Dude, what?
Your multiple-choice question only makes sense if the RCC claimed infallibility for its teaching that non-catholics go to hell.
Did they?
Not that I’m aware of – especially considering that the doctrine of papal infallibility is a fairly recent development, and was much criticized at the time. (I believe it was late 19th, early 20th century, if I’m not mistaken)
So, you choose A, then.
Or, they decided to sit down and re-study scripture, and take another look. After all, it’s not like the church hasn’t changed it’s positions on some things. (Not OFTEN, but sometimes)
Why is it that this place can never have a ration discussion about religion anymore?
I feel like a need a good wash after clicking on that link. It appears to be an Obama hate site.
It is.
True, but it also illustrates how a lot of fundies loathe Graham.
Which is a polite restatement of A.
Look, I really don’t wish to hijack this thread into a big long debate over RC theology. All I was trying to do was to correct opeongo66’s statement that all Christian denominations believe that non-Christians go to Hell. I just happened to choose Catholicism as an example, since that’s the one I’m most familiar with, being a lapsed Catholic.
If you want to start a debate about Catholic theology, you’re welcome to start a new thread. Again, I don’t want to further hijack this one.
I, on the other hand, would appreciate a response from Inner Stickler. I was wrong when I was a Christian, I was intellectually dishonest, and arguably foolish, but I was not evil, stupid, or crazy. If I had been, I never would have become an atheist! Frankly I get tired of the insulting implication that I must have been.
Classism, ageism, racism, and sexism all rolled into one. Nice work.
With $25 million he could be a rich old white woman if he wanted.
It’s really not.
How kind of you to be so charitable about that. :rolleyes:
There was talk of that conversation for many years before the tape became available. He always denied that the conversation happened until the tape was released and he was backed into a corner. Forgive me for being less than impressed.
Cite (not meant in a snarky way)?
I’m not really interested in playing which insult are you.
She’s left off the bit about relinquishment of moral authority and I can see why one would choose to ignore that bit but whether you call it divine revelation or taking another look, they decided for one reason or another that what they had previously been preaching as true was not true. The two statements are equivalent in results which is what matters.
Considering Rev. Graham’s statements, this is quite false.
The Catholics do take certain parts of the Bible quite literally-for example in Communion/Lord’s Supper they believe the bread and the wine truly become the flesh and blood of Christ while Baptists (even hardcore ones) take it symbolically. And if people are considered fundamentalists largely by adherence to their religious scriptures than heterodox sects can’t at all be considered fundamentalists such as say Warren Jeff’s FLDS.
That wasn’t really the point, but I take it then that you are conceding that your characterization of the RCC was false. And you seem unwilling to defend your excluded middle fallacy. Are you willing to accept my answer of E (which is clearly not a restatement of A) without challenge, then?
It’s certainly not a Christian thing.