fantasy and reality. Buddhism isn't technically a religon as it has no deity. Most other religons then seem more cultural. Non-theistic satanism I disagree with in terms of logic and morals so that's out.

I realise I am very confused and this mightn't make much sense but has anyone else been here and if so would they have advice.

Hello Phototoxin, good to see a genuine, honest post.

Yes, I do find it confusing. At the beginning of your post, I get the impression you have a traditionalist leaning but then you go on to state that you don't believe transubstantiation. May suggest you have a good read of John 6?

Also I think you may be taking the Genesis story too literally. I doubt if Adam or Eve ever ate forbidden fruit but they certainly committed some grave sin, serious enough to be severely punished (just like the fallen angels).

It's clear that we humans have a strong tendency to sin, so original sin makes perfect sense. Without God's grace, we fall again and again.

Possibly a bit condescending, but have you tried praying for faith?

God bless you,
Noel.

Húrin

Helix wrote: »

nothing from my point of view, but im sure the catholics wouldnt like it all that much

Church is not like a business, where you need to get as many people in the building to make as much money as possible.

Helix

Húrin wrote: »

Church is not like a business, where you need to get as many people in the building to make as much money as possible.

i think youd likely find that if there was no more than 20 people at any given mass at any given time, christianity would have a bit more to worry about than a few quid less in the basket

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Church is not like a business, where you need to get as many people in the building to make as much money as possible.

No, but churches operate an economy which, in many ways, parallels the cash one. In this parallel world, the raw asset purchased is propagatory enthusiasm in peoples' minds, and ideas which are variably appealing are the currency with which it's purchased.

Analogous to what Helix has pointed out, and PDN directly implied a day or two back, if a religion doesn't make itself sufficiently appealing that its believers won't become efficient replicators, then it'll lose mindspace to a religion which can.

Húrin

Helix wrote: »

i think youd likely find that if there was no more than 20 people at any given mass at any given time, christianity would have a bit more to worry about than a few quid less in the basket

Like what? The majority of people who are just being dragged along seem not to be getting convinced of the church's message.

robindch wrote: »

No, but churches operate an economy which, in many ways, parallels the cash one. In this parallel world, the raw asset purchased is propagatory enthusiasm in peoples' minds, and ideas which are variably appealing are the currency with which it's purchased.

Analogous to what Helix has pointed out, and PDN directly implied a day or two back, if a religion doesn't make itself sufficiently appealing that its believers won't become efficient replicators, then it'll lose mindspace to a religion which can.

Religions are not in competition like businesses are. If God only wants to save twenty people in a particular parish, there's damn all anyone else can do to bring in more people to the church.

Phototoxin

would you rather those people didnt go, and left you and about 20 other people in church?

yes and I'd rather I wasn't there. I dont wish to be a hypocrite.

Yes, I do find it confusing. At the beginning of your post, I get the impression you have a traditionalist leaning but then you go on to state that you don't believe transubstantiation. May suggest you have a good read of John 6?

I'm not a trad. I like some elements of trad but have found that since the moto propium that the trad RC movement has gone OTT and condemnatory of the 'regular' catholic. Yet I'd like things done properly in an RC church (if I was to resume going there) like communion in the hand, patens, alter rails etc [I am only 22 not exactly a trad Kelly]

I find john a bit 'psychadelic' compared to other gospels. In addition its a matter of opinion weather its figurative or literal. Either way bread -> Jesus' flesh I find it difficult. I find the issue of Jesus difficult totally too maybe the trinity. God is ok. Though a bit schitzophrenic compared to old testament and new in places but understandable to a point. But jesus I'm not so sure. I find it difficult to have a 'realationship' with him.

Possibly a bit condescending, but have you tried praying for faith?

I find praying for faith ironic. Sort of saying use a torch to find some batteries for your torch that is out of batteries. Thanking god for stuff is bearable.

It's clear that we humans have a strong tendency to sin, so original sin makes perfect sense. Without God's grace, we fall again and again.

it doesn't though. The RCC teaches (as I understand) that if not baptised a baby is left to gods mercy / goes to limbo which is in Hell. Which to me means that despite not having done anything wrong (as the kid isn't *7* which is the age of reason apparently... again something I disagree with!) then they are going to Hell by virtue of being born. If God can may Mary immaculate then why not everyone? its paradoxical to me and makes no sense.

Yet protestantism holds little sway due to the biblical circularity.I have thought about my GFs church as it is more 'friendlier' in that there is an existent community and people talk after church and stuff rather than run off as fast as they can. In addition the sermons are interesting but yet I find the lack of structure and tonnes of singing very alien.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Religions are not in competition like businesses are.

Religions compete for market share in a manner which is analogous to how businesses compete -- go visit any megachurch in the USA to see how it works.

Splendour

Phototoxin wrote: »

If God can may Mary immaculate then why not everyone? its paradoxical to me and makes no sense.

This is not biblical but it is a Catholic teaching. This, along with other aspects of Catholic teaching (transubstansiation being one o them) was why I left the C.C. I felt I was being hypocritical by my going to mass (which I did weekly and sometimes daily), and therefore had no choice but to leave.

I think Phototoxin you are beating yourself up about this and trying too hard. Just keep reading your bible let it be. Let God do the work instead of you.

This is not a logical decision; God sees where you're at and he'll lead you...

Húrin

Phototoxin wrote: »

Yet protestantism holds little sway due to the biblical circularity.I have thought about my GFs church as it is more 'friendlier' in that there is an existent community and people talk after church and stuff rather than run off as fast as they can. In addition the sermons are interesting but yet I find the lack of structure and tonnes of singing very alien.

Catholicism is also based on the Bible. The Bible is that book that tells us about Jesus! Did you not see my post?

It sounds to me like you really prefer your girlfriend's church. I think she would be the best person to talk to about this.

I find praying for faith ironic. Sort of saying use a torch to find some batteries for your torch that is out of batteries. Thanking god for stuff is bearable.

Except that God has a mind and a will, which torches and batteries do not.

Húrin

robindch wrote: »

Religions compete for market share in a manner which is analogous to how businesses compete -- go visit any megachurch in the USA to see how it works.

Um, no they don't and I don't see why you are claiming that they do. Do you see Pentecostal evangelists standing outside Catholic churches after mass for instance?

That really is a nonsensical post robin.

Why should I go to an American Megachurch to see how churches work when I can just go to churches here and see how they work?

PDN

Húrin wrote: »

Why should I go to an American Megachurch to see how churches work when I can just go to churches here and see how they work?

Churches are made of humans and as a result they inevitably reflect their culture of origin or of location. Irish people often find an American church a bit offputting because they reflect the American culture of consumerism. Therefore, if you are peddling a stereotype, it is better to point an Irishman to an American megachurch so you can pretend the cultural peculiarities are inherent in Christianity as a whole.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

if you are peddling a stereotype

Far from "peddling a stereotype" -- the last cliché before "trolling" in your lexicon of dismissal -- I'm "describing what happens".

And it's unusual that you do miss it or dismiss the point, since on Wednesday, you made a very similar point yourself in relation to how Ratzinger is matching the Vatican's message to the demands of the greatest part of his flock.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

That really is a nonsensical post robin.

If you reckon it's nonsensical, then you probably didn't understand the point I was making. I'll post something longer when I've more time.

Húrin wrote: »

Why should I go to an American Megachurch to see how churches work when I can just go to churches here and see how they work?

Because it's easier to see the cogs in motion in the USA. The churches in Europe tend to be a bit more subtle about how they go about gaining believers. The tactics and strategy may vary, but the endgame is the same -- acquiring enough believers so that the religion can continue.

Phototoxin

Catholicism is also based on the Bible. The Bible is that book that tells us about Jesus! Did you not see my post?

but also on tradtition which seems like a licence to add beliefs wherever they wish. The problem I have with protestantism is that it is sola scriptura based. But the scriptures were determined by an RCC council!1

kelly1

Phototoxin wrote: »

I find john a bit 'psychadelic' compared to other gospels. In addition its a matter of opinion weather its figurative or literal. Either way bread -> Jesus' flesh I find it difficult.[/QUITE]I find the passage quite explicit. Amen, amen etc. It's actually one of the few places where Jesus goes to great lengths to explain that He's speaking literally.

Phototoxin wrote: »

I find the issue of Jesus difficult totally too maybe the trinity. God is ok. Though a bit schitzophrenic compared to old testament and new in places but understandable to a point. But jesus I'm not so sure. I find it difficult to have a 'realationship' with him.

You mean you doubt the divinity of Jesus? What do think the Holy Spirit is?

Phototoxin wrote: »

I find praying for faith ironic.

Not strange at all:

Luke 17:5 And the apostles said to the Lord: Increase our faith.

If it's OK with the apostles, it should be OK with you!

Phototoxin wrote: »

it doesn't though. The RCC teaches (as I understand) that if not baptised a baby is left to gods mercy / goes to limbo which is in Hell.

Limbo was never an official teaching of the Church. It was only a theory.

Helix

Húrin wrote: »

Like what? The majority of people who are just being dragged along seem not to be getting convinced of the church's message.

its the people who are "dragged" to mass who give the catholic church the illusion of still being relevant and powerful

you take all of those people out of the equation and youll have a tiny minority left. and id wager that minority would be nowhere near enough to keep the church going beyond a couple of generations

Benincasa

Phototoxin wrote: »

it doesn't though. The RCC teaches (as I understand) that if not baptised a baby is left to gods mercy / goes to limbo which is in Hell. Which to me means that despite not having done anything wrong (as the kid isn't *7* which is the age of reason apparently... again something I disagree with!) then they are going to Hell by virtue of being born. If God can may Mary immaculate then why not everyone? its paradoxical to me and makes no sense.

Limbo is not a defined dogma of the Church and was really only ever a theological hypothesis.

However, let's look at limbo as hypothesised by theologians. it is certainly not hell; far from it. As the theory goes, is a state of complete, perfect natural happiness. The kind of happiness that very few of us ever experience on earth, even once. It means complete, perfact natural joy, along with health and a complete lack of worry. It sounds delightful to me. The difference between heaven and limbo is that one sees God in heaven and thus has supernatural happiness whereas one experiences natural happiness without seeing God in limbo. However, Limbo is now all but forgotten about in the Church today. Remember, that isn't a problem as it was only ever a theological speculation.

My advice to you is to pray. Genuinely speak to God about your situation. To be honest I can kind of identify with you - the laxity at Mass frustrates me endlessly. The bad liturgies, really bad homilies and the complete lask of respect for the Eucharist. But then I remember that i am a sinner and that my first job is to reform myself. If I am such a sinner, how can I reasonably expect others to be perfect when I am not perfact myself?

The other thing to remember is that much is expected of him who has been given much. You were given the gift of faith in the past and you know a bit about the Church. God probably expects more from you than from the Christmas, Easter and family occasion Mass goers.

Ask St Therese for help. She experienced complete doubt and darkness in her faith as well. The cause of her problems were different from yours, but she will help nonetheless.

Húrin

Phototoxin wrote: »

but also on tradtition which seems like a licence to add beliefs wherever they wish. The problem I have with protestantism is that it is sola scriptura based. But the scriptures were determined by an RCC council!

Of course they were. Protestants did not exist then. However, the Catholic Church may add beliefs, but the Bible means that they cannot change basic Christian beliefs which are clearly stated in that book.

Helix wrote: »

its the people who are "dragged" to mass who give the catholic church the illusion of still being relevant and powerful

you take all of those people out of the equation and youll have a tiny minority left. and id wager that minority would be nowhere near enough to keep the church going beyond a couple of generations

There is no illusion of power anymore. For instance the Church's reputation has been utterly trashed without fear of reprimand in the last week amid the Cloynes issue.

I expect that the small number of people would have to amalgamate into larger congregations, much as other minority religions do. It would not by any means herald the end of Catholicism in Ireland. I think it would be healthy for the church to find that religion is not about political power, it is about beliefs, and community.

I also have cautioned people, repeatedly, about assuming that history works in a straight line. Religious observance in populations goes up and down, largely depending on material circumstances, and the beliefs of the previous generation (sometimes, reacting against them).

robindch wrote: »

If you reckon it's nonsensical, then you probably didn't understand the point I was making. I'll post something longer when I've more time.Because it's easier to see the cogs in motion in the USA. The churches in Europe tend to be a bit more subtle about how they go about gaining believers. The tactics and strategy may vary, but the endgame is the same -- acquiring enough believers so that the religion can continue.

I think you have a serious misunderstanding of the motives of evangelism. Like most Christians, when I have any conversation that could be considered "evangelism", I am hoping that I am explaining the Christian gospel clearly, and that they will accept it.

If they do, I do not care one bit whether they choose my denomination or another one. Churches are not in competition.

Phototoxin

Húrin wrote: »

Of course they were. Protestants did not exist then. However, the Catholic Church may add beliefs, but the Bible means that they cannot change basic Christian beliefs which are clearly stated in that book.

But they defined what books were considered cannon. Its the paradox of double standards, I hate the RCC for double standanards yet I see protestantism as beign based one 1 large double standard - take the RCC bible but not the rest of it. So it makes me confused. (thanks RCC!)

Ask St Therese for help. She experienced complete doubt and darkness in her faith as well. The cause of her problems were different from yours, but she will help nonetheless.

I refuse to empathise with a self flagillating psychotic. Oh, theres another -1 for RCC-ism is the who issue of saints and what amounts to S&M style self abuse.

Benincasa

Phototoxin wrote: »

I refuse to empathise with a self flagillating psychotic. Oh, theres another -1 for RCC-ism is the who issue of saints and what amounts to S&M style self abuse.

Isn't it a form of S&M abuse for people to get up before dawn and go jogging in winter? Isn't it a form of self-abuse to go swimming in the sea on Christmas Day? Yet people do this and see it as normal, as a way of making the body stronger. Mortification is just a way of making the soul stronger. Don't judge spiritual practices on purely secular grounds. We have a tendency to do that a lot today. It's a bit like expecting a primary school student to understand advanced mathematical physics. They don't have the foundation and therefore they can't understand it and think it to be so much rubbish. It's the same with the spiritual life and with aspects of catholic morality. Without the foundation it just seems daft. The key thing is to start with the foundation.

As regards who becomes saints, take that up with the teams of medical doctors who decide whether a miracle takes place or not to allow for beatification and canonisation. The rules are actually very strict and I know of several cases where supposed miracles have been thrown out by the medical advisers. And can I just add that if you doubt the possibility of miracles then you have a lot more work to do in coming back to faith.

The virtue of humility helps. It is the appropriate position when contemplating the works of a transcendent Creator.

Helix

Húrin wrote: »

There is no illusion of power anymore. For instance the Church's reputation has been utterly trashed without fear of reprimand in the last week amid the Cloynes issue.

I expect that the small number of people would have to amalgamate into larger congregations, much as other minority religions do. It would not by any means herald the end of Catholicism in Ireland. I think it would be healthy for the church to find that religion is not about political power, it is about beliefs, and community.

imo the church still has far more power than it should have in society (it should have none, in fact)

Húrin

Phototoxin wrote: »

But they defined what books were considered cannon. Its the paradox of double standards, I hate the RCC for double standanards yet I see protestantism as beign based one 1 large double standard - take the RCC bible but not the rest of it. So it makes me confused. (thanks RCC!)

Most Protestants don't see themselves as diametrically opposed to Catholicism. We just disagree on some things. The Anglican church in most forms is fairly close to Catholicism, but radical protestant churches are quite different. However, all believe that the early church were doing something right, before the Catholic Church invented all this needless extra stuff.

The Bible that was compiled in the 4th century says that it should not be added to, that it is complete. That is why Protestants accept that. The Catholic church did not write the books themselves either.

The Roman Catholic church identity did not exist back then in the same way as in the 16th century, or as now, IMO. Much as the English national identity did not appear in 1066, but rather evolved over several generations.

Helix wrote: »

imo the church still has far more power than it should have in society (it should have none, in fact)

I agree.

philologos

Phototoxin, the reason why the Reformation took place, was because the Church at the time insisted that it's followers be lost in Latin, and not have the Scriptures in their own language. This is a main objection which caused both the German, Swiss, French and English Reformations. Why should people have read from a Latin translation of the Greek and Hebrew instead of an English one, or a French one etc?

However Paul tells is in 1 Thessalonians 2:4 that we are meant to be custodians of the Gospel.

Following this, when the Catholic Church fell into apostasy with indulgences and the like at the time of Martin Luther, the Protestants took their role as custodians of the Gospel to bring it back to what God intended it to be, not what the corrupted will of Catholicism had become at the time.

Therefore it is entirely legitimate that Protestantism should focus entirely on the Bible, as they recognise that at the start of the Church, during the time when Constantine ordered the Council of Nicea, that the Church had not fallen into apostasy.

Protestantism was a movement to save the Bible and Biblical values from destruction. There is no such thing as one true denomination, but only the precepts which God had revealed to us in the Bible. If you conform and stick to God's word, and God's word alone or teachings based on God's word, you will be living your life in accordance to the Father's will.

Húrin

Again, Phototoxin, I really doubt that we can help you any more than your girlfriend can on this one. Don't inordinately waste your time on us.

PDN

Phototoxin wrote: »

but also on tradtition which seems like a licence to add beliefs wherever they wish. The problem I have with protestantism is that it is sola scriptura based. But the scriptures were determined by an RCC council!1

No, not really.

The early church Councils officially recognised the books that most Christians already recognised as being Scripture. We know that certain books were acknowledged by Christians as being Scripture before any Church Council said so.

Also, the Church that set up those Councils was not Roman Catholicism as we know it. Many distinctive doctrines of modern Catholicism (assumption of Mary, papal infallibility etc) were only adopted later.

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

Following this, when the Catholic Church fell into apostasy with indulgences and the like at the time of Martin Luther, the Protestants took their role as custodians of the Gospel to bring it back to what God intended it to be, not what the corrupted will of Catholicism had become at the time.

The doctrine of indulgences is still taught by the Church but it was the selling of indulgences (simony) that was wrong. Ironically, by translating the bible into vernacular languages, instead of giving a greater understanding of the word of God, it allowed erroneous interpretation and apostasy from the true faith.

Jakkass wrote: »

There is no such thing as one true denomination, but only the precepts which God had revealed to us in the Bible. If you conform and stick to God's word, and God's word alone or teachings based on God's word, you will be living your life in accordance to the Father's will.

That all sounds plausible but the problem of true interpretation crops up. Remember also that the bible says that the *Church* (not the bible) is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Húrin

kelly1 wrote: »

Ironically, by translating the bible into vernacular languages, instead of giving a greater understanding of the word of God, it allowed erroneous interpretation and apostasy from the true faith.

In other words, it allowed Christians to think for themselves. Oh noes.

To claim that the Catholic church aimed to give a good understanding of the word of God to the average medieval Catholic is really on the outer shores of delusionary revisionism. They shrouded everything in Latin to preserve their political power.

It is out of that practice that abuses such as simony became rife in the church. There was no oversight or dissent to keep them in line.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

Phototoxin, the reason why the Reformation took place, was because the Church at the time insisted that it's followers be lost in Latin, and not have the Scriptures in their own language. This is a main objection which caused both the German, Swiss, French and English Reformations. Why should people have read from a Latin translation of the Greek and Hebrew instead of an English one, or a French one etc?

However Paul tells is in 1 Thessalonians 2:4 that we are meant to be custodians of the Gospel.

Following this, when the Catholic Church fell into apostasy with indulgences and the like at the time of Martin Luther, the Protestants took their role as custodians of the Gospel to bring it back to what God intended it to be, not what the corrupted will of Catholicism had become at the time.

Therefore it is entirely legitimate that Protestantism should focus entirely on the Bible, as they recognise that at the start of the Church, during the time when Constantine ordered the Council of Nicea, that the Church had not fallen into apostasy.

Protestantism was a movement to save the Bible and Biblical values from destruction. There is no such thing as one true denomination, but only the precepts which God had revealed to us in the Bible. If you conform and stick to God's word, and God's word alone or teachings based on God's word, you will be living your life in accordance to the Father's will.

What a one - eyed view of history.
Luther was racist. He hated Jewish people. Calvin was murderer.
They both supported witch burning as did John Wesley.
And to top it all off the family values of Henry VIII are hardly anything special.

The Catholic church made mistakes. Unlike many organisations it has had the maturity to own to them. Many Christian Churches won't even get that far.

kelly1

Húrin wrote: »

In other words, it allowed Christians to think for themselves. Oh noes.

The Catholic faith isn't like science. You can't perform an experiment to test whether purgatory exists. You either accept the teachings of the Church or you don't. Jesus gave the apostles and their successor the authority to teach in His name. This authority isn't given to every Christian.

Húrin wrote: »

To claim that the Catholic church aimed to give a good understanding of the word of God to the average medieval Catholic is really on the outer shores of delusionary revisionism. They shrouded everything in Latin to preserve their political power.

The liturgy was in latin but I would imagine the faith was taught in the vernacular.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What a one - eyed view of history.
Luther was racist. He hated Jewish people. Calvin was murderer.
They both supported witch burning as did John Wesley.
And to top it all off the family values of Henry VIII are hardly anything special.

The Catholic church made mistakes. Unlike many organisations it has had the maturity to own to them. Many Christian Churches won't even get that far.

I agree with you, Luther was hardly the pillar of perfection, nor Calvin, and no doubt neither were Zwingli, Tyndall, Cranmer, etc. However what I do agree with, and agree with strongly, is that before the Reformation, the laymen of the Church had no means of knowing what the Church believed accurately, or holding the Church accountable when it fell into apostasy. Now as Christians we do, we have a huge amount of power to stick to God's word, and I'm thankful for that.

I'm not claiming that the Catholic Church has made more mistakes than any other church, I'm just defending Protestantism and their reliance on the Bible as the check and balance for our faith. The OP has constantly made charges that Protestants are circular, and since we reject Catholicism that we make no sense, as the Bible was put together at the Council of Nicea.

We have no issue with Catholic councils up until a point. The Council of Nicea was divinely inspired in my opinion. Hence why we say the Nicene Creed even in our churches today in the Church of Ireland (Anglicanism). I don't think many people would disagree with what I'm saying concerning the accountability of the Church prior to the Reformation.

Just to make this crystal Tim, I wasn't saying that Catholicism is any less of a Christian denomination than any other. We are all brothers in Christ, but I consider the actions of Luther in reforming the Church and saving the Gospel from corruption to be legitimate, likewise with the other Reformers.

kelly1: Didn't Paul tell his followers to test the Scripture daily to check if he was saying was correct? (Acts 17). I think Christians should be custodians of the Gospel, from the layman to the preacher, we all have authority to preserve this message surely (1 Thessalonians 2:4). Me and you will both agree fully, that the Gospel is the Lord's and nobody has any authority to change it.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree with you, Luther was hardly the pillar of perfection, nor Calvin, and no doubt neither were Zwingli, Tyndall, Cranmer, etc. ...

Good post Jakkass. It's refreshing to here something well put from the other side of the fence.

The only thing I can say is that if one rely's on the Bible and the Bible alone as a basis for an argument for God, it is in fact circular.

How do I know there is a God? Because it says it in the Bible.
Why is the Bible reliable? Because it's the word of God.

That's circular. Now, before PDN comes in and uses an analogy and a put down laugh remark about this point, may I state I am not alone here. Michael Shermer (who afaik received praise from Rick Warren at the Ted conference) says the exact same in his book: "Why do people believe weird things?".

So you need a lot more than just scripture to form any sort of intelligent opinion as why God may exist.

In this respect Roman Catholics use philosophical arguments like Aristotle's first cause argument and their claim that they have an extra power and a connection with God as Jesus set up their Church and this Church still remains to this day. So they are not relying on the Bible alone.

So their arguments aren't as obviously circular as Christians who use the Bible alone.

Puck

No Christian would claim that the Bible is the only evidence for God.

Tim Robbins

Puck wrote: »

No Christian would claim that the Bible is the only evidence for God.

Take away the Bible and you having almost nothing or nothing for many. Several here would be stuck for signatures for a start.

philologos

Tim, I don't consider the use of philosophical argument to be against the Scripture. For example William Lane Craig a Christian philosopher has famously used the Islamic kalam cosmological argument as a means of putting forward why God exists.

The Bible alone argument for me is as follows: The Bible is the authorative text, other sources may be used if they do not contradict the text, or go any further in adding to the text. For example, I'm glad to read books of Christian apologetics, or of philosophy, but if they make religious arguments they also must be reflected and make sense Biblically. For example, I cannot view that Mary was sinless because the Biblical text doesn't make this clear.

Also, I would ask Christians to look to science, history, archaeology and to consider these fields in their faith, and to look to them to see what indications there are that God may be true, and to think about indications that suggest that God might be false also, and to seek answers.

So evidently I don't think it is as circular as you put forward.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

The Bible alone argument for me is as follows: The Bible is the authorative text, other sources may be used if they do not contradict the text, or go any further in adding to the text. For example, I'm glad to read books of Christian apologetics, or of philosophy, but if they make religious arguments they also must be reflected and make sense Biblically. For example, I cannot view that Mary was sinless because the Biblical text doesn't make this clear.

That's not a valid argument. You haven't stated why the Bible is an "authorative text" and it's pretty hard to without your reasoning becoming circular.

It's doesn't matter what you're prepared or happy to read. It's doesn't answer why the Bible can be considered authorative.

Húrin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What a one - eyed view of history.
Luther was racist. He hated Jewish people. Calvin was murderer.
They both supported witch burning as did John Wesley.
And to top it all off the family values of Henry VIII are hardly anything special.

None of which invalidates any of Jakass's points. He did not sanctify these people. I myself am always amazed how Luther's ideas about reading the Bible for yourself caused the chain of events that led to freedom of speech and freedom of religion being part of western culture, but that he did not grasp these concepts himself.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The only thing I can say is that if one rely's on the Bible and the Bible alone as a basis for an argument for God, it is in fact circular.

Nobody relies the Bible as proof of God's existence. The entire Bible is written based on the assumption that God exists and does not seek to prove it.

How do I know there is a God? Because it says it in the Bible.
Why is the Bible reliable? Because it's the word of God.

Straw man.

Michael Shermer (who afaik received praise from Rick Warren at the Ted conference) says the exact same in his book: "Why do people believe weird things?".

What gives these people a licence to such arrogance? Who are they to define what is objectively weird and what is objectively normal? Normal means nothing more than what the majority of people in a particular culture think and do.

So you need a lot more than just scripture to form any sort of intelligent opinion as why God may exist.

I agree. Most regular posters here have given such arguments and there is no need to repeat them here.

In this respect Roman Catholics use philosophical arguments like Aristotle's first cause argument and their claim that they have an extra power and a connection with God as Jesus set up their Church and this Church still remains to this day. So they are not relying on the Bible alone.

Well, how do they know Jesus set up the RCC? Because it says so in the Bible.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Take away the Bible and you having almost nothing or nothing for many.

How do you know this?

Tim Robbins

Húrin wrote: »

None of which invalidates any of Jakass's points. He did not sanctify these people. I myself am always amazed how Luther's ideas about reading the Bible for yourself caused the chain of events that led to freedom of speech and freedom of religion being part of western culture, but that he did not grasp these concepts himself.

Post hoc Ergo Hoc fallacy.

Nobody relies the Bible as proof of God's existence. The entire Bible is written based on the assumption that God exists and does not seek to prove it.

Some Christians reference very little else.

Straw man.

Incorrect. It was an example of a circular argument. A straw man is when you deliberately misunderstand another argument. There was no other argument I was misunderstanding.

What gives these people a licence to such arrogance? Who are they to define what is objectively weird and what is objectively normal? Normal means nothing more than what the majority of people in a particular culture think and do.

Who are you to define what is objectively arrogant and what is objectively normal?
You fail be your own logic.

Well, how do they know Jesus set up the RCC? Because it says so in the Bible.

I don't speak for RCC but I believe they can trace back their Popes to Peter.

How do you know this?

Because I frequent this forum regularly. Yes I should get out more.

philologos

The Bible is an authoritative text exclusively because they have been shown by dating, language and other factors to be the most authentic texts we have to look unto Jesus' ministry, and the process by which God revealed His truth from Moses until the Apostles. There were categories that were used to assess the books of the Bible before they were added both by the Jewish Rabbis in 450BC, and by the leaders of the Christian Church at the Council of Nicea.

I would agree with you in the sense that the Bible is the hypothesis, that needs to be indicated by external factors, such as history, archaeology, theology, science, philosophy and so on. However adding to your beliefs without basis is really ill-advised.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What a one - eyed view of history.
Luther was racist. He hated Jewish people.

Luther was indeed a racist and an anti-Semite (as was the Pope of the day and most europeans) but that does not invalidate the truth of his teaching concerning the primacy of Scripture or his crucial role in the Reformation.

Calvin was murderer.

Yes, he sanctioned the killing of Servetus for heresy. Something that Calvinists today freely admit and deplore. But then again, no Calvinist tries to pretend that Calvin was infalliblke. His participation in Servetus' execution does not invalidate his theological thinking.

They both supported witch burning as did John Wesley.

Tim, you made this same claim about wesley back in August. I challenged you to produce evidence and you retracted it and apologised. Why are you making this unsubstantiated claim again? It is one thing not to learn from the words of other people. It is another thing entirely when you don't even learn from your own words. http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56949621&postcount=68

How do I know there is a God? Because it says it in the Bible.
Why is the Bible reliable? Because it's the word of God.

That's circular. Now, before PDN comes in and uses an analogy and a put down laugh remark about this point, may I state I am not alone here.

Why would I use an analogy or a put down laugh remark to defend a position I have never held? I've never subscribed to your circular strawman.

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

Just to make this crystal Tim, I wasn't saying that Catholicism is any less of a Christian denomination than any other. We are all brothers in Christ, but I consider the actions of Luther in reforming the Church and saving the Gospel from corruption to be legitimate, likewise with the other Reformers.

It's not a matter of corrupting the gospel but of corrupt interpretation. Clearly the bible is open to different opposing interpretations. The bible therefore is seriously flawed unless there exits the authority to interpret it correctly. I say Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist, you say it's symbolic. The bible doesn't tell us definitively which interpretation is correct.

Jakkass wrote: »

kelly1: Didn't Paul tell his followers to test the Scripture daily to check if he was saying was correct? (Acts 17).

Yes, but he was referring to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophehies in Jesus.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think Christians should be custodians of the Gospel, from the layman to the preacher, we all have authority to preserve this message surely (1 Thessalonians 2:4). Me and you will both agree fully, that the Gospel is the Lord's and nobody has any authority to change it.

The main problem as I said before is with interpretation, not with corruption of the text.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

The Bible is an authoritative text exclusively because they have been shown by dating, language and other factors to be the most authentic texts we have to look unto Jesus' ministry, and the process by which God revealed His truth from Moses until the Apostles. There were categories that were used to assess the books of the Bible before they were added both by the Jewish Rabbis in 450BC, and by the leaders of the Christian Church at the Council of Nicea.

The Sunday Independent can be accurately dated as can Dianetics. If something can be dated doesn't mean its authoritative or correct.

You need at a lot more than that.

You can use circular reasoning or no reasoning at all which is what you're currently doing.

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

Luther was indeed a racist and an anti-Semite (as was the Pope of the day and most europeans) but that does not invalidate the truth of his teaching concerning the primacy of Scripture or his crucial role in the Reformation.

I must remember to quote this the next time someone uses the hypocrisy argument to discount the validity of the Catholic Church.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Luther was indeed a racist and an anti-Semite (as was the Pope of the day and most europeans) but that does not invalidate the truth of his teaching concerning the primacy of Scripture or his crucial role in the Reformation.

It does nothing to validate the truth of any claim he made. The only truth in it is his role in European Anti Semitism.

Tim, you made this same claim about wesley back in August. I challenged you to produce evidence and you retracted it and apologised. Why are you making this unsubstantiated claim again? It is one thing not to learn from the words of other people. It is another thing entirely when you don't even learn from your own words. http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56949621&postcount=68

You're correct. Wesley liked Witchcraft but we don't know what his penchant for Witch burning was. What did he do to try to stop this activity? Sod all? It was the Jesuits who argued to stop it. Correct?

Why would I use an analogy or a put down laugh remark to defend a position I have never held? I've never subscribed to your circular strawman.

The last thread I was posting on here, all you did was use put downs and analogies to my point. If you can deal with posts without doing that, super.

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

It's not a matter of corrupting the gospel but of corrupt interpretation. Clearly the bible is open to different opposing interpretations. The bible therefore is seriously flawed unless there exits the authority to interpret it correctly. I say Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist, you say it's symbolic. The bible doesn't tell us definitively which interpretation is correct.

Context and research does, that's how pastors end up making sense, only because they are learned in what they are discussing about. I think you would say the same about your local parish priest. Although on transubstantiation it's clear that context is key in understanding this.

Passover, a Jewish festival which is renowned for it's use of symbolism in bitter herbs being the bitterness of slavery, and the flat bread to suggest that they didn't have time to put yeast in their bread and wait for it to rise before they were to escape from Egypt. Fair enough. Logically given this context, Jesus was merely offering us a new way of viewing the sacrifice that He was to make, in the New Covenant at the Passover meal with His disciples. This is a logical and rational view. We believe Christ to be present at the Eucharist, but we do not believe that the wine literally transforms into His blood, or that the bread literally transforms into His flesh. Context and logic both suggest this to be false.

Not to be disrespectful, but if I did a scientific analysis of the bread and the wine both before and after the priest blesses them in the Church, will I find that the composition of the bread and the wine has indeed changed into literal flesh (according to the scientific definition of flesh), or the literal blood (according to the scientific definition of blood)?

That's a question that needs to be answered honestly, and the OP has.

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes, but he was referring to the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies in Jesus.

But if Paul was right, what on earth was the point in testing his authority? If we are to be true custodians of the Gospel as we are commanded, how on earth can we do that without comparing the Church to scripture?

You claim that certain people only have the authority to teach the Gospel. This isn't true. Infact Jesus said if you deny him before others, that He will deny you before His heavenly Father. We are also meant to witness to others and be a light to the world. The only reason, why the new atheists have been gaining ground in peoples hearts and minds in the last while is because theists haven't been vocal enough, and haven't had the heart enough to discuss their views and to help them think twice about what they are saying. I too have failed in this at times, but I see it important, and if there is a New Years resolution to have, it's definitely this if you are a Christian in my view anyway.

kelly1 wrote: »

The main problem as I said before is with interpretation, not with corruption of the text.

So you don't think that selling indulgences is a clear transgression of divine law when a similar instance is described in the Acts of the Apostles between Peter and Simon Magus. Almost identical infact. We are custodians of what we have been revealed, and at the time of Martin Luther, this transgression was made.

Acts 8:18-21 "Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money, saying, ‘Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.’ But Peter said to him, ‘May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God’s gift with money! You have no part or share in this, for your heart is not right before God."

It's as clear as day that if Martin Luther didn't stand up in his role as custodian of the Gospel and of the message that has been revealed, that the Church would have fallen further into Apostasy. I think all Christians including Catholics have much to be thankful of.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You're correct. Wesley liked Witchcraft but we don't know what his penchant for Witch burning was. What did he do to try to stop this activity? Sod all? It was the Jesuits who argued to stop it. Correct?

That is the most mealy-mouthed retraction I have ever heard. You made a totally unsubstantiated allegation (for the second time) that Wesley supported the burning of witches. The least you could do is openly admit you were wrong without trying to be smart about it.

If I accused you of molesting children and you protested, then it would hardly be right of me to say "You're correct. I don't know what your penchant for molesting children is." If I had a shred of decency about me I would admit that the accusation was baseless and would retract it.

BTW, what is your basis for saying that Wesley "liked witchcraft"?

What did he do to try to stop this activity? Sod all? It was the Jesuits who argued to stop it. Correct?

No. Amazingly incorrect and a wonderful example of historical ignorance.

The last person accused of being a witch and executed in England was in 1684. John Wesley was born in 1703.

So, Tim, why don't you give us your logical analysis of what John Wesley should have done to stamp out a practice that ceased 19 years before he was born?

Some Jesuits participated in the burning of witches, but at least one,Friedrich von Spee, argued passionately against the practice in Europe (although it took the Protestant Duke of Brunswick to bring him to this epiphany). Also, von Spee was not arguing against Luther, Calvin or Wesley (still a twinkle in his grandfather's eye). He was arguing against the Inquisition who were the guys behind the vast majority of witch burnings. Tim, I really think you are on a hiding to nothing if you want to cast the whole issue of witch burning into a bigoted Protestants versus enlightened Catholics issue. History is against you on that one.

Phototoxin

You mean you doubt the divinity of Jesus? What do think the Holy Spirit is?

Honestly, I dont know.

Originally Posted by Phototoxin View Post
I find praying for faith ironic.

Not strange at all:

Quote:
Luke 17:5 And the apostles said to the Lord: Increase our faith.
If it's OK with the apostles, it should be OK with you!

But an increase in something they already had.

Isn't it a form of S&M abuse for people to get up before dawn and go jogging in winter?

Flagellating skin from your back as punishment for sins to make your soul stronger to make up for some fictional deficiency seems perverted in my opinion. If it makes it stronger but I would have thought that God would be against self harm.

I also used to get that when I started asking questions of Catholicsm years ago 'you don't understand'. Yet seemingly the way of helping someone understand is to repeat things until they are accepted. I found (and continue to find it) it patronising which only exacerbates/-ed the situation. I realise its not your intention but the whole 'be humble and accept it' thing doesnt explain it to me however.

Jakkass
Following this, when the Catholic Church fell into apostasy with indulgences and the like at the time of Martin Luther, the Protestants took their role as custodians of the Gospel to bring it back to what God intended it to be, not what the corrupted will of Catholicism had become at the time.

Therefore it is entirely legitimate that Protestantism should focus entirely on the Bible, as they recognise that at the start of the Church, during the time when Constantine ordered the Council of Nicea, that the Church had not fallen into apostasy.

That is an interesting hypothesis but if they were without error and did the will of God before hand surely he would have ensured they went right regardless of the petty machinations of whatever muppet* was in the papacy

[*not all popes are muppets, most aren't, however some were ]

Hurin
Again, Phototoxin, I really doubt that we can help you any more than your girlfriend can on this one. Don't inordinately waste your time on us.

I find it helpful. But equally I dont want to 'convert' to my GFs version 'because she is my GF'. Though I find her more Chrsitian than most uber-trad catholics that I know.

Also, the Church that set up those Councils was not Roman Catholicism as we know it. Many distinctive doctrines of modern Catholicism (assumption of Mary, papal infallibility etc) were only adopted later.

Yeah - ironically I was thinking recently that if the church was where it was 1000 years ago it might be better as there wouldnt be a lot of these extraneous things that we have to believe. That said if people dissented when something was defined they'd be imprisoned or killed probably :S

The OP has constantly made charges that Protestants are circular, and since we reject Catholicism that we make no sense, as the Bible was put together at the Council of Nicea.

Quote:
How do I know there is a God? Because it says it in the Bible.
Why is the Bible reliable? Because it's the word of God.
Straw man.

That is my difficulty with it yes. I would like it to make sense but I doesnt seem to. To me it is not a straw man, that is what it boils down to. The RCC is right because their book says peter is the rock on which the church is built. The book is the word of God because their counicl determied it was so.

Protestantism has no such claims to authority but takes the book as right 'all scripture is Godbreathed'

It's not a matter of corrupting the gospel but of corrupt interpretation. Clearly the bible is open to different opposing interpretations. The bible therefore is seriously flawed unless there exits the authority to interpret it correctly. I say Jesus is really and truly present in the Eucharist, you say it's symbolic. The bible doesn't tell us definitively which interpretation is correct.

then it all depends who's interpretation you believe doesnt it? Its confusing.
*sigh*
You would think the truth would be simple 'god is simple without moving parts' according to MrAquinas.