What you fail to understand, heygeno, is that I have no interest in debating you. I am interested in demonstrating to everyone who will listen that you are a liar and a false accuser- and a rather unskilled one, at that. If you don’t want to defend yourself in the BBQ pit, that just means less effort for me.
SO WHAT ?
Proverbs 26
12 Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.
The Bible is filled with warnings about beleveing in your OWN WISDOM.
You do realize no one has mentioned the Apocrypha right? For instance, I haven’t seen anyone recommend the Gospel of Thomas. None of the outside readings recommended here claim to be the word of God. They are not apocryphal, but rather extracuricular (there’s a big deifference there). No one has said they should be part of the canon.
Outside writings can be a good thing. The writings of Martin Luther, John Wesley, St. Thomas Aquinas, and a number of others can shed a good bit of light on the way different denominations within the Christian faith interpret the Word.
No go look up the word “apocrypha” before you misuse it again.
Just out of curiosity, heygeno, what denomination are you, and have you looked into the writings of those who founded your denomination?
Ben— I said I would discuss it with you in private.
If I thought you had anything to say that would benifit the readers I would debate you—
YOUR ideas about GOD’s Word don’t interest me in the LEAST. --I LEFT-- your side of the fence- years ago.
You know, I think some more “—” here and there would really bolster your arguments, whatever they are.
Whoops, I spoke too soon about the Apocrypha. I had missed Guinastasia’s post recomending Wisdom, Sirach, Judith, and Macabees, which most protestan denominations consider part of the Apocrypha. Sorry 'bout that heygeno. But my points about outside readings being a good thing still hold.
As far as reading the Apocrypha, I say go for it, just know the context and make up your own mind.
Um, since WHEN were people told not to read the Bible in this century? Got a cite for that?
And what you call the Apochrypha, is also recognized by the Catholic AND the Orthodox churches.
:rolleyes:
I’m not scared of the truth, but this ISN’T THE PROPER FORUM TO DISCUSS THIS!!!
ARRRRGGGHHH!!!
GUINAs,
Where do you live ?
I can only speak for All of the Catholics I have ever known— and what we were told in school.
Did yo know that eating meat on friday is not a sin that would condem you to hell ANYMORE ???
----- hey Ino !------
Actually Monkey, DeVena mentioned it.
Are you saying I lack reading comprehension? Are you saying I’m too freakin lazy to read all the posts before I chime in? Well, are you!?
Because if you were I’d probably have to agree.
As for the OP, pay special attention to Ruth when you get to it. I always liked Ruth.
Pay attention TO THE various depictions of Jesus within the four Gospels, I’ve always liked TO COMPARE them !!! (Which sectors of society does each one appeal do, or which aspect of Jesus does it emphasize?)
Of course that’s in a while, so I’ll try to remember to bring that up again in several months.
Considering that it never was a “sin” per se but rather a practice, then yes.
Besides, Vatican II was before my time. Obviously you don’t know THAT much about Catholicism, or you’d know that it’s one of the most scholarly denominations of Christianity.
:rolleyes:
Oh, and I always enjoy Luke the best of the four Gospels. And parts of Matthew-my favorite is the sheeps and the goats.
Moderator’s notes
heygeno, cut it out. Witnessing is reserved for Great Debates. If you cannot discuss reading the Bible without proselytzing for your brand of Christiany then please stay out of this thread from now on and take it to either Great Debates or the BBQ Pit.
Thank you.
Double Standard ???
I think you should read more carefully.
MOST of those people didn’t post until it became a bash fest.
Why didn’ t you call THEM ON THAT ?
They Posted their opinions about faith !— I think I get it now.
Double Standard ???
I think you should read more carefully.
MOST of those people didn’t post until it became a bash fest.
Why didn’ t you call THEM ON THAT ?
They Posted their opinions about faith !— I think I get it now.
Are you done, or shall we go for the second warning?
Good luck, Eonwe. Keep going, and it’s too bad about the hijacks.
heygeno, for your information, Guinastasia is Catholic. I’m Christian and thinking about becoming Catholic because of its history of scholarship and faith. I sentence you to go read, oh, any of the early Church Fathers before you go blathering about Catholic stupidity again. I particularly recommend Augustine’s Confessions.
Psssst! Lissla! Look into Evangelical Lutheranism if they have it in Toronto. The transition might be easier than straight to Catholicism. All the scholarship but none of the quirks that can cause a newbie to bang his or her head against the wall. You know, the theological WTF? moments. A lot more opportunities for women and folks with alternative lifestyles, too. But I do miss the gambling and burning people at the stake. 
I know you’ve already retracted your statement that “no one has mentioned the Apocrypha”, but that’s not why I’m quoting these two sentences here. I have an extremely narrow hair-splitting nitpick to make:
When referring to “The Apocrypha” (with a capital A), Protestants traditionally have meant a specific 12 books of the Old Testament not included in the Jewish bible but nevertheless included in the Catholic bible. Catholics refer to these 12 books as the “deuterocanonicals,” meaning that they were canonized secondarily, long after the “first” round of canonizing was over and done with.
The Gospel of Thomas is not part of the Apocrypha. It IS, however, a part of the apocrypha (with a lower-case a), meaning any holy book of Judeo-Christian significance which is not counted among the 66 official books of the Old and New Testaments.