Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
October 22, 2017, 03:40:00 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Christian vs Roman Catholic debate on Mary  (Read 10760 times)
Sizwe
Getbig II
**
Posts: 280



« Reply #25 on: December 28, 2015, 02:01:12 AM »

Again, I understand the history of the early organized RC church, it's contributions in forming the canon of scripture, the council of Nicea, the early crusades, etc....  

I also understand Westboro baptist church, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Joel Osteen, Tullian Tchividjian, etc....

These things are not in question.



What do you understand about these verses without any mental gymnastics? and how do you think the early Christians understood it?

"For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed"

"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19107


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 28, 2015, 09:15:32 AM »

What do you understand about these verses without any mental gymnastics?

So essentially keep my answers brief and direct.  That's probably best and I'll do my best.  Still, far easier to ask brief questions than it is to give brief replies.


and how do you think the early Christians understood it?

I believe there was turmoil and disagreement and given we eventually landed in the reformation period we know this was the case.

Still, we can look at the council of nicea as an example of early turmoil in early organized church.  Most people say that Nicea was where "the church invented the bible" or "the church invented the trinity".   Not correct.

For approximately 3 centuries prior to 325 AD Christians were severely persecuted for the scriptural doctrine of the Trinity they taught.  They didn't use the term "Trinity" as it was later coined, but they absolutely discussed the coequal, coeternal persons of God in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  

In the decade or so leading up to the Council of Nicea a presbyter named Arius spoke out against his church bishop and made the claim that Jesus, although on earth to fulfill a divine purpose, was in fact created by God and was therefore neither eternal nor was he deity.  

After several years of this opposing position being taught by Arius, it eventually reached Emporer Constantine's ears and he feared that this teaching would eventually split the Christian church that was enjoying a breif period of peace from all out persecution.  That said, he convened 300 bishops to appear at a council in Nicea on June 19, 325 AD to discuss Arius' competing idea of Jesus' being created by God.  The council convened and discussed the point and despite Arius' "silver tongue" he was unable to convince the vast majority of his position given the existing teachings of the father, son and spirit dating all the way back to Christ himself.  

That said, the trinity was not created in Nicea, but was merely upheld and reaffirmed there.  I'll concede the concept may have been coined under the umbrella term of "Trinity" at this point, but the council certainly did not create the theology there...that's a twisted myth.  In the years that followed, Arius' small group of believers eventually succumbed to infighting within their ranks and his unorthodox teachings fell to the wayside for the most part; although, today some small groups of "Christians" still deny the Trinity.

Here is an example of early Christian infighting that was resolved via council.

"For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed"

"Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord."

Keeping everything brief and general, I do not abide by the RC doctrine of transubstantiation.   I think the RCC’s exigesis of this scripture is a gross misinterpretation.   Keeping it very simple, the Lord works in signs and covenant symbols throughout scripture.   This passage in John 6 is no different and the interpretation is not meant to be literal….it’s a spiritual concept.

For example, Christ also referred to himself as the vine and his followers as fruit bearing branches.  Does he literally become a vine and we literally sprout oranges and apples from ourselves?   Of course not.   In the OT in Exodus the Lord says that he delivered the Israelites out of their slavery on the wings of eagles.  Do we believe that God sent countless eagles to place the enslaved Israelites on their wings and fly them out of Egypt?  Again, of course not.

As Christ further states within John 6:

“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

Further, I believe the RCC concept ignores the greater context of the immediate passage and associated scripture outside of it.  As it states in Isaiah we are to understand these theological concepts in scripture "precept upon precept".....the ideas build upon one another and are rarely isolated extractions with no context.

Remember, "a text without a context is always a pretext".

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

In order to again be brief I'll simply note the following:

Within the greek translation of this verse there isn't a definitive understanding of the use of the word "rock"......"petros" in reference to Peter (a movable rocky structure) as opposed to the more common "petra" used as a bedrock type foundation and in this case the foundation of the church.   Peter cannot be both "petros" and "petra", but certainly he is the chief apostle.  I actually believe that this is also just clever verbage used by Christ, but that's my humble opinion.

I would also say that scripture refers to Christ as the cornerstone (in OT scripture in Isaiah and NT scripture in Ephesians), Paul's letter to the church at Corinth states there is no other foundation other than Christ and that Christ is the rock and in Peter's NT writing he also affirms Christ as the rock.

Do I believe this scripture establishes the papacy and Peter as the first infallable Pope?  No.  I believe the only infallible words of Peter were those inspired by God that he penned in NT scripture.  Beyond that the foundation of the church is Christ alone.  

None of this is new argumentation and none of it is posted with anger and I welcome other viewpoints because I don't claim mine as absolute or infallible.
Report to moderator   Logged

Sizwe
Getbig II
**
Posts: 280



« Reply #27 on: December 28, 2015, 02:24:56 PM »

True early Christian writings do show they believed in the Trinity before the council of Nicea, as well as that they believed the Eucharist to be the real body and blood of Christ...

It wouldn't make sense if that wasn't what Jesus meant as he said 'Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord'...how can you profane against something that he meant only symbolically?...I think he made this pretty clear and I doubt he would of wanted the vast majority of Christians to be led astray until the protestant reformation over 1000 years later..

The other parts where you say Jesus referred to himself as the vine and his followers as fruit bearing branches it is made clear that this is only symbolic as in John10:6 is states "This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them"...

Saying that Jesus was referring to himself as 'the rock' when he said 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church' makes no grammatical sense as the adjective 'this' must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which is Peter..
Below is just one early Christians quote on the matter...
"Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?" -Tertullian 220 A.D

and as you know..Peter ended up being crucified upside down by Nero in Rome.

At the end of the day, whether you realise it or not, I do think you trust the authority of RCC, as they're the ones who decided which books to include in the Bible at the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD)

So to say Catholics don't know the scriptures as you mentioned earlier, is a bit of a stretch as well..




Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19107


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 28, 2015, 03:21:12 PM »

True early Christian writings do show they believed in the Trinity before the council of Nicea, as well as that they believed the Eucharist to be the real body and blood of Christ...

It wouldn't make sense if that wasn't what Jesus meant as he said 'Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord'...how can you profane against something that he meant only symbolically?...I think he made this pretty clear and I doubt he would of wanted the vast majority of Christians to be led astray until the protestant reformation over 1000 years later..

The other parts where you say Jesus referred to himself as the vine and his followers as fruit bearing branches it is made clear that this is only symbolic as in John10:6 is states "This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them"...

Saying that Jesus was referring to himself as 'the rock' when he said 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church' makes no grammatical sense as the adjective 'this' must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which is Peter..
Below is just one early Christians quote on the matter...
"Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?" -Tertullian 220 A.D

and as you know..Peter ended up being crucified upside down by Nero in Rome.

At the end of the day, whether you realise it or not, I do think you trust the authority of RCC, as they're the ones who decided which books to include in the Bible at the Synod's of Hippo (393 AD)

So to say Catholics don't know the scriptures as you mentioned earlier, is a bit of a stretch as well..

Agreed, early Christians did affirm the Trinity prior to Nicea and the Nicean council affirmed that teaching.  The reason the point was discussed was the introduction of the teachings of Arius that contradicted the accepted theology.  The council thereby convened and disaffirmed Arianism in the process.

You can certainly refer to old, extra-biblical sources from church fathers such as Tertullian for an opinion or you can go beyond that and head straight to the source greek, the lexicons and the commentary of linguists for further translation clarity and insight.  Probably good to do both IMHO.   It's your choice how far you choose to dig.   The translation of "petros" and "petra" is crucial and if you choose to only go with an english translation of greek (or hebrew in other instances) you may miss quite a bit.  Further if you ignore other scripture in greater context and simply adhere to an opinion that aligns with your own you might not be correct.....like I said Isaiah indicated a "precept upon precept" approach to understanding scripture.

I do trust the early church.....never in question....I've repeated that sentiment at least half a dozen times in this thread alone.  

What I don't trust are the additions of the teaching magisterium and various "infallible papal decrees" in the catechism that doesn't align with scripture or is a force fit, eisegetical interpretation of scripture so as not to compromise the authority of the Vatican.

I said there's a long standing joke in both the RCC and Protestant churches in that Catholics rarely carry, read or sometimes own bibles because they rely on the local parish priest to interpret scripture for them. So if asked to turn to a portion of scripture they hold dearly to most wouldn't have a clue how to do so.  

Here's the thing, most Catholics don't read and interpret scripture on their own because the doctrines outlined in the council of Trent forbid it:

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established."

Report to moderator   Logged

Sizwe
Getbig II
**
Posts: 280



« Reply #29 on: December 28, 2015, 03:45:29 PM »


Here's the thing, most Catholics don't read and interpret scripture on their own because the doctrines outlined in the council of Trent forbid it:

"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established."

And for good reason, because if we decide to rely on our own interpretation, we will see as today, over twenty thousand different christian denominations..who's right?
Therefore I believe its wise to look to the church fathers, and trust that the church which Jesus founded upon Peter, will not be lead into error.
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21894


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #30 on: December 29, 2015, 11:10:49 AM »

And for good reason, because if we decide to rely on our own interpretation, we will see as today, over twenty thousand different christian denominations..who's right?
Therefore I believe its wise to look to the church fathers, and trust that the church which Jesus founded upon Peter, will not be lead into error.

You mean the same church who turned its head when priests were molesting young boys?  Or the same church who killed millions in the crusades?   Or the same church that participated in the inquisition?  Or the same church that help nazis flee justice in WW2?

Or the same church who has billions in art and gems and gold while people in the world are with out food, shelter and water?

Don't think they are representative of God.
Report to moderator   Logged
Sizwe
Getbig II
**
Posts: 280



« Reply #31 on: December 29, 2015, 08:06:50 PM »

You mean the same church who turned its head when priests were molesting young boys?  Or the same church who killed millions in the crusades?   Or the same church that participated in the inquisition?  Or the same church that help nazis flee justice in WW2?

Or the same church who has billions in art and gems and gold while people in the world are with out food, shelter and water?

Don't think they are representative of God.

Where there are humans there will always be corruption, but I'm going to ask you to imagine, if Jesus had founded a church on earth, how do you think it would be treated?
Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19107


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 30, 2015, 10:05:56 AM »

And for good reason, because if we decide to rely on our own interpretation, we will see as today, over twenty thousand different christian denominations..who's right?
Therefore I believe its wise to look to the church fathers, and trust that the church which Jesus founded upon Peter, will not be lead into error.

In reality the number of denominations is drastically reduced and fractional in comparison.  The vast majority of differences in Christian denominations often come down to styles of worship and adiaphora. Now, there are a bunch (probably thousands) of different Christians churches (this is true), but each church isn't a different denomination (that is false).   Hence I belong to a non-denominational church that loves the Lord and teaches from scripture.  Regardless of background all are welcome to attend, worship and learn.

What some would say is your type of response is a classic red herring response used to distract, but nevermind that.

I'd rather you address the first objections I've raised regarding the greek translations, other contextual scripture and the idea of understanding things precept upon precept.

Keep in mind, I've only put forth these few items as a start.....there are many others (and I claim zero "expert status"....I'm a humble, informal student of scripture).
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21894


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #33 on: December 30, 2015, 04:43:48 PM »

Where there are humans there will always be corruption, but I'm going to ask you to imagine, if Jesus had founded a church on earth, how do you think it would be treated?

Sure there will always be corruption with man.  This is the representative church of God, created in 325 at the council of the nicea, were they tried to increase followers by melding pagan traditions and ritual.  It became the most powerful church on earth drunk with power and perversion.  It hasn't been until the last 50 years that the Church has with drawn from some of its BS.    I am not holding the church to a standard of perfection.  But the i list i made go way beyond the line of responsibility. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Sizwe
Getbig II
**
Posts: 280



« Reply #34 on: December 30, 2015, 09:35:35 PM »

In reality the number of denominations is drastically reduced and fractional in comparison.  The vast majority of differences in Christian denominations often come down to styles of worship and adiaphora. Now, there are a bunch (probably thousands) of different Christians churches (this is true), but each church isn't a different denomination (that is false).   Hence I belong to a non-denominational church that loves the Lord and teaches from scripture.  Regardless of background all are welcome to attend, worship and learn.

What some would say is your type of response is a classic red herring response used to distract, but nevermind that.

I'd rather you address the first objections I've raised regarding the greek translations, other contextual scripture and the idea of understanding things precept upon precept.

Keep in mind, I've only put forth these few items as a start.....there are many others (and I claim zero "expert status"....I'm a humble, informal student of scripture).
So you believe the catholic church in its early days was right, then went wrong, so you now belong to a 'non denominational church', and adhere to clearly defined protestant interpretations of scripture..
My response is not a 'red herring' as no, they're not simply just 'churches' but denominations ..Here's an incomplete list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations - "Divisions between one group and another are defined by doctrine and church authority" .. so who holds the truth?

Your statement of understanding scripture in context is valid, and that Jesus founded his church on Peter could not be clearer..
One does not need to understand aramaic, hebrew, greek or latin to understand the bible..this is silly..Your arguments of 'big rock' 'little rock' is a very recent argument from evangelicals, certainly no older than 100 years, and its grasping at straws TBH.. Your mention of the greek "petra and petros are the greek translations of the language Jesus was speaking ..Aramaic..And Peters name in Aramaic is 'Kephas' which means 'big rock'..So as mentioned before, the English translation is correct, and this sentence makes only sense grammatically one way and its been understood the same way from the very begging.. And if not, show evidence proving otherwise, I've already shown you one quote from Tertullian..there's plenty more..

Sure there will always be corruption with man.  This is the representative church of God, created in 325 at the council of the nicea, were they tried to increase followers by melding pagan traditions and ritual.  It became the most powerful church on earth drunk with power and perversion.  It hasn't been until the last 50 years that the Church has with drawn from some of its BS.    I am not holding the church to a standard of perfection.  But the i list i made go way beyond the line of responsibility.  

Ozmo, I urge you not to believe every accusation that gets made, and to look up both sides of every story..we've already seen how this thread started off..with accusations that catholics worship Mary and that they're not christian..
Report to moderator   Logged
IrishMuscle84
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 1300


« Reply #35 on: December 31, 2015, 11:02:59 AM »

I grew up going too a Roman Catholic Grade school for 9 years and went too church twice a week. I READ SCRIPTURE EVERYDAY Wink Wink The last time I went too the church I went too growing up was back in July for my Nieces baptism but before that I hadn't Gone too church in YEARS. Theres a part of me that wants too either go back too the Church I went too growing OR finding a New Church BUT..................... .........At the same time, One does not have too go too church too be able too Read/learn Bible Scripture.

As far as Mary and Saints, its not Worshipping them, its simply PRAYING too them too Pray too God For Us Wink
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #36 on: December 31, 2015, 02:28:53 PM »

So you believe the catholic church in its early days was right, then went wrong, so you now belong to a 'non denominational church', and adhere to clearly defined protestant interpretations of scripture..
My response is not a 'red herring' as no, they're not simply just 'churches' but denominations ..Here's an incomplete list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations - "Divisions between one group and another are defined by doctrine and church authority" .. so who holds the truth?

Your statement of understanding scripture in context is valid, and that Jesus founded his church on Peter could not be clearer..
One does not need to understand aramaic, hebrew, greek or latin to understand the bible..this is silly..Your arguments of 'big rock' 'little rock' is a very recent argument from evangelicals, certainly no older than 100 years, and its grasping at straws TBH.. Your mention of the greek "petra and petros are the greek translations of the language Jesus was speaking ..Aramaic..And Peters name in Aramaic is 'Kephas' which means 'big rock'..So as mentioned before, the English translation is correct, and this sentence makes only sense grammatically one way and its been understood the same way from the very begging.. And if not, show evidence proving otherwise, I've already shown you one quote from Tertullian..there's plenty more..

Ozmo, I urge you not to believe every accusation that gets made, and to look up both sides of every story..we've already seen how this thread started off..with accusations that catholics worship Mary and that they're not christian..
i am not "anti-catholic" ... I believe that Roman Catholics are Christians ...  But the "protestant"  (Evangelical) interpretation, in regards Peter and the Rock, is not a new one.  It goes back to the early church, including St. Augustine and many others.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/the-church-fathers-interpretation-of-the-rock-of-matthew-1618-an-historical-refutation-of-the-claims-of-roman-catholicism-by-william-webster/
Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19107


Isaiah40:28-31 ✝ Romans10:9 ✝ 1Peter3:15


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 31, 2015, 05:33:52 PM »

So you believe the catholic church in its early days was right, then went wrong, so you now belong to a 'non denominational church', and adhere to clearly defined protestant interpretations of scripture..
My response is not a 'red herring' as no, they're not simply just 'churches' but denominations ..Here's an incomplete list. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations - "Divisions between one group and another are defined by doctrine and church authority" .. so who holds the truth?

Your statement of understanding scripture in context is valid, and that Jesus founded his church on Peter could not be clearer..
One does not need to understand aramaic, hebrew, greek or latin to understand the bible..this is silly..Your arguments of 'big rock' 'little rock' is a very recent argument from evangelicals, certainly no older than 100 years, and its grasping at straws TBH.. Your mention of the greek "petra and petros are the greek translations of the language Jesus was speaking ..Aramaic..And Peters name in Aramaic is 'Kephas' which means 'big rock'..So as mentioned before, the English translation is correct, and this sentence makes only sense grammatically one way and its been understood the same way from the very begging.. And if not, show evidence proving otherwise, I've already shown you one quote from Tertullian..there's plenty more..

Ozmo, I urge you not to believe every accusation that gets made, and to look up both sides of every story..we've already seen how this thread started off..with accusations that catholics worship Mary and that they're not christian..

As I noted the differences in the vast majority of denominations come down to adiaphora and preferences in worship.  The essentials of the gospel are rarely compromised.  We're discussing the RCC and their foundations of the papacy.  Introducing differences in Protestant denominations neither validates or invalidates the other.

Understanding scripture is not as simple as reading the english translations.  I certainly believe a person can read a KJV bible or an NASB and grasp the gospel message and become saved.....praise God for that!

Still, points of contention are points of contention because of things like lingustics and textual criticism and to pass it off as "no nevermind" is ignorant.  Also the understanding of the greek is far older than 100 years.  Apologetic arguments develop over time and whether some are centuries old or decades old doesn't validate or invalidate them.  Much like our church fathers they're a wonderful source of scriptural validation when the manuscript evidence is questioned.  Still, their individual opinions are not authority.....recall we had a huge Reformation period in the church.  

The word of God is a living word and I fully believe we glean and discover more nuances about that word with study and time.  I sometimes wish I was a seminary student so that I had formal guidance in greek and hebrew.....what I studied independently has been tremendously helpful though.  When I was ignorant of certain things it shook me at first and I didn't accept what I'd learned.  I study, read, meditate and pray about things.  Sometimes I come to peace with certain things and other times I don't have total peace and continue to seek answers.

Now you did ask a wonderful question:  Who holds the truth?  The living word of God holds the truth.  The Lord Jesus Christ holds the truth.   The entire foundation and structure of the RCC is grounded upon a single verse of scripture that is called into question with more than I've presented in my few replies.  And despite you claiming I'm grasping at straws....well, that's fine for you to hold that opinion.  Personally, I examine the whole of scripture and when verses seem to conflict I look at greater context, examine ideas precept upon precept and seek to understanding how things align.  If you believe that Peter is the first Pope and the papacy of the RCC was grounded in this single passage so be it.  I'm not convinced of that at all.  Like I noted previously, what we're discussing is merely a single facet of the argument.  You haven't addressed the other verses of scripture I noted so I won't introduce other argumentation yet.  And again what we're discussing is just a part of this one objection in reference to the RCC.....there are many others.
Report to moderator   Logged

OzmO
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21894


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #38 on: January 04, 2016, 10:45:58 AM »

Ozmo, I urge you not to believe every accusation that gets made, and to look up both sides of every story..we've already seen how this thread started off..with accusations that catholics worship Mary and that they're not christian..

Are you saying the things I listed are not true?

You will notice i didn't list worshiping Mary.  I was raised Catholic, I have seen women go in the church after the service place a statue of Mary on the alter get on their knees and start "asking" her to pray for them.

To me that's like saying, "I am not stabbing you with this knife, i am just placing it in your body."

Further more there are things the Catholic church promotes that go against the Bible, here are a couple of the top of my head:

Mathew 6:7

Mathew 23:9

Then there is crap they add like don't eat meat on good Friday.

If you believe the Bible KJV is the word the of God then i cannot see how you can be a Catholic. 

PS  Don't ignore the first sentence of my post please.  Thanks
Report to moderator   Logged
Sizwe
Getbig II
**
Posts: 280



« Reply #39 on: January 04, 2016, 05:21:55 PM »

I was raised Catholic
Sorry Ozmo, but if this were the case I believe you would know better on all these points, even if you had left the faith.
However, if not and you truly do wish to know more and haven't made up your mind, I'm sure you'll research these things from both sides.
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21894


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2016, 10:20:38 AM »

Sorry Ozmo, but if this were the case I believe you would know better on all these points, even if you had left the faith.
However, if not and you truly do wish to know more and haven't made up your mind, I'm sure you'll research these things from both sides.

Are you saying the things I listed are not true?

And why are you also choosing to ignore the other stuff i talked about?

Also, are you saying i am lying about being raised Catholic?

So far Sizwe, it seems like you running away from my assertions.  

First, you dismiss my list by saying I should research the other side.  You don't address any of it, nor do you provide any tangible counter points or arguments.

Second, You ignore 2 Bible versus I provided that fly squarely in contradiction of Catholic Ritual.

Third, you suggest i am lying about being raised Catholic

If this how you feel you have to defend you faith?

BTW here is a link to a post i made in 2006 on  this forum:  http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=102738.0

Here is the post.

Purge...


I was raised catholic.  After spending some time going ot a non-denominational church and doing research on the origins of the Bible and Christianity I realized the Catholic church doesn't follow the bible very well.   Here are some some general points of why i don't think too much of the catholic church:


-  It was born of political agreement at the council of nicea (s?)
-  The pope is supposed to speak for god
-  It adopted many pagan rituals
-  It is a overly wealthy church with loads of riches, gold, diamonds, land, buildings....  soooo much excess
-  It doesn't follow the bible with "hail Mary repetative verses
-  It makes you call priests "father"  when in the bible it says not to.
-  It created it's own parts of the afterlife:  Pergatory
-  It created new sins:  Eating meat on good Friday
-  It allows idol worship
-  It allows praying to a spirit other than god


All these things made me rethink being a catholic.
Report to moderator   Logged
Sizwe
Getbig II
**
Posts: 280



« Reply #41 on: January 06, 2016, 08:10:57 AM »

A nice quote i was just reminded of..

"There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church....As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do." ARCHBISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN -- preface to RADIO REPLIES
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21894


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #42 on: January 06, 2016, 10:37:58 AM »



I don't hate the Catholic Church, I am, however, not in denial of it.

Nor am i a coward when it comes to defending or attacking it.

 Cheesy
Report to moderator   Logged
tbombz
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 19402

Psalms 150


« Reply #43 on: January 09, 2016, 02:30:24 AM »

personally, i dont feel it necessary to attack the Roman Catholic church. while I dont agree with them about everything - and there are certain things which I am certain they are wrong about - they still believe and teach the essentials of the faith.

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

I dont think it is profitable for us to argue amongst each other non-essentials. what matters most is that each person has a personal relationship with Christ.
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21894


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2016, 09:05:48 AM »

personally, i dont feel it necessary to attack the Roman Catholic church. while I dont agree with them about everything - and there are certain things which I am certain they are wrong about - they still believe and teach the essentials of the faith.

"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

I dont think it is profitable for us to argue amongst each other non-essentials. what matters most is that each person has a personal relationship with Christ.

I agree, Catholics are Christians.

Ist unfortunate that man has developed a way to split that 100+ ways
Report to moderator   Logged
Donny
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 15404


getbig Zen Master


« Reply #45 on: January 11, 2016, 09:13:11 AM »

I agree, Catholics are Christians.

Ist unfortunate that man has developed a way to split that 100+ ways
THIS... my best friend was a Catholic and i saw the segregation in Scotland and later N Ireland. Now we need to be as one together.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!