Conquer Club

2dimes wrote:I often miss my own point which is. After Yahushua came we no longer need a human priest between us and God. He is still doing that job.

What was the point of including all the St Paul stuff in the bible again?

Gentiles.

So God didn't think non-jews would come aboard? So he had to add an addendum?

You ever been to synagog?

From other thread:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

crispybits wrote:OK - forgive any bad typing I'm writing this on my phone.

The Catholic Church teaches that we have an immortal soul.

The Catholic Church teaches that animals do not have an immortal soul.

The Catholic Church teaches that man evolved from animals.

So at some point in our evolutionary history we had no souls and now we do? Or how does that work?

Note that I'm not the one claiming that souls exist - the Catholic Church are the ones doing that. Even if I'm willing to give them that point (and there's a lot to do before I do that) their metaphysics still has some pretty serious issues when they try and mesh it with evolution.

So, the catholic church, who seem to self-admit adhering to tradition and not Biblical scripture, are supposed to represent Biblical scripture? Interesting angle.
As for the soul thing, doesn't evolution teach that life came from non-life and rationality came from the non-rational? Again, some curious points you raise here.

Why do you keep typing that? It's inaccurate. Let's have this discussion in the other thread, but what specific things does the Catholic Church adhere to that are antithetical to the Bible (other than "a man behind a screen is my confessor")? Keep in mind your own version of Christianity does not adhere to the Bible 100%.

-deleted-

One of the reasons God sent his son was to give everyone access to him. Instead of needing priests as a mediator because at that time they were closer to him.

Unlike the Torah, following christ allows choice, such as bacon, we're all supposed to use our own better judgement to live right instead of blindly following the rules inturpreted by other people. Talking with someone who is a good Christian, maybe some sort of pastor should cause me to desire to follow a rule because it will bring PB&J, instead of being coerced by fear.

Keep in mind your own version of Christianity does not adhere to the Bible 100%.

Only one person ever followed the law of the Torah completely and perfectly. Even he defended his followers, after some religious men caught them breaking one of the Ten Commandments in front of him, by picking grain to eat on the sabbath. Not because the Sabbath was unimportant, or that commandment was null and void but because it was only a rule to make a person's life on earth better.

Not every law was so inflexible that if broken it prevents one from continuing to try to live right or get into heaven. Notice no one started picking up rocks, they may have brought signs but I think if they had it probably would have been recorded.

Even when the law was active during the time when God's presence was behind a veil it was not a matter of those laws being unbreakable. They were always a mix of various levels of seriousness and each would have different requirements to be met if broken, for some there was like a fine, for others there might be consequences or punishment.

The reasons the second half of the bible is called the new covenant or testament. In addition to the writings to share the Christ with non Jews, it starts with the gospels which explain how love superseded the lesser law that was mostly designed to lead the clan of Abraham and Sarah to righteousness as a partially undeserved reward.

Sir, I do believe you enforced to me this very notion, tradition over Scripture. Let us explore then the antithetical teachings, as you have insisted. Please note I speak of these things out of love, and not hatred or condemnation.
- Obviously, we've already gone over that fact that sins can be forgiven by God only, not a priest.

That's an interesting system! Let me try it:

God, I did something wrong; do you forgive my sins?
...
God just told me, "yeah, it's all cool, bro."

He also told me that all of you are wrong.

I'm also feeling divinely inspired!, so whatever I write is actually the word of the Lord. My argument is as irrefutable as the Bible!

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:From other thread:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

crispybits wrote:OK - forgive any bad typing I'm writing this on my phone.

The Catholic Church teaches that we have an immortal soul.

The Catholic Church teaches that animals do not have an immortal soul.

The Catholic Church teaches that man evolved from animals.

So at some point in our evolutionary history we had no souls and now we do? Or how does that work?

Note that I'm not the one claiming that souls exist - the Catholic Church are the ones doing that. Even if I'm willing to give them that point (and there's a lot to do before I do that) their metaphysics still has some pretty serious issues when they try and mesh it with evolution.

So, the catholic church, who seem to self-admit adhering to tradition and not Biblical scripture, are supposed to represent Biblical scripture? Interesting angle.
As for the soul thing, doesn't evolution teach that life came from non-life and rationality came from the non-rational? Again, some curious points you raise here.

Why do you keep typing that? It's inaccurate. Let's have this discussion in the other thread, but what specific things does the Catholic Church adhere to that are antithetical to the Bible (other than "a man behind a screen is my confessor")?

Sir, I do believe you enforced to me this very notion, tradition over Scripture. Let us explore then the antithetical teachings, as you have insisted. Please note I speak of these things out of love, and not hatred or condemnation.
- Obviously, we've already gone over that fact that sins can be forgiven by God only, not a priest. In Catholicism sins are not forgiven by priests; not sure where you got that idea.
- Multiple non-Biblical rituals involving the virgin Mary (ie. praying to her, worshiping her etc.) Where does the Bible state that one cannot pray to or about Mary?
- Worshiping idols What idols to Catholics worship?
- Changing the ten commandments (scrapping #2 and splitting #10 into two separate laws) Okay.
- Purgatory, again, not Biblically supported Where does the Bible say there is no purgatory?
- The alteration of the day of worship (Sabbath) from saturday to sunday to incorporate mithrics into the Roman empire Okay.
- Indulgences (paying money to be given the right to sin) - although I read that this has been outlawed a while back and was only carried about and endorsed by certain members, and was not an official church practice (perhaps you can provide clarification here) This is not currently an official or unofficial Church practice.
- As for their stance on salvation I ask you to explain the official church's doctrine on it, rather than make assumptions (though I read many claims that appall me) I'm not sure what you mean and I'm not sure where you previously asked it.

Matthew 15:9 "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

See red type above.

-deleted-

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: - Obviously, we've already gone over that fact that sins can be forgiven by God only, not a priest. In Catholicism sins are not forgiven by priests; not sure where you got that idea. The sacrament of penance teaches that you confess your sins to a priest, and after some vane ritual (such as reciting hail Mary) your sins will be absolved.Okay, but again priests don't forgive your sins; God does.
- Multiple non-Biblical rituals involving the virgin Mary (ie. praying to her, worshiping her etc.) Where does the Bible state that one cannot pray to or about Mary? Catholicism teaches that Mary is the intercessor between man and God. Let's see what the bible has to say about that.
1 Tim 2:5– For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
John 14:6– Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
As for praying to Mary and worshiping her, this is self explanatory. We are told to worship God only, Mary was never exalted as a diety, end of story.Catholicism does not teach that Mary is an intercessor. We do not treat her as a deity.
- Worshiping idols What idols to Catholics worship? Creed of Pope Pius IV.
“I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, of the Mother of God, ever virgin, and also of the other saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be given them.”
Hmm... still don't see the word "worship" but okay. I think Pope Pius IV (1499-1565 I should added) is saying not to destroy the stuff.
- Changing the ten commandments (scrapping #2 and splitting #10 into two separate laws) Okay.Okay? That is your retort for an organized religion changing the Holy law of God?Yes. That seems consistent with your response to not killing adulterers with stones.
- Purgatory, again, not Biblically supported Where does the Bible say there is no purgatory?The Bible doesn't say that unicorns don't exist. Does this mean that they do?No, but if I think unicorns exist does that mean I'm violating the Bible? You seem to be making some very inconsistent arguments. On the one hand, it's okay not to do something the Bible says to do (for your religion), but on the other hand it's not okay to do something the Bible doesn't say anything about.
- The alteration of the day of worship (Sabbath) from saturday to sunday to incorporate mithrics into the Roman empire Okay. Again, seem to be taking these things a little lightly.I don't think the day of the Sabbath is something that should be a focus; so long as the Sabbath is observed, that should be enough.
- Indulgences (paying money to be given the right to sin) - although I read that this has been outlawed a while back and was only carried about and endorsed by certain members, and was not an official church practice (perhaps you can provide clarification here) This is not currently an official or unofficial Church practice. Fair enough.
- As for their stance on salvation I ask you to explain the official church's doctrine on it, rather than make assumptions (though I read many claims that appall me) I'm not sure what you mean and I'm not sure where you previously asked it. I haven't asked you before, I'm asking now. What is the catholic doctrine on salvation? http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/ ... -salvation
See red type above.

See green.

More red.

God told me that y'all's christmas-color debate is not appeasing him.

BigBallinStalin wrote:God told me that y'all's christmas-color debate is not appeasing him.

I'm surprised you don't get more girls.

-deleted-

You win dude. You know way more about my religion than I do.

-deleted-

2dimes wrote:One of the reasons God sent his son was to give everyone access to him. Instead of needing priests as a mediator because at that time they were closer to him.

Unlike the Torah, following christ allows choice, such as bacon, we're all supposed to use our own better judgement to live right instead of blindly following the rules inturpreted by other people. Talking with someone who is a good Christian, maybe some sort of pastor should cause me to desire to follow a rule because it will bring PB&J, instead of being coerced by fear.

Keep in mind your own version of Christianity does not adhere to the Bible 100%.

Only one person ever followed the law of the Torah completely and perfectly. Even he defended his followers, after some religious men caught them breaking one of the Ten Commandments in front of him, by picking grain to eat on the sabbath. Not because the Sabbath was unimportant, or that commandment was null and void but because it was only a rule to make a person's life on earth better.

Not every law was so inflexible that if broken it prevents one from continuing to try to live right or get into heaven. Notice no one started picking up rocks, they may have brought signs but I think if they had it probably would have been recorded.

Even when the law was active during the time when God's presence was behind a veil it was not a matter of those laws being unbreakable. They were always a mix of various levels of seriousness and each would have different requirements to be met if broken, for some there was like a fine, for others there might be consequences or punishment.

The reasons the second half of the bible is called the new covenant or testament. In addition to the writings to share the Christ with non Jews, it starts with the gospels which explain how love superseded the lesser law that was mostly designed to lead the clan of Abraham and Sarah to righteousness as a partially undeserved reward.

Well put.

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:You win dude. You know way more about my religion than I do.

Sorry, I have a habit of getting a bit passionate and argumentative at times.
My points still do stand firm though.

I was being serious. I don't know enough about Catholicism and theology to be effective in the discussion. In retrospect, I should not have participated in the first place (which used to be what I did with religious discussions).

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: - Obviously, we've already gone over that fact that sins can be forgiven by God only, not a priest. In Catholicism sins are not forgiven by priests; not sure where you got that idea.

The sacrament of penance teaches that you confess your sins to a priest, and after some vane ritual (such as reciting hail Mary) your sins will be absolved.

Although I agree with you, the Bible does tell us to confess our sins. All the Roman Catholic church has done is codify it and some penalties more formally than many other churches. I DO argue that this is not what Christ intended, because it does put too much control in the hands of humanity.. do xyz and you get a "free pass" out of the consequences of sin.

Loosely, protestants tend to concentrate more on forgiveness and consequences as independent of each other. You can be forgiven the sin, but not undo the consequences. Or, as my Dad used to say, "you cannot take back a word once spoken or a bullet that has left the gun".

BUT where you err is in thinking that this is as absolute as all that. Remember that the priests, under Roman Catholic tradition, are not working on their own power, they are merely agents of God, the Lord. They give the words, but the ultimate forgiveness comes from God, not the priest.. even if the priests are the ones passing on the penalties, etc. In real Roman Catholicism (as opposed to what many Roman Catholics THINK is Roman Catholicism), there is more subtlety involved. You cannot just get penance, if your heart doesn't truly repent. Its just that the church cannot see into someone's soul/heart, so they look at the superficialities as a means of basically bringing people into the "heart" portion. Basically its "do the traditions and it will bring you closer to God, even if your heart is not 100% always 'there' ". Also, while I see the pitfall in places even these words into the hands of priests, because priests are human and thus subject to human failings and false judgements, Roman Catholics don't see it that way.

Whether their understanding or the Protestant understanding is a matter of debate. While there is some absolute substance, it is also a matter of style. Christ did tell us his house had many mansions. Remember, Roman Catholics tend to follow Peter. Lutherans tend to look more to Paul, yet they each were Apostles of Christ. That Christ had such varied people as his key followers and leaders tells far more than what you or I could say about smaller points.

If we believe in Christ, then we are saved... period.

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:- Multiple non-Biblical rituals involving the virgin Mary (ie. praying to her, worshiping her etc.) Where does the Bible state that one cannot pray to or about Mary?

Catholicism teaches that Mary is the intercessor between man and God. Let's see what the bible has to say about that.
1 Tim 2:5– For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.
John 14:6– Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
As for praying to Mary and worshiping her, this is self explanatory. We are told to worship God only, Mary was never exalted as a diety, end of story.

Again, I agree, sort of. Roman Catholics tend to see God as this remote entity and that human need intercessors -- saints and so forth. However, they still see all prayer as going to God. They do NOT see Mary as another God, though their actions can be interpreted as meaning that by some people. They see Mary and the saints as kinds of "lower intercessors". Again, it is a matter of technicality as much as substance.

This gets somewhat blurred, at times, in part because of the views of the Jesuit missionaries (and others). They saw a pattern to bring people into Christianity, where they first required the native peoples to follow the patterns set forth by the Roman Catholic church and then trusted that these would work to bring the people closer to God and fully into the Roman Catholic belief. (note..I am talking a tad loosely, you will have to find a theologian to really get into these things more, but this is my general understanding). So, they might build a church and set up an idol and instruct the locals to come pray there. If the people had a specific tradition, they might try to include that into some Roman Catholic rite. It did work in exactly that way many times and you now have a hugely Roman Catholic South America as a result (of that and other actions). You also, as anthropologists have recently found, had pockets of Mayan tradition held steady under the guise of being Roman Catholicism.

The thing is you get distortions and error in Protestantism as well. Paul teaches us that it is not through works (or tradition, by extension) that we are saved, but by faith. Yet.. "faith without works is dead". Whether concentrating on the patterns, the behavior and then seeing that as leading to the inward faith is better than concentrating on the inward and ignoring the outward more or less is better is a point of debate. The Bible offers not one clear path, but options.

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:- Worshiping idols What idols to Catholics worship?

Creed of Pope Pius IV.
“I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, of the Mother of God, ever virgin, and also of the other saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration are to be given them.”

Uh, sorry, but no. I honor the flag of the US, but I don't worship it.
Now, as noted above, some Roman Catholics DO essentially engage in idol worship, though they certainly put God at the fore of it all -- see the idols as representations of pieces of God, (essentially). However, the real Roman Catholic position is not to worship the icons. I also see people giving what seems to me to be almost mystical importance to various objects .. Rosaries, in particular. However, the key is that these are just seen as vessels for the blessings of God or things that bring people closer to a connection to God. I don't agree, because I think it can lead to idol worship too easily, but its not truly idol worship. I do feel that many Roman Catholics actually do practice a kind of idol worship, but that is not what the church truly teaches.

You may note that this was part of the old Byzantine/Greek versus Roman Catholic debate. The Roman or Latin church split, in part over whether it was OK to have images representing not just God, but the figures in the Bible. Islam takes this to a further extreme and eliminates all images of humanity and, sometimes, any animal as well.

The point is that these debates have persisted for almost as long as Christianity has existed, so to say that your view or my view are correct and that the Roman Catholic church's views are wrong is ... well, wrong.

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:- Changing the ten commandments (scrapping #2 and splitting #10 into two separate laws)

Okay.

Okay? That is your retort for an organized religion changing the Holy law of God?

Going to skip this one for now, because I have to do some research.

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:- Purgatory, again, not Biblically supported Where does the Bible say there is no purgatory?

The Bible doesn't say that unicorns don't exist. Does this mean that they do?

Oh brother, above you chastised greekdog for too simplistic an answer.. now you are just being juvenile.

These ARE real differences of opinion. I don't agree with the Roman Catholic position. It arose from their view of the need for penance. Essentially, if penance is required, then what if someone dies before the penance is completed? Purgatory was the answer. ( NOTE.. that is the outsiders, superficial view. For the true Roman Catholic theological view, use "Google")

The REAL point is that Christians disagree, but can still remain Christians. Christ did not dispel all debate, even within his own apostles. Why would you think there could be no honest and legitimate disagreement among the millions who now follow Christ?

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:- The alteration of the day of worship (Sabbath) from saturday to sunday to incorporate mithrics into the Roman empire

Okay.

Again, seem to be taking these things a little lightly.

Yeah, so do most Christians. The real answer is a tad complicated, but again... while Christ told us that he came to fulfill the commandments and not to dispel them, he did open the way for people to reasonably question.

Christ said "he who believes in me.." not "he who worships on Saturday".

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:- Indulgences (paying money to be given the right to sin) - although I read that this has been outlawed a while back and was only carried about and endorsed by certain members, and was not an official church practice (perhaps you can provide clarification here)

This is not currently an official or unofficial Church practice.

Fair enough.

Yeah, you answered this one yourself. A guy by the name of Martin Luther took serious exception to a GOOD MANY Roman Catholic practices... and he was followed by a series of other thinkers and reformers (Calvin, Thomas, anyone?). Eventually even the staid and heavily hierarchical Roman Catholic Church agreed with a lot of the major complaints/criticisms, though of course not the fundamental question of whether Popes are spiritual descendents of Christ, with Peter first. (or a few other points, as noted above)

Christianity was never a single entity, nor was (or is) Judaism for that matter.
quote="hahaha3hahaha"]

thegreekdog wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:- As for their stance on salvation I ask you to explain the official church's doctrine on it, rather than make assumptions (though I read many claims that appall me)

I'm not sure what you mean and I'm not sure where you previously asked it.

I haven't asked you before, I'm asking now. What is the catholic doctrine on salvation?[/quote]
See red type above.[/quote]
See green.[/quote]
The Roman Catholic position is that you need to be baptized into the faith and show belief through various means. The Roman Catholic church currently recognizes baptisms of Protestants, and certainly marriages. It is less definite on the view of other Protestant sacraments, most notably communion. Roman Catholics believe that you need to confess and be absolved of your sins to escape time in purgatory, though that gets a tad complicated.

One major difference between Roman Catholics and some Protestant churches lies in the view of forgiveness. Are some sins "unforgivable", and why? One reason we have the "insanity defense" today is because MANY churches felt (both Protestant and Roman Catholic) that if someone were not sane, they could not be capable of asking forgiveness and it was wrong to kill someone who could not ask for forgiveness

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:You win dude. You know way more about my religion than I do.

Sorry, I have a habit of getting a bit passionate and argumentative at times.
My points still do stand firm though.

Why is it so important for you to attack the Roman Catholic Church in this way?
And note, I have no love for that church or its doctrine.. but I absolutely won't say they are not Christians. I say these are debates within Christianity, not between "true Christians" and "false Christians".

-deleted-

Mostly, you seem to assume I am Roman Catholic, like greekdog. I am not. but I know enough to know that you distorted a lot of what they say. Most of your points really come down to your personal opinion. You are entitled to it, but not to declare that this is the only valid view of Christianity. I don't agree with much of that church's teachings, but will defend against claims that they are "not Christian" --whether directly or indirectly worded.

Also, if you really want to get into Roman Catholic theology, I suggest you use Google, as greekdog suggested. It doesn't seem that is your real interest, though.

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote: ...so to say that your view or my view are correct and that the Roman Catholic church's views are wrong is ... well, wrong.

So when white "Christian" Americans decided that the Bible endorsed enslaving black people, despite the fact that they were grossly wrong, and had misinterpreted the Bible, they weren't right or wrong, opposers weren't right or wrong, to think so would be...wrong? What a fallacy. This is dangerous relativism that you incorporate into your religion sir.

Oh please! From toddlerdom to plain repugnance? REALLY?



No, it doesn't mean that they are correct and I did not say that. MY Point, as opposed to the one you are trying to claim I was making, is that we can disagree, and still be Christians. Humans are inherently fallible. NONE of us has a perfect understanding of anything. Sure, we can look back and say that slavery was wrong, but the people of the day just did not have enough information to know that. They were wrong, but could still be Christian because they believed in Christ. Christ himself allowed disagreement among his disciples. If he wanted one, unified and uniformly thinking church, then he would not have had 12 Apostles, all with very different views on many things. In fact, there were multiple churches from the very beginning, and they each were DIFFERENT.

You might be trying to toy with the idea of why Christ would allow people who were actually "connected" to him, who worshiped and prayed and fully believed to continue to think slavery is OK. That gets into a couple of issues. One is "God's overall plan". For all the harm that came from black slavery, the mixed society we have today and a country in which blacks enjoy and have enjoyed more real rights than in much of Africa. Why it had to come in that way, with all that pain is another question. Why does God "allow" Christians to do anything wrong, and are we still Christian when we do? Ultimately, if you believe in Christ, then you believe in his overall forgiveness. That overrides all else, even very stupid human misunderstandings. You can point to some well known errors of the past, things you feel are errors in the Roman Catholic church, but in so doing, you ignore errors you yourself commit.

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

hahaha3hahaha wrote:- The alteration of the day of worship (Sabbath) from saturday to sunday to incorporate mithrics into the Roman empire

Okay.

Again, seem to be taking these things a little lightly.

Yeah, so do most Christians. The real answer is a tad complicated, but again... while Christ told us that he came to fulfill the commandments and not to dispel them, he did open the way for people to reasonably question.

This is an issue that requires in-depth study and not a rushed written response at 1am on a public forum. I would be glad to study with you though, if the opportunity arises.

Well, I said I was not going to even try to tackle it now. I like to debate anything, but I actually do think this shift was a mistake. Then it was partially a matter of survival. Today, it has become a matter of practicality as much as anything. I just don't think worshiping on Sunday means we are not Christian. That point, I am not going to debate, except to point to the Sermon on the Mount.

Both Catholicism and Protestantism are heresis, the Orthodox faith is the original Christian faith. Why do you guys believe in a heresy of your religion? My guess would be because your parents were heretics but I'm sure you have some other explanation that at least makes sense to you.

Gillipig wrote:Both Catholicism and Protestantism are heresis, the Orthodox faith is the original Christian faith. Why do you guys believe in a heresy of your religion? My guess would be because your parents were heretics but I'm sure you have some other explanation that at least makes sense to you.

Nah, mostly my parents.

What does the bible say we should do to heretics? I'm really hoping for somehting from Leviticus or Deuteronomy here as the jury will be more likely to have heard of those books at my trial...