Why are YOU not a catholic?

[Pat2]

There are a GREAT many Christian sects/ communions/ churches.

BUT Only one is founded by Christ Himself. The Catholic Church.

So my friend, why are you NOT a Catholic?

God Bless,

Pat

[Autodidact]

="Shermana"]You've established that he's called the "Son of G-d", that doesn't make him G-d. Maybe in your Theology it does.

My dear Jewish friend,

Your denial of the FACTS can not, and do not alter what was then true and remains true today.

John.10: 37-38 "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

Still waiting for you to show us that this is a fact.

Matt.24:1-2 "Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."

Of course, that was actually written after the Temple was destroyed.

And this came to be is 70 A.D. as a direct result of folks like you, who refused to believe that OT prophesy HAD been fullfilled in there time.

Can you TRY to argue without insulting other people? Not only is it rude and against forum rules) but it basically announces that you have no reasoning, and so have to recourse to mere insults.

[Flail]

Moses Yoder wrote:

I would agree with the heathens here that long quotes from the Bible with just a little bit of commentary is circular reasoning. The Bible is good evidence, a remarkable book when all things are considered, but in a debate with heathens should be used sparingly. Not that my way is better necessarily, but if someone were to ask me to prove that God loves me, I would simply tell him to read John 3:16 and then I would relate the story of how my wife and I met and have been together for 23 years now ever since the day we first met.

On behalf of other heathens here, I thank you for your support. Although the Bible is certainly evidence of what Christians believe, it is not evidence of or for any supernatural being. I am familiar, of course, with your verse and am well aware that the prize offered there has tempted many desirous folks to your superstition, but to say that the words in a book prove 'God' is a little beyond the pale, don't you think? As for marriage, I can post 35 years and counting for my awesome relationship to my loving heathen wife.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 40:

I would agree with the heathens here that long quotes from the Bible with just a little bit of commentary is circular reasoning. The Bible is good evidence, a remarkable book when all things are considered, but in a debate with heathens should be used sparingly.

Is it a product of your religious training to go around insulting others, or did you just pick that up on your own?

Not that my way is better necessarily, but if someone were to ask me to prove that God loves me, I would simply tell him to read John 3:16 and then I would relate the story of how my wife and I met and have been together for 23 years now ever since the day we first met.

What'd y'all do, hang your son up on a cross?

How does a Bible quote, and then folks getting married show the god in question has emotions, much less one of 'em being love?

[Moses Yoder]

From Post 40:
Is it a product of your religious training to go around insulting others, or did you just pick that up on your own?

I assume you are referring to the use of the word "heathen" and find it offensive for some reason. Dictionary.com defines the word heathen as "an unconverted individual of a people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible; a person who is neither a Jew, Christian, nor Muslim; pagan." You have to understand that if you subscribe to the "Atheist" group, I feel justified in referring to you as heathen. The term heathen refers to everyone who does not acknowledge the God of the Bible, not just atheists. If you could define some sort of reason why it is you find it offensive, I might refrain from using it.

[dianaiad]

From Post 40:
Is it a product of your religious training to go around insulting others, or did you just pick that up on your own?

I assume you are referring to the use of the word "heathen" and find it offensive for some reason. Dictionary.com defines the word heathen as "an unconverted individual of a people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible; a person who is neither a Jew, Christian, nor Muslim; pagan." You have to understand that if you subscribe to the "Atheist" group, I feel justified in referring to you as heathen. The term heathen refers to everyone who does not acknowledge the God of the Bible, not just atheists. If you could define some sort of reason why it is you find it offensive, I might refrain from using it.

Well now...I THINK it's because it's not a word that heathens use to describe themselves, and those who do use it to describe others do so in order to impart a negative view of them.

It's a bit like the 'N" word. You know the one I mean; Mark Twain used it a lot in "Huckleberry Finn." Now I have taught a great many young African-Americans. They will refer to themselves using that word, and it's just ducky.

However, nobody ELSE better use it. Melanin deprived folk had better NEVER use it. Violence might ensue--even if they heard it being thrown about with laughter and abandon a few seconds earlier by those to whom the word refers. The meaning changes drastically according to who SAYS it.

....and don't try to tell me that when you use the word 'heathen' you don't imbue it with 'lesser' and 'different' and all sorts of other negative things.

By the way, has it occurred to you that these other people, these "heathens," might not WANT to be referred to as if their belief systems can only be examined in light of Judeo-Christian-Muslim thought?

So.

No 'heathening' the heathens unless the heathens say you can.

It's only polite.

On the other hand, I'm not all THAT fond of political correctness, so...call 'em what you want to. Just be aware that you might get yelled at.

[Pat2]

"Autodidact"]

="Shermana"]You've established that he's called the "Son of G-d", that doesn't make him G-d. Maybe in your Theology it does.

My dear Jewish friend,

Your denial of the FACTS can not, and do not alter what was then true and remains true today.

John.10: 37-38 "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

Still waiting for you to show us that this is a fact.

Matt.24:1-2 "Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."

Of course, that was actually written after the Temple was destroyed.

And this came to be is 70 A.D. as a direct result of folks like you, who refused to believe that OT prophesy HAD been fullfilled in there time.

Can you TRY to argue without insulting other people? Not only is it rude and against forum rules) but it basically announces that you have no reasoning, and so have to recourse to mere insults.

DUH!
What the heck are you talking about

I was neither.

God Bless,
Pat

[micatala]

Moderator Intervention


As a moderator, let me comment on the "heathen" issue.

I do think dianaiad is right. "Heathen" has negative connotations, and especially in bygone days when it was used a lot more than it is now, was typically meant to suggest superiority of the one using the term over those it was applied to.

I would ask that members refrain from using the term, especially as applied to other members of the forum.




Also, I would ask members you feel they are being directly or indirectly insulted to use the report feature, and not respond with confrontational or belittling rhetoric in kind.


Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Shermana]

My dear Jewish friend,



Your denial of the FACTS can not, and do not alter what was then true and remains true today.

What FACTS do I deny?

John.10: 37-38 "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

Ummm, this is actually a verse I use when I am DISPELLING the Trinity, perhaps you may not see why, so here it is: Jesus is plainly saying he's doing the will of His Father, who is a separate Entity. The "Father in me" and "I am in the Father" further cements the idea that the author intended to convey that they were two separate beings. Now the fact that Jesus called his body a Temple may illustrate some concept that an ultimate vessel of Holiness can allow the Father to reside in Him and accomplish great works, like how the Father dwelt in the Temple.

Matt.24:1-2 "Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."

Ummm, okay, and the Temple was in fact destroyed except for the Outer wall which wasn't really part of the 2nd Temple originally. So....what's your point? This part came true, I don't deny.

And this came to be is 70 A.D. as a direct result of folks like you, who refused to believe that OT prophesy HAD been fullfilled in there time.

Folks like me? Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I clearly said I'm a Messianic Jew, that would mean that I actually believe Jesus WAS the prophecied Moshiach according to the "Old Testament" as you call it, including Zechariah 12:10 and Isaiah 53:10. I think you're assuming that because I reject the Trinity, that must somehow mean that I reject that Yashua Ben Yusuf was the Moshiach. Logic error. And it's "Their" time. I do agree however, that the destruction of the Temple may have had something to do with the widespread rejection of the Moshiach, but that's for another debate.

God Bless my friend,
Pat

Thank you, may G-d put you on the track to objective reasoning and seeing the Scriptures correctly.

[james.hoggatt]

From Post 23:

I challenge anyone to show a god has emotions, much less to have one of 'em be "love". [/QUOTE}

PLEASE FILE THIS UNDER .."OK You asked for it!"

Allow me first to establish Jesus as God:

Luke 1:26-35 "In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And he came to her and said, "Hail, full of grace", the Lord is with you!" But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and considered in her mind what sort of greeting this might be. And the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High;the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David,
and of his kingdom there will be no end." And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?" [35] And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

Now to your opinion:

ANGER: Mark.3: 5 "And he [Jesus] looked around at them with anger, grieved at their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." He stretched it out, and his hand was restored."

John.2: 15 "And [Jesus] making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables."


SORROW: Luke 19:41-44 Luke 19: 41-44 " And when he [Jesus] drew near and saw the city he wept over it, saying, "Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes. For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side, and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation."" [This was fullfilled in 70 AD]

BOTH JOY and LOVE John 15:10-12 "If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love. These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full. "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. "

There ya go my friend.

God Bless,
Pat

A various sects of early Christianity that the Catholic church excommunicated and later hunted down and killed would reject the verses and interpretations that you present here. The interpretation you present here is just an affirmation of the story constructed by the Catholic Counsels after the excommunication of the groups it did not like. There is no reason to prefer Luke et al to the gospels that reject or omit virgin birth and divinity. Mainstream Christianity maintained its particular hold on power by digging in with social structures around it. In order to ever start to assume we should care about Catholicism, you have to first establish why Nicenian Christianity is preferable to the other 2nd century forms of Christianity in terms of legitimacy.

There is no reason to prefer Catholicism just because it was able to beat out the other variations on faith with swords and money. Power does not in itself verify truth.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 44:

...

I 'preciate the explanation. Maybe my particular circumstances have just made me too sensitive to such.

Really though, I'd like to see you address the second part of my referenced post...

How does a Bible quote, and then folks getting married show the god in question has emotions, much less one of 'em being love?

I was married once, the whole while being an atheist. Does my getting married (or subsequently divorced) show a god doesn't have emotions?

I assume this line of questioning is in line with the OP, where it would seem (only?) Catholics have some means of determining this god has emotions.