Religion — Page 117

Possessed said:

Says call no man father, and I don’t even need to go any further on that one.

Ric2 addressed this.

RicOlie_2 said:

The passage about not calling people “father” also says not to call them “teacher” or “master,” and in context, can be easily understood as a call to recognize that all authority comes from God. Not to mention that if Jesus meant it literally, St. Paul is guilty of breaking this rule: “For though you might have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers. Indeed, in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel.” (1 Corinthians 4:15).

Feel free to disagree with his argument, but don’t ignore it. It doesn’t make you look good.

DuracellEnergizer said:

It doesn’t make you look good.

Never stops you from posting 😘

Possessed said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

It doesn’t make you look good.

Never stops you from posting 😘

To be fair I’ve also been quite confrontational and dismissive in my posts and points because while I very much love God I don’t like catholicism (nor do I really believe everything the Bible says anyway, it was inspired site but still written by men so I don’t doubt they fucked it up and added their own biases and such to it) so he might just be matching my tone, which is a reasonable practice.

chyron8472 said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

In book I’ve been reading, this guy’s work translating the bible (really he oversaw the work) is discussed. Pretty interesting the interpretations we accept as legitimate.

The problem with Thought for Thought translation is are you translating the text means or what you think the text means.

The problem with word for word translation is that not all language has the same vocabulary (eg. multiple words for “love”), and it has the potential to not read as easily as it should–like the original writings probably did.

Let me demonstrate the problem with thought for thought. Imagine translating the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution into a foreign language. Imagine how the NRA might do it and compare to how gun control advocates might do it. Imagine how different the 1st part of the amendment “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” would apply to the 2nd part of the amendment “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In each of their translations.

Neither would say what the amendment says, they would say what they think it means. Gun Control advocates would write their thought for thought translation as saying that only those in a state militia have the right to keep and bear arms and the NRA would write their thought for thought translation as if the 1st part of the amendment has no bearing on who has the right to keep and bear arms and that everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.

A word for word translation would more likely keep the meaning open and those reading the translation can debate the meaning like we do.

To some degree, there is an advantage to not have to stop and say “So, in other words, what it’s saying is…”. I’m pretty sure the churches Paul wrote letters to didn’t have to do that.

the churches that Paul wrote the letters to spoke the same language Paul did. We don’t. They were also contemporaries of Paul. We are not.

Just to be clear, I am not saying thought for thought translation doesn’t have its place, it does. I just think it would be a mistake to use only a thought for thought translation. I think it is best to compare multiple word for word translations and multiple thought for thought translations. However, I were going to be marooned on a deserted island and could only have one, I would chose a word for word translation.

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:
I think people can decide for themselves what books are “for their own good”. I’m sure you’d be less apologetic if Catholic doctrines were tyrannically banned.

History does not seem to support the concept that people are capable of correctly judging the truth on their own all the time. I think things that are true should be promulgated, and things that are untrue should be suppressed. Or do you think that Facebook taking strides to eliminate fake news is “tyrannical”? People have a right to the truth, and the Church’s intent was to protect that right.

History supports the concept that people are capable of great stupidity and great brutality, and the Catholic Church has participated in that just as much as everyone else has. When Facebook starts taking strides to eliminate fake news by murdering or jailing people then I will deem that an accurate analogy. Obviously they weren’t protecting anyone’s right to the truth by ensuring that those people didn’t have a right to comprehend the truth unless they learned Latin. I honestly thought, until now, that everyone including the most devout Catholics could agree that the Catholic of the olden days was horrifyingly corrupt and immoral but I guess that’s not the case.

I wasn’t talking about murdering and jailing people, and if that’s what you meant by “tyrannically banned,” it wasn’t clear to me. I certainly agree that that was usually immoral.

You’re really fixated with this whole Latin thing, aren’t you? The fact that Latin was the lingua franca of Europe does not mean that the Catholic Church was deliberately trying to conceal the truth from those who were uneducated. Is that what Newton and Linnaeus and Copernicus did when they all wrote in Latin? What did they have to hide? You’re ignoring the fact that because everything was in Latin, Europe was more unified in the medieval era due to the facility of communication. It was easier to exchange ideas. You could be educated anywhere in Europe in the same language. It was unfortunate that most people weren’t educated, but the societal structures weren’t in place to allow for it. If everything had been in the vernacular, it wouldn’t have made a huge difference because people wouldn’t have had the opportunity to learn to read anyway.

Saying that “the Catholic of the olden days was horrifyngly corrupt and immoral” is making quite the blanket statement. There have been good and bad Catholics of every time and place. Many so-called Catholics nowadays are horrifyingly corrupt and immoral. Many Catholics in the Middle Ages were wonderful, loving people. Not much has changed except the ways in which people are immoral or virtuous.

But you have to admit the Catholic Church has changed a lot since the Middle Ages. If it were still the same as it was, Pope Francis would endorse burning me at the stake.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

Scripture existed before the Pope. When someone asks you for proof of the Pope’s authority, what do you do? You show him scripture.

My beliefs aren’t based on historical justification, they are based on faith.

Most of Scripture (the Old Testament) existed before the first pope, but the entire New Testament was written during or after the life of the first pope, St. Peter. Other books of the New Testament were written during or after the reigns of Pope St. Linus, Pope St. Anacletus, and Pope St. Clement I. (As a side note: the Scriptural argument for papal authority doesn’t come entirely from the fact that it’s Scripture. It also comes from the fact that Christ himself said that Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be built. Meaning that the institution of the papacy occurred before Jesus’ ascension.)

More importantly, however, the canon of Scripture wasn’t defined until the 300s in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. The Catholic Church determined which books are in your Bible. So if you reject the authority of the Catholic Church, you are basically saying that there is no basis for you having the Bible that you do. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says what books should be in it. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says that the Bible is the only source of authority. Your faith is based on the authority of the Bible, which can only be justified if you accept the authority of the Catholic Church at the time the canon of the Bible was established.

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

Scripture existed before the Pope. When someone asks you for proof of the Pope’s authority, what do you do? You show him scripture.

My beliefs aren’t based on historical justification, they are based on faith.

Most of Scripture (the Old Testament) existed before the first pope, but the entire New Testament was written during or after the life of the first pope, St. Peter. Other books of the New Testament were written during or after the reigns of Pope St. Linus, Pope St. Anacletus, and Pope St. Clement I. (As a side note: the Scriptural argument for papal authority doesn’t come entirely from the fact that it’s Scripture. It also comes from the fact that Christ himself said that Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be built. Meaning that the institution of the papacy occurred before Jesus’ ascension.)

And how do you prove that Christ said that? You turn to scripture.

More importantly, however, the canon of Scripture wasn’t defined until the 300s in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. The Catholic Church determined which books are in your Bible. So if you reject the authority of the Catholic Church, you are basically saying that there is no basis for you having the Bible that you do. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says what books should be in it. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says that the Bible is the only source of authority. Your faith is based on the authority of the Bible, which can only be justified if you accept the authority of the Catholic Church at the time the canon of the Bible was established.

No, I accept that that God guided these councils to form the Bible as he intended. That is quite different than accepting the authority of the Catholic Church. Also keep in mind that the Catholic Bible has books the Protestant Bible does not have.

chyron8472 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

-.-

By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

 
I don’t really appreciate this attitude you seem to have about Protestant belief. As though the Body of Christ is weakened by opinion that is not the “official” view of the Catholic Church. I do not have to subscribe to the position that the elements of Communion actually literally become His body and blood. I also do not lend any weight to baptism of those who are too young to make the decision for themselves, albeit baptism itself is not a requirement for salvation. And I am not required to confess to a priest. Jesus Christ Himself is the Great High Priest (Hebrews 4), and He intercedes for me.

JEDIT: 2 Timothy 3 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” So relying heavily on Scripture does have a sound basis.

Ephesians 2 says “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” So while James 2 does say “Faith without works is dead”, those works are fruit borne from one’s relationship with Christ. They are not required for salvation, because that undermines the sacrifice Christ paid for us. There is no amount of works we can possibly achieve that makes us worthy of salvation.

As for baptism not being a requirement, the thief on the cross was not baptized, and yet he was saved.

So you see, your assertion that Protestant doctrine has no basis is highly uninformed.
/JEDIT

 
I really don’t like the disdain you’re showing here. My relationship with my Savior does not suffer because my church does not doctrinally agree wholly with Catholicism.

Apologies if I’m coming across as disdainful. That’s the trouble with Internet debating. A lot comes across in your words that you don’t intend to.

No, I’m not disdainful, nor do I think badly of you guys in any way. I simply feel strongly about what I believe and am trying to figure out why you guys believe what you do and why you think it’s justified. I’m in love with the Catholic faith and I think it’s important, which is why I want to share, though it might come across as aggressive.

I’m itching to respond to the points you brought up in your edit, but I also don’t want to antagonize you. However, if you’re willing to debate a bit, let me know.

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I wasn’t talking about murdering and jailing people, and if that’s what you meant by “tyrannically banned,” it wasn’t clear to me. I certainly agree that that was usually immoral.

In reference to murder, that was always immoral if you care about what Jesus Christ supposedly said. He condemned the death penalty clear as day when stopping the adulterous woman from being stoned.

Yeah, bad wording on my part. Murder is always wrong. The death penalty is arguably not always murder, however, though it’s rarely, rarely justifiable nowadays (and usually wasn’t in the past either).

suspiciouscoffee said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

Question: do you believe Protestants can go to heaven?

Of course. Unless they commit a mortal sin and die without repentance. Just like Catholics.

Possessed said:

The church has definitely not always been catholic. It used to not have an organization hierchy, which the Bible actually warns against having. Does NOT say priests should be celibate, encourages the opposite. Says call no man father, and I don’t even need to go any further on that one. Baptism for people of sound mind who understand the weight of the decision they are making (ie not babies). I don’t even want to continue listing all the things catholics do different than the Bible as I’m sure you have a way to word yourself out of them, but claiming the church has always been catholic when the catholic church very clearly is very different than the early churches spoke of in the Bible is just silly.

You just ignored everything I said. I don’t remember you being like that. I remember you being quite pleasant to chat with in the past. Now we’re just talking past each other.

RicOlie_2 said:

chyron8472 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

-.-

By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

 
I don’t really appreciate this attitude you seem to have about Protestant belief. As though the Body of Christ is weakened by opinion that is not the “official” view of the Catholic Church. I do not have to subscribe to the position that the elements of Communion actually literally become His body and blood. I also do not lend any weight to baptism of those who are too young to make the decision for themselves, albeit baptism itself is not a requirement for salvation. And I am not required to confess to a priest. Jesus Christ Himself is the Great High Priest (Hebrews 4), and He intercedes for me.

JEDIT: 2 Timothy 3 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” So relying heavily on Scripture does have a sound basis.

Ephesians 2 says “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” So while James 2 does say “Faith without works is dead”, those works are fruit borne from one’s relationship with Christ. They are not required for salvation, because that undermines the sacrifice Christ paid for us. There is no amount of works we can possibly achieve that makes us worthy of salvation.

As for baptism not being a requirement, the thief on the cross was not baptized, and yet he was saved.

So you see, your assertion that Protestant doctrine has no basis is highly uninformed.
/JEDIT

 
I really don’t like the disdain you’re showing here. My relationship with my Savior does not suffer because my church does not doctrinally agree wholly with Catholicism.

Apologies if I’m coming across as disdainful. That’s the trouble with Internet debating. A lot comes across in your words that you don’t intend to.

No, I’m not disdainful, nor do I think badly of you guys in any way. I simply feel strongly about what I believe and am trying to figure out why you guys believe what you do and why you think it’s justified. I’m in love with the Catholic faith and I think it’s important, which is why I want to share, though it might come across as aggressive.

I’m itching to respond to the points you brought up in your edit, but I also don’t want to antagonize you. However, if you’re willing to debate a bit, let me know.

Just keep in mind we feel strongly in what we believe as well.

Warbler said:

But you have to admit the Catholic Church has changed a lot since the Middle Ages. If it were still the same as it was, Pope Francis would endorse burning me at the stake.

Yes and no. The teachings of the Church haven’t changed, although new understandings have developed. The attitudes of people have changed. Different doctrines have been emphasized due to cultural influences. However, if you look at the saints, they are actually quite similar in the way they think and act no matter what the time period is. The Catholic Church calls for us to pursue an ideal. The ideal doesn’t change, but the ways people fail to achieve it do.

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

chyron8472 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

-.-

By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

 
I don’t really appreciate this attitude you seem to have about Protestant belief. As though the Body of Christ is weakened by opinion that is not the “official” view of the Catholic Church. I do not have to subscribe to the position that the elements of Communion actually literally become His body and blood. I also do not lend any weight to baptism of those who are too young to make the decision for themselves, albeit baptism itself is not a requirement for salvation. And I am not required to confess to a priest. Jesus Christ Himself is the Great High Priest (Hebrews 4), and He intercedes for me.

JEDIT: 2 Timothy 3 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” So relying heavily on Scripture does have a sound basis.

Ephesians 2 says “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” So while James 2 does say “Faith without works is dead”, those works are fruit borne from one’s relationship with Christ. They are not required for salvation, because that undermines the sacrifice Christ paid for us. There is no amount of works we can possibly achieve that makes us worthy of salvation.

As for baptism not being a requirement, the thief on the cross was not baptized, and yet he was saved.

So you see, your assertion that Protestant doctrine has no basis is highly uninformed.
/JEDIT

 
I really don’t like the disdain you’re showing here. My relationship with my Savior does not suffer because my church does not doctrinally agree wholly with Catholicism.

Apologies if I’m coming across as disdainful. That’s the trouble with Internet debating. A lot comes across in your words that you don’t intend to.

No, I’m not disdainful, nor do I think badly of you guys in any way. I simply feel strongly about what I believe and am trying to figure out why you guys believe what you do and why you think it’s justified. I’m in love with the Catholic faith and I think it’s important, which is why I want to share, though it might come across as aggressive.

I’m itching to respond to the points you brought up in your edit, but I also don’t want to antagonize you. However, if you’re willing to debate a bit, let me know.

Just keep in mind we feel strongly in what we believe as well.

Of course. Which is why I’m debating you. 😉

I appreciate your willingless to engage in discussion. You’re a great guy, so please don’t think I’m attacking you personally, even if I seem to be passionately tearing apart your arguments. I’m just trying to get a sense of why you believe what you do despite whatever arguments there are against it.

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

But you have to admit the Catholic Church has changed a lot since the Middle Ages. If it were still the same as it was, Pope Francis would endorse burning me at the stake.

Yes and no. The teachings of the Church haven’t changed,

Indulgences?

Nothing’s changed there. You can still get them and they were never supposed to be sold in the first place. That’s why it was so upsetting to Luther. Indulgences basically involve going to confession, receiving the Eucharist, praying for the pope, and usually doing some other pious act. The abuse was when clergy started selling them. In these cases, they weren’t even valid, so it was basically a case of clergymen taking advantage of the laity, who thought they were actually receiving some sort of spiritual benefits. It’s unfortunate that the Church didn’t really crack down on it until the Protestant Reformation was well under way.

moviefreakedmind said:

Okay, so obviously it has changed. They weren’t supposed to be sold, then they were, and now they aren’t. And clergy is a misleading word to use. Even the pope himself was involved in scamming people out of their money for indulgences. I’m tired of this refusal to even acknowledge things that are documented fact. I don’t get how you could say that “nothing’s changed there,” when the practice has been different depending on who is in charge. It’d be like if I said that black people (or black men anyway) in the southern United States were able to vote ever since Reconstruction because of the 15th Amendment. Nothing’s changed there, now we just have the Voting Rights Act. It’s really misleading because yes, legally blacks were allowed to vote, but it was common practice and basically the law of the land in racist southern states to deny them their right to vote. So no, it actually has changed.

My point is that the teaching of the Church hasn’t changed. The abuses have. There is an important distinction to be made between the teaching authority of the Church and the people who belong to it. When someone says “the Church teaches…” they are referring to the former. When someone says “the Church permitted abuses such as…” they are referring to the latter (i.e. Church officials). In other words, it’s a dichotomy between doctrine and policy, the former of which is unchangeable, the latter of which can. Policy itself is divided into official Church policy (e.g. the contents of Canon Law) and individual policy (e.g. how Church officials handle sexual abuse cases). It is only in the latter that abuses arise, and they have no bearing on what the Church actually teaches, and can in fact run directly contrary to Church doctrine.

TL;DR: The teachings of the Church haven’t changed. Policy, whether unofficial and individual or official and codified, has.