Rational and civil debate between members of all religions and world views

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Reply to topic
DanieltheDragon
First Post
PostPosted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 9:01 pm  Duggar family values?? Reply with quote

http://gawker.com/five-women-sue-duggar-homeschool-ministry-over-sexual-a-173818...

yet another link to sex abuse and the Quiverfull movement.

Question for debate is there systemic sexual abuse in the Quiverfull movement?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 51: Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:40 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 50 by RightReason]

Peace to you RR,

Before I respond further, can you respond to this question?


Quote:
I think at this point you need to define the Church. What do you believe the Church is, exactly?



Thank you!

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 52: Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:09 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 51 by tam]

Quote:


I think at this point you need to define the Church. What do you believe the Church is, exactly?


I think I’ve already answered this, but here it is again elaborated . . .

The Church refers to all her members (the body of believers) and the magisterium (teaching authority).

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

752 In Christian usage, the word "church" designates the liturgical assembly,141 but also the local community142 or the whole universal community of believers.143 These three meanings are inseparable. "The Church" is the People that God gathers in the whole world. She exists in local communities and is made real as a liturgical, above all a Eucharistic, assembly. She draws her life from the word and the Body of Christ and so herself becomes Christ's Body.

765 The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the Twelve with Peter as their head.

768 So that she can fulfill her mission, the Holy Spirit "bestows upon [the Church] varied hierarchic and charismatic gifts, and in this way directs her."177 "Henceforward the Church, endowed with the gifts of her founder and faithfully observing his precepts of charity, humility and self-denial, receives the mission of proclaiming and establishing among all peoples the Kingdom of Christ and of God

771 "The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope, and charity, as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men."184 The Church is at the same time:

- a "society structured with hierarchical organs and the mystical body of Christ;

- the visible society and the spiritual community;

- the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches."185

These dimensions together constitute "one complex reality which comes together from a human and a divine element"186

96 What Christ entrusted to the apostles, they in turn handed on by their preaching and writing, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to all generations, until Christ returns in glory.

97 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God" (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

98 "The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes" (DV 8 § 1).

99 Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith, the People of God as a whole never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply and to live more fully from the gift of divine Revelation.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.

795 Christ and his Church thus together make up the "whole Christ" (Christus totus). The Church is one with Christ.

Christ always intended His Church to be one, "that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me" (John 17:21

That said, the Church does acknowledge there are elements of truth and sanctification outside the Church.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 53: Mon Jan 08, 2018 1:40 pm
Reply

Like this post
Peace to you,

Quote:
[quote="RightReason"]
[Replying to post 51 by tam]

Quote:


I think at this point you need to define the Church. What do you believe the Church is, exactly?


I think I’ve already answered this, but here it is again elaborated . . .

The Church refers to all her members (the body of believers) and the magisterium (teaching authority).


Thank you for answering the question. The first part is correct. It is exactly how Paul defines the church. It is what I have been saying to you for quite some time now.

The second part is something that man has added.


However, I wonder if you can see my dilemma between this definition and your statement as follows:

Quote:
No, it hasn’t. Individuals within the Church have been in error, but never the Church.



This sounds as though the people (including the teaching authority) are somehow separate from the church itself? How can that be? If individuals in the 'teaching authority' are in error, and they represent the church, how then is the church not in error when they are in error?


Quote:
765 The Lord Jesus endowed his community with a structure that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved. Before all else there is the choice of the Twelve with Peter as their head.


Peter was never head over the rest of the twelve.

On the contrary, Christ stated specifically,

But you shall not be called “Rabbi”, for One is your Rabbi, but you are all brothers. And you should not call yourselves “Father”, in the earth, for one is your Father who is in Heaven. And you will not be called Leaders, because one is your Leader, The Messiah.



So this catechism teaching is in error.

Quote:

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.



Considering that the papal authority authorized various inquisitions and persecutions of people they deemed heretics (not just once, but over the course of centuries)... how can it be said that they (the church) were never in error, or that they were even listening to Christ, that they even KNEW Christ? Did the pope at the time not know of these persecutions? Did he not put a stop to it? Did the bishops not know of it or put a stop to it?

In their authentic interpretation of the Word of God, did they miss what Christ said about how to handle false christs and false prophets? Did He ever say to persecute them, confiscate their property and belongings, imprison them, hand them over to be executed by the state?

Did Christ ever do those things or instruct His apostles to do those things?


If not, then who were these men - these popes and bishops - listening to? And if they were in error (for centuries), how was the RCC (which calls itself the Church) not in error?


Can you explain this?



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 54: Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:02 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to tam]

Quote:
Thank you for answering the question. The first part is correct.


Ha, ha, ha . . . The whole thing is correct. It is your version that is incomplete.

Quote:
It is what I have been saying to you for quite some time now.


No kidding. And it was incomplete then and it is incomplete now.

Quote:
The second part is something that man has added.


Not sure how one could say this. Scripture shows Christ establishing His Church, and appointing specific leaders, to whom He gave authority. Scripture also goes on to show that the first Church was organized in a hierarchical structure, recognized for its authority, and something all Christians understood. It doesn’t help your case to ignore so much of Scripture.

Quote:
However, I wonder if you can see my dilemma between this definition and your statement as follows:


Quote:
No, it hasn’t. Individuals within the Church have been in error, but never the Church.


I do not see your dilemma, considering those God has appointed have always been imperfect. Moses and all of the prophets were fallible human beings who Scripture even describes as screwing up at times. But Scripture is also very clear that what they taught and proclaimed as coming from God were exactly what God wanted them to and people were instructed to listen to them and obey them. I have explained this many times now. Jesus Himself said, “Do as they say, not as they do” recognizing that there might be times where even those put in charge and messengers of God’s word mess up, don’t get it themselves, and are poor examples. Even when they are like that, Jesus did not say – abandon them. He actually instructed we were to continue to obey them because they were His messengers and those appointed. It was then and is now necessary to have one authoritative institution. Without that, we are simply left with the word according to Tam, or Jane, or Brittany, or Bob, or Tyler . . .



Quote:
This sounds as though the people (including the teaching authority) are somehow separate from the church itself? How can that be?


Not at all. Just like as described in the Bible they are a part of the Church. The Church, just like Christ Himself, has both a human element and a divine. Wouldn’t you consider yourself part of Christ’s Church? And I assume you admit you can be wrong. Does that mean you think Christ’s Church is wrong? It’s not that complicated.


Quote:
Peter was never head over the rest of the twelve.


I’m afraid you once again don’t adhere to Scripture. “Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I build my church” “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven . . .”

Quote:
On the contrary, Christ stated specifically,

But you shall not be called “Rabbi”, for One is your Rabbi, but you are all brothers. And you should not call yourselves “Father”, in the earth, for one is your Father who is in Heaven. And you will not be called Leaders, because one is your Leader, The Messiah.


You completely misinterpret this passage and we can turn to Scripture itself to prove it . . .


Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).


Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).


This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).


The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."


So What Did Jesus Mean?


Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.


He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.


He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.


Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).


https://www.catholic.com/tract/call-no-man-father



Quote:
Considering that the papal authority authorized various inquisitions and persecutions of people they deemed heretics (not just once, but over the course of centuries)... how can it be said that they (the church) were never in error, or that they were even listening to Christ, that they even KNEW Christ? Did the pope at the time not know of these persecutions? Did he not put a stop to it? Did the bishops not know of it or put a stop to it?


Like I said, just like in Jesus’ day and before that, God’s chosen ones have really messed up. That said, many misunderstand a great deal about inquisitions. Some food for thought . . .


To understand the Inquisition we have to remember that the Middle Ages were, well, medieval. We should not expect people in the past to view the world and their place in it the way we do today. (You try living through the Black Death and see how it changes your attitude.) For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.

The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training–something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.

The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/211193/real-inquisition-thomas-f-madden

Quote:
Did Christ ever do those things or instruct His apostles to do those things?


Quote:
Can you explain this?


I think all my previous responses and a better understanding of the medieval period can explain it.

Perhaps you can explain to me how a church simply made up of a body of believers, without an authoritative governing body, would be of any use?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 55: Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:52 pm
Reply

Like this post
Quote:
[quote="RightReason"]
[Replying to tam]

Quote:
Thank you for answering the question. The first part is correct.


Ha, ha, ha . . . The whole thing is correct. It is your version that is incomplete.


My 'version' is the exact definition given Paul gave about the Body of Christ (made of people) being the Church. On no occasion did Paul did add what your religion has added. No one did. There is no need.




Quote:
Wouldn’t you consider yourself part of Christ’s Church? And I assume you admit you can be wrong. Does that mean you think Christ’s Church is wrong? It’s not that complicated.


But Christ is not wrong. This is why we (those who make up the Body of Christ, the Church) need to listen to Him. Because we who belong to Him can certainly be wrong. And when someone starts teaching that you have to listen to the 'church' no matter what, that is when we get people blindly following men, instead of following Christ.


Quote:
Quote:
Peter was never head over the rest of the twelve.


I’m afraid you once again don’t adhere to Scripture. “Thou art Peter and upon this rock, I build my church” “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven . . .”



Again, these do not mean that Peter was head over the rest of the twelve. As one can see from the following (which I bolded, then underlined the part that addresses this issue):


Quote:
Quote:
On the contrary, Christ stated specifically,

But you shall not be called “Rabbi”, for One is your Rabbi, but you are all brothers. And you should not call yourselves “Father”, in the earth, for one is your Father who is in Heaven. And you will not be called Leaders, because one is your Leader, The Messiah.


You completely misinterpret this passage and we can turn to Scripture itself to prove it . . .


Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).


Okay a) Joseph was indeed given authority over all of Pharaoh's kingdom and belongings and people. But Joseph is not a precursor to Peter. Joseph represents Christ in this, being given authority over all of GOD's Kingdom, belongings, people, etc.

And b) who is talking about fatherhood. I realize it is in the verse, and you certainly never read of Paul (or anyone else) calling any of the apostles 'father peter or father thomas' etc. But this conversation is not about that, this conversation is about whether or not Peter was given authority over the other apostles.

He was not. They were all equal. As Christ taught.



Quote:
Quote:
Considering that the papal authority authorized various inquisitions and persecutions of people they deemed heretics (not just once, but over the course of centuries)... how can it be said that they (the church) were never in error, or that they were even listening to Christ, that they even KNEW Christ? Did the pope at the time not know of these persecutions? Did he not put a stop to it? Did the bishops not know of it or put a stop to it?


Like I said, just like in Jesus’ day and before that, God’s chosen ones have really messed up. That said, many misunderstand a great deal about inquisitions. Some food for thought . . .


This is not food for thought. This is a distraction meant to hide the truth:

That the popes and bishops and so-called 'teaching authority' did not teach the truth.


If the so-called "Church" refused to speak and teach the truth just as Christ taught us, what good was it? What good IS it to anyone SEEKING to KNOW the truth? To anyone seeking to know Christ?

What do you suppose would have happened if the Popes and the Bishops had stood up and spoken the truth instead of participating in those un-christ-like tribunals and persecutions (giving approval to them, albeit a 'less unfair' version of them)? What do you suppose would have happened if they announced that Christians (the Body of Christ) do NOT persecute or punish or judge and condemn anyone? What if they, in no uncertain terms, taught what Christ taught instead? Did as Christ did instead?

What do you suppose would have happened then?



(And you are acting like the secular authorities are completely separate from the religious authorities. How is THAT possible? How do you suppose the so-called secular authorities got their idea on what was deemed heretical, except from the RCC?)

Quote:

Quote:
Did Christ ever do those things or instruct His apostles to do those things?


Quote:
Can you explain this?


I think all my previous responses and a better understanding of the medieval period can explain it.


None of that explains anything. Just attempts to distract from the truth that these so-called representatives of God and of Christ did not teach the truth; and disobeyed the very command that Christ gave them "Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you."

Quote:
Perhaps you can explain to me how a church simply made up of a body of believers, without an authoritative governing body, would be of any use?


By speaking truth as they are given to speak to whomever they are sent to speak that truth TO. By doing as Christ - their leader - commands. By teaching others to obey all that Christ has commanded. By pointing to Christ so the people seeking Him can know who it is they are supposed to be emulating and obeying and hearing and following. So that people may come to HIM to have life. By bearing witness to HIM. By asking forgiveness for those who sin against them; for those who fall short?


By listening to Christ and teaching others to do the same. Is that not what we are supposed to do?



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 56: Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:28 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to tam]


I’ll only respond to your last comment as I have given mounds of Scriptural evidence in previous posts on the primacy of Peter and I thoroughly cleared up your misunderstanding of the “call no man father” verse which way more Scripture than you probably bargained for.

Quote:
By speaking truth as they are given to speak to whomever they are sent to speak that truth TO. By doing as Christ - their leader - commands. By teaching others to obey all that Christ has commanded. By pointing to Christ so the people seeking Him can know who it is they are supposed to be emulating and obeying and hearing and following. So that people may come to HIM to have life. By bearing witness to HIM. By asking forgiveness for those who sin against them; for those who fall short?



By speaking truth, huh? So, why sooooooo many different groups and individuals all speaking different “truths”? Which ones are getting it right? They all claim to be following Christ’s commands. Your illogical and unscriptural response is quite problematic. In fact, it is utterly useless.

Quote:
By listening to Christ and teaching others to do the same. Is that not what we are supposed to do?


Then do it!!!!!!! He told us through Scripture that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Unless the church is one and authoritative how could it be truth? He also said, “He who hears you, hears me” “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven”. But you don’t listen to Him. You don’t follow those teachings . . . .

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 57: Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:43 pm
Reply

Like this post
RightReason wrote:

[Replying to tam]


I’ll only respond to your last comment as I have given mounds of Scriptural evidence in previous posts on the primacy of Peter and I thoroughly cleared up your misunderstanding of the “call no man father” verse which way more Scripture than you probably bargained for.


Since I did not bring up the 'father' issue to begin with (and in my previous post, I corrected your assumption that I did bring that up), I urge you to read or re-read my post. Including the part about the inquisitions and the RCC.


Until then, I'm not sure there is much more for me to add at this time.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 58: Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:30 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to tam]

Quote:
Since I did not bring up the 'father' issue to begin with (and in my previous post, I corrected your assumption that I did bring that up), I urge you to read or re-read my post. Including the part about the inquisitions and the RCC.



You posted that this Bible passage contradicted the Church’s authoritative and hierarchical set up . . .

“But you shall not be called “Rabbi”, for One is your Rabbi, but you are all brothers. And you should not call yourselves “Father”, in the earth, for one is your Father who is in Heaven. And you will not be called Leaders, because one is your Leader, The Messiah.”

To which I, via Scripture, showed you how you completely misapply that passage. In no way does it counter Christ’s establishment of His Church to whom He appointed specific leaders, who He gave the authority to lead us.

As for the inquisitions, that too I addressed quite thoroughly. I don’t think you understand the history of that time period or what exactly inquisitions were. Your anti Catholic bias prevents you from accurately assessing the time period.

This is very important if you really want to try to understand . . .

To understand the Inquisition we have to remember that the Middle Ages were, well, medieval. We should not expect people in the past to view the world and their place in it the way we do today. (You try living through the Black Death and see how it changes your attitude.) For people who lived during those times, religion was not something one did just at church. It was science, philosophy, politics, identity, and hope for salvation. It was not a personal preference but an abiding and universal truth. Heresy, then, struck at the heart of that truth. It doomed the heretic, endangered those near him, and tore apart the fabric of community.

The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment, just as if they had stolen a pig or damaged shrubbery (really, it was a serious crime in England). Yet in contrast to those crimes, it was not so easy to discern whether the accused was really a heretic. For starters, one needed some basic theological training–something most medieval lords sorely lacked. The result is that uncounted thousands across Europe were executed by secular authorities without fair trials or a competent assessment of the validity of the charge.

The Catholic Church’s response to this problem was the Inquisition, first instituted by Pope Lucius III in 1184. It was born out of a need to provide fair trials for accused heretics using laws of evidence and presided over by knowledgeable judges. From the perspective of secular authorities, heretics were traitors to God and the king and therefore deserved death. From the perspective of the Church, however, heretics were lost sheep who had strayed from the flock. As shepherds, the pope and bishops had a duty to bring them back into the fold, just as the Good Shepherd had commanded them. So, while medieval secular leaders were trying to safeguard their kingdoms, the Church was trying to save souls. The Inquisition provided a means for heretics to escape death and return to the community.

As this new report confirms, most people accused of heresy by the Inquisition were either acquitted or their sentences suspended. Those found guilty of grave error were allowed to confess their sin, do penance, and be restored to the Body of Christ. The underlying assumption of the Inquisition was that, like lost sheep, heretics had simply strayed. If, however, an inquisitor determined that a particular sheep had purposely left the flock, there was nothing more that could be done. Unrepentant or obstinate heretics were excommunicated and given over to secular authorities. Despite popular myth, the Inquisition did not burn heretics. It was the secular authorities that held heresy to be a capital offense, not the Church. The simple fact is that the medieval Inquisition saved uncounted thousands of innocent (and even not-so-innocent) people who would otherwise have been roasted by secular lords or mob rule.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/211193/real-inquisition-thomas-f-madden


Perhaps your great, great, great grandfather was a slave owner because he lived in a time when that simply was the culture. And perhaps he implemented a program that allowed slaves who were accused of wrongdoing to have a say and tell their side, when most slave-owners would not even let the slave speak. Most would just lock them up or even kill them – as that was the culture. But your grandfather attempted to do more. Of course, if the slave was still found guilty your grandfather could not prevent the current law. And yes, your grandfather was guilty of participating in slavery for which he later apologized. But usually, your grandfather’s program was helpful and punishments and harm to slaves were rarely enforced, but sometimes the ugliness of this barbaric time period prevailed. Does this make your grandfather sheer evil?

The Church is made up of sinful, fallible men, but it is still the means Christ established to go forth and teach all nations. And when properly analyzed, it is difficult not to see it is the Church on the forefront of changing bad status quo and keeping/maintaining good status quo. It is the Church who in Jesus’ time fought against barbaric pagan practices like feeding people to the lions. They expected more from believers. They taught about human dignity and the value of life. It is the Church who was the forerunner in speaking out against slavery and fighting for the rights of the individual in our country’s civil rights movement. It is the Church who speaks out against oppression throughout the world. It is the Church who has always fought for those who do not have a voice. It is the Church who protects the most vulnerable among us – the unborn when the rest of the world watches and allows this tragedy to go on (you want to talk about a modern day bloody practice that far surpasses any war, inquisition, or practice done “in the name of Christianity”) It is the Church alone who continues to uphold Christ’s teaching on marriage, family, and sex – even when it is unpopular or she is labeled as “old fashioned”, “out of touch”, “intolerant”, “up tight” Just like He promised He would, Christ has protected His Church and refused to allow her to back down or change these teachings in any way, because they are truth and you can’t change truth. So, even if the modern world wants to say sex outside of marriage isn’t that bad (it’s ok to live with someone without being married), or same sex unions would be ok with Christ, or pornography is innocuous, or adultery can be justified in some circumstances . . . those are NOT nor have ever been teachings of Jesus. We know this from both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. And can even know them from natural law if we would just open our eyes.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 59: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:09 pm
Reply

Like this post
Peace to you RR,

Quote:
[quote="RightReason"]
[Replying to tam]

Quote:
Since I did not bring up the 'father' issue to begin with (and in my previous post, I corrected your assumption that I did bring that up), I urge you to read or re-read my post. Including the part about the inquisitions and the RCC.



You posted that this Bible passage contradicted the Church’s authoritative and hierarchical set up . . .


No. I posted this bible passage to counter your claim that one apostle (such as Peter) was appointed leader by Christ, over the other apostles.

Quote:
“But you shall not be called “Rabbi”, for One is your Rabbi, but you are all brothers. And you should not call yourselves “Father”, in the earth, for one is your Father who is in Heaven. And you will not be called Leaders, because one is your Leader, The Messiah.”


He is speaking to His apostles, and He is telling them, point-blank, that they have ONE leader. Christ, Himself.

Quote:

As for the inquisitions, that too I addressed quite thoroughly.


Nope. You did not. You posted a link, a distraction from the truth; and you did not respond to that or to the questions I asked you in post 55. Perhaps you thought they were rhetorical. Perhaps they are if you cannot answer them.

Quote:
Your anti Catholic bias prevents you from accurately assessing the time period.


Your pro-catholic bias is preventing you from accurately assessing the actions of your religion in any time period.


Quote:
This is very important if you really want to try to understand . . .



Why in the world would you copy-paste the exact same article after I already responded to it in post 55? Your response to my response is to copy-paste the same article again?


Quote:
It is the Church who speaks out against oppression throughout the world. It is the Church who has always fought for those who do not have a voice. It is the Church who protects the most vulnerable among us


You cannot be serious.

What about forced conversions? What about the native american children ripped from their homes and families and forced into catholic residential schools, in which they suffered additional and rampant abuse (physical, emotional, sexual, and spiritual)? What about the women abused in Ireland, their babies taken from them? How could you say to any of these people or their children that the RCC speaks out against oppression and has always fought for those who do not have a voice?

The most vulnerable among us were abused by both the RCC's practices and the so-called leaders participated and/or turned a blind eye and/or covered it up. Not just back in medieval times, but less than a century ago. And who knows what else they have covered up that has not yet come to light.

On another thread you quoted these to me:

“but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matt 18:6


“By sinning against your brothers in this way and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ”. 1 Corr 8:12


I wonder if you might think about how they apply to the RCC and all the little ones they had power over?


Quote:
– the unborn when the rest of the world watches and allows this tragedy to go on (you want to talk about a modern day bloody practice that far surpasses any war, inquisition, or practice done “in the name of Christianity”)


Do you think the RCC is along in speaking against abortion? And no it is not worse than those things done 'in the name of Christianity'. Because abortion is not being claimed to be done in the name of Christ or God, as the inquisitions and wars, and persecutions and executions were claimed to have been done in the name of Christ and God.



I am sorry, RR, but the RCC is not from Christ. He is not her leader. She does not listen to Him. Her fruit and her actions and her teachings reveal this. She is not herself Babylon the Great, but she is one of Babylon the Great's many daughters.


Christ is calling His people out of her,


"'Come out of her, my people,' so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes."



Christ is also calling us to come to Him,

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let the one who hears say, "Come!" Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.


Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.



Peace again to you and to your household, as my Lord gives peace,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 60: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:57 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to tam]

Quote:
No. I posted this bible passage to counter your claim that one apostle (such as Peter) was appointed leader by Christ, over the other apostles.


Then you would still be wrong and still completely missing the meaning of that passage. If that passage means what you think it means, then God would be contradicting Himself, because throughout Scripture we see God appointing individual men as leaders, whom He gave authority, and whom we were expected to listen to. This didn’t mean these men were perfect, but He still used them. It also didn’t mean using these men usurped His own power and authority. It also didn’t mean these appointed ones were superior to the rest of us. This passage was not saying Christ did not put Peter or His Church in charge. This passage was warning against getting caught up, exactly like you seem to be doing, in titles and positions of power. Those God appointed are our servants. They need to make sure their authority does not go to their head. They need to make sure they don’t think they are better than everyone else. Here again are the passages that prove your interpretation is incorrect, because it contradicts the following passages . . . I bolded the parts that show what the passage you cited actually means. It was not in reference to Peter – LOL! It was not suggesting that Peter was not in charge, nor was it suggesting Christ’s Church does not have authority. And the very last paragraph posted clearly shows Paul himself did not take Jesus’ words to mean what you suggest they do. Paul refers to himself as father, clearly showing Jesus did not have a problem with titles or hierarchical positions. He simply did not want any of those He put in charge to be proud and abuse their position.

********************************

Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen. 45:8).


For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).


The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."


So What Did Jesus Mean?


Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their grasping after marks of status and prestige.


He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate authorities, father figures, and teachers.



He is warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.


Perhaps the most pointed New Testament reference to the theology of the spiritual fatherhood of priests is Paul’s statement, "I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).


https://www.catholic.com/tract/call-no-man-father


Quote:
Quote:
“But you shall not be called “Rabbi”, for One is your Rabbi, but you are all brothers. And you should not call yourselves “Father”, in the earth, for one is your Father who is in Heaven. And you will not be called Leaders, because one is your Leader, The Messiah.”


He is speaking to His apostles, and He is telling them, point-blank, that they have ONE leader. Christ, Himself.


Exactly! There is one Messiah – Jesus Christ Himself -- and He is emphasizing that appointing others and expecting us to listen to them does not negate that fact – it does not undermine His authority. They all point back to Him. Jesus’ commands, “He who hears you, hears me . . . “, “Whatever you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven” would make no sense if those they were spoken to were not authoritative leaders, teachers, our fathers. You don’t get to cherry pick one passage and apply it as you like. A comprehensive understanding of Scripture as a whole must be applied.

And again if your beef is you think Christ did not established His Church as our earthly authoritative institution with men in a hierarchical leadership positions, that passage you cite is NOT about that – obviously, since we see in Scripture a hierarchical structure with appointed leaders IS exactly the form Christ’s Church took. And if your beef is that Peter was not “higher” in ranking than the others, you would be wrong about that as well. I have previously, and can do again, provided evidence from Scripture showing Peter alone was singled act, given a name change (very significant in Scripture), and the others all turned to Peter as their leader. Scripture goes on to show seeing Peter as the leader was exactly what the first Christians did. We also have tons of evidence in this from the writings of the early Christians and early church fathers. We also see this carried out as part of Sacred Tradition. But again, not sure why this bothers you, if you follow Christ’s advice – we shouldn’t be hung up on the title/position. It isn’t about the title. We all have different roles. Peter was not better or more deserving than the other Apostles, but He was chosen for this role.

***************
in Matthew 16:13-20 Jesus asked the question, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The Apostles responded, "Some say John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Our Lord then turned to them and point-blank asked them, "And you, who do you say that I am?"

St. Peter, still officially known as Simon, replied, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Our Lord recognized that this answer was grace-motivated: "No mere man has revealed this to you, but My heavenly Father."

Because of this response, our Lord said to St. Peter, "You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The name change itself from Simon to Peter indicates the Apostle being called to a special role of leadership; recall how Abram's name was changed to Abraham, or Jacob's to Israel, or Saul's to Paul, when each of them was called to assume a special role of leadership among God's people.

no one except God was called specifically "rock," nor was it ever used as a proper name except for God. To give the name "rock" to St. Peter indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority


"The gates of hell" is also an interesting Semitic expression. The heaviest forces were positioned at gates; so this expression captures the greatest war-making power of a nation. Here this expression refers to the powers opposed to what our Lord is establishing—the Church. (A similar expression is used in reference to our Lord in Acts 2:24: "God freed Him from the bitter pangs of hell, however, and raised Him up again, for it was impossible that death should keep its hold on Him.") Jesus associated St. Peter and his office so closely with Himself that He became a visible force protecting the Church and keeping back the power of hell.

Second, Jesus says, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the Old Testament, the "number two" person in the Kingdom literally held the keys. In Isaiah 22: 19-22 we find a reference to Eliakim, the master of the palace of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:17ff) and keeper of the keys. As a sign of his position, the one who held the keys represented the king, acted with his authority and had to act in accord with the king's mind. Therefore, St. Peter and each of his successors represent our Lord on this earth as His Vicar and lead the faithful flock of the Church to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Finally, Jesus says, "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is rabbinic terminology. A rabbi could bind, declaring an act forbidden or excommunicating a person for serious sin; or a rabbi could loose, declaring an act permissible or reconciling an excommunicated sinner to the community.

Here, Christ entrusted a special authority to St. Peter to preserve, interpret and teach His truth. In all, this understanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestant leaders wanted to legitimize their rejection of papal authority and the office of the pope. Even the Orthodox Churches recognize the pope as the successor of St. Peter

St. Peter's role in the New Testament further substantiates the Catholic belief concerning the papacy and what Jesus said in Matthew 16. St. Peter held a preeminent position among the Apostles. He is always listed first (Mt. 10:14; Mk. 3:16-19; Lk. 6:14-1 5; Acts 1:13) and is sometimes the only one mentioned (Lk. 9:32). He speaks for the Apostles (Mt. 18:21; Mk. 8:28; Lk. 12:41; Jn. 6:69).

When our Lord selects a group of three for some special event, such as the Transfiguration, St. Peter is in the first position. Our Lord chose to teach from St. Peter's boat. At Pentecost St. Peter preached to the crowds and told of the mission of the Church (Acts 2;14-40). He performed the first miraculous healing (Acts 3:6-7). St. Peter also received the revelation that the Gentiles were to be baptized (Acts 10:9-48) and sided with St. Paul against the need for circumcision (Acts 15)

https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PETPOPE.HTM

Read Acts 15. This gives an account of the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem. Called at the request of St. Paul, this council met to decide whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ. Notice that there was much discussion among the Apostles and presbyters. However, after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent.

Read the first twelve chapters of Acts, which describe the early Church in Jerusalem. Every chapter (except 6 and 7, which describe Stephen’s martyrdom) shows St. Peter in a leadership position

The early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 AD, the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John the Apostle), stresses that Christians must be united to the Church of Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition. He then lists all the bishops of Rome up to his time. St. Irenaeus presents this teaching as something taken for granted by orthodox Christians. For 250 years the Roman Emperors tried to destroy Christianity through persecution. In the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope but one was martyred; the Romans certainly knew who was the head of the Church!

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/beliefs/proof-and-reason-for-the-papal-office/







Quote:
Nope. You did not. You posted a link, a distraction from the truth; and you did not respond to that or to the questions I asked you in post 55.


You clearly must not even have a rudimentary understanding of the time period or the origin of inquisitions so it was necessary to explain it to you, but you simply keep repeating this:


Quote:
That the popes and bishops and so-called 'teaching authority' did not teach the truth.


This is simply not true. What you mean to say is you believe since there have been some Popes and Bishops who sinned, made mistakes, and screwed up, they couldn’t have been appointed by God, which is utterly false. There are examples throughout Scripture showing yes, even God’s chosen ones have screwed up. Men screwing up does not negate them as God’s authoritative leaders. So, your argument is meaningless.

Some examples . . .

King David. God used King David to lead His people. He was appointed by God and the people were expected to listen to David, despite the fact David broke half of the 10 Commandments.

Moses. God used Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. God spoke thru Moses and put him in charge, but even Moses himself did not get to see the promised land because he screwed up. Of course, at no time were God’s people supposed to ignore Moses because they knew he wasn’t perfect.

Peter. Peter denied knowing Christ, but despite this major screw up, we were to see him as our leader and listen to him, “He who hears you, hears me”


Jonah. The people of Nineva were supposed to listen to Jonah even though Jonah himself refused to do what God asked him.


Quote:
If the so-called "Church" refused to speak and teach the truth just as Christ taught us, what good was it? What good IS it to anyone SEEKING to KNOW the truth? To anyone seeking to know Christ?


Gee, if the scribes and Pharisees were often hypocrites and didn’t even understand many of the teachings themselves, did that mean God’s Church was unimportant and unnecessary? Of course not. They were the governing body put in charge to make sure God’s people heard the Scripture. They were where you were to go. Otherwise, there was no unity, not ONE Church. There would have been multiple groups/churches all teaching different things. Of course, as you suggest, they would all insist they are “following Christ” and doing exactly what Christ wants them to do – they would all claim they are speaking the truth, but how would we know? So, the question you ask is pointed more toward your own beliefs – What good IS it to anyone SEEKINK to KNOW the truth to have a non authoritative “body of believers” without a centralized, united, authoritative, infallible, visible, earthly organization?

Those seeking to know God – to know truth would have been expected to get their information from where God designated. As Jesus said, “Do as they say, not as they do” He did not say, “Don’t listen to those guys.” He did not say. “My Church is corrupt and you can take it or leave it.” No instead what He expected was to inform us this was the way He set things up. It is for our own good. He doesn’t really care if there are personalities we don’t like. He didn’t care if we liked those He chose, or if we would rather belong to a group that had a beautiful choir, or if we felt more comfortable hiding behind our own rationalization that we believe in Him but are anti-religion. He knew that would simply become a very convenient way to NOT follow Him rather to follow whatever it is we justified. He rebuked such notions. We were still expected to obey His Church, as they have been put in charge to safeguard Sacred Scripture. He sent forth those He appointed to be our leaders and our teachers. He will protect us, if we remain with those He appointed. If however we leave, we are on our own. We are no longer following the word of God, but the word of Tam, or fill in the blank.


Quote:
What do you suppose would have happened if the Popes and the Bishops had stood up and spoken the truth instead of participating in those un-christ-like tribunals and persecutions


I’m sure some of them did. In fact, like was explained, but you ignored, was the original purpose of the inquisitions were to give people a say/a fair trial and not just allow the state to chop their heads off like the state would have preferred. It was once again the Church attempting to look out for her people. Unfortunately, many within the Church at that time were still looking at the world through the eyes of the barbaric culture they were a part of. I tried to give an example of someone’s great, great grandfather being a slave owner to help you understand, but you ignored that too.



Quote:
(giving approval to them, albeit a 'less unfair' version of them)? What do you suppose would have happened if they announced that Christians (the Body of Christ) do NOT persecute or punish or judge and condemn anyone? What if they, in no uncertain terms, taught what Christ taught instead? Did as Christ did instead?


Uuummmm . . . have you read Deuteronomy? The book in the OT full of rules about how God’s people were to treat their slaves and their wives. Some of these rules included stoning to death. Why? Was God in favor of stoning and slavery? Of course not. But we as a people were not there yet. We were a barbaric, uncivilized nation. God knew baby steps were required. A people that had just been praying to statues and sun and moon gods and who treated women like property, were not ready for all that God desires for us in the long run. They simply wouldn’t have gotten it. We are all on a journey. Scripture is the story of man’s journey. You are expecting more of these people than God does, because you do not have God’s wisdom. You sit in judgment about what you seem to know little about.

From Wikipedia on Deuteronomy . . .

Chapters 4–11: After a second introduction at 4:44–49 the events at Mount Horeb are recalled, with the giving of the Ten Commandments. Heads of families are urged to instruct those under their care in the law, warnings are made against serving gods other than Yahweh, the land promised to Israel is praised, and the people are urged to obedience.

Chapters 12–26, the Deuteronomic code: Laws governing Israel's worship (chapters 12–16a), the appointment and regulation of community and religious leaders (16b–18), social regulation (19–25), and confession of identity and loyalty (26).
Chapters 27–28: Blessings and curses for those who keep and break the law.

Deuteronomy stresses the uniqueness of God, the need for drastic centralisation of worship, and a concern for the position of the poor and disadvantaged.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Deuteronomy

And yet it is the OT that atheists love to use to suggest they could never worship or believe in God, because they see Him as a monster and an unjust ruler who had rules like:

The worship of Canaanite gods is forbidden and the order is given to destroy their places of worship. (12:29–31)

Regulations for the treatment of sex-slaves taken in war (21:10-14)

Various laws concerning adultery and rape are given. (22:22–29)

Sounds very similar to your criticism of Christ’s Church. Since she was involved in inquisitions, she clearly must not be Christ’s Church. Obviously, things like Deuteronomy prove your argument doesn’t follow. Unless you are suggesting God was not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were all taught to destroy the worship places of their enemies, were all slave owners, etc . . .




Quote:
(And you are acting like the secular authorities are completely separate from the religious authorities. How is THAT possible? How do you suppose the so-called secular authorities got their idea on what was deemed heretical, except from the RCC?)


Honestly, I encourage you to read about this time in our history. I am not acting like they were separate. In fact, I stated the opposite -- there was no separation of church and state. The lines were blurred regarding authority/religion/truth. Those whose allegiance was to the state didn’t care what people believed – they just wanted to keep people in line. Whereas, the Church saw her role as protecting Truth/guarding Sacred Scripture. As far as the state was concerned, any one who got out of line was a heretic. They only cared if someone were teaching something contrary to Sacred Scripture if it disrupted the peace and unity. The Church was concerned about the individual’s soul and his/her ability to corrupt the souls of others. Obviously a combined religion/government created a tricky situation. And as we know now one fraught with problems. Less than ideal situations create less than ideal outcomes.

Quote:
Quote:

Quote:
Did Christ ever do those things or instruct His apostles to do those things?



Quote:
Can you explain this?


Did God ever tell the Israelites to have slaves and stone people to death? Yet in Scripture we see . . .




.


Quote:
these so-called representatives of God and of Christ did not teach the truth; and disobeyed the very command that Christ gave them "Go and make disciples of all nations... teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you."


Actually, they did not. They were probably sincere in their efforts to go and make disciples of all nations . . . but, like human beings are apt to do, they didn’t get it all right. Just because we don’t all always do exactly what God would want us to do, does not mean we aren’t Christians. And just because Christ’s Church is full of fallible human beings does not still mean it was not the means He intended to be our authoritative guide on earth. It isn’t that difficult to believe, because we see similar examples throughout Scripture.





Quote:
Quote:
It is the Church who speaks out against oppression throughout the world. It is the Church who has always fought for those who do not have a voice. It is the Church who protects the most vulnerable among us


You cannot be serious.


I am serious. You once again think Christ’s Church can’t be Christ’s Church because sometimes human beings get it wrong. Now it’s my turn – you can’t be serious.









Quote:
I am sorry, RR, but the RCC is not from Christ.


Yes, she is. This would be like saying, “I’m sorry Moses, you are not God’s leader and messenger. Those 10 commandments you are holding do not come from God. How do we know? Because you are an ordinary man who has sinned” Even though the fact that God intended to speak thru Moses can be confirmed from history, the miracles God did thru Moses, and the fruits we see that came from Moses’ leadership all prove Moses was sent by God for His people to hear.

Quote:
He is not her leader. She does not listen to Him.


Yes He is and yes she does.

Quote:
Her fruit and her actions and her teachings reveal this.


Her fruit and teachings reveal she is Christ’s Church on earth. No one else could meet the requirements of how we can know Christ’s Church – certainly not your Body of Believers. But how convenient that you don’t even claim your [b]Body of Believers[/i] to be One, Holy, Apostolic, or authoritative. Since you deny your church is even a religion, no one can show you all her sins. Your “fruits” can be claimed as whatever you like them to be allowing you to distance yourself from the bad fruit your worldview is responsible for.



Quote:
She is not herself Babylon the Great, but she is one of Babylon the Great's many daughters.


Age old unfounded anti-Catholic Protestant hatred.


Quote:
Christ is calling His people out of her,


I know you actually believe that, but you are sadly mistaken. There is a great deal you misunderstand. I have provided much evidence showing my position regarding Christ’s Church makes the most sense. Evidence from Scripture, history, Tradition, and reason! Your position is illogical and unscriptural. To simply claim the church is the Body of Believers who “follow” Christ is a generic useless convenient ideology. Tina from Detroit uses Scripture to show we have to wash each others feet every day if we want to be saved as Jesus instructed the Apostles. Ben from Atlanta uses Scripture to support polygamy and justify his having multiple wives. Ken from Chicago swears he has read Scripture and has been inspired by the Holy Spirit and believes baptism is only valid if we use pure Spring water from the alps. Madge from Texas believes the Trinity is a falsehood. Tim from Rhode Island believes the Trinity is true. Julie believes in hell. Shawn believes hell does not exist. They ALL claim to be followers of Christ. They all have tested what they believe. They all are sincere truth seekers. And THAT is what your notion of the church gives us – NOTHING.

And I really don’t say this to be mean. I say it to make you think. I say it to draw your belief to its logical conclusion and when we do, it is rendered meaningless. IT MAKES NO SENSE!

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version