So, what your saying is that your claim was only a result of what His4ever said. You don’t actually believe that they are “death cults”? Do you have a cite or not? We understand that His4ever’s claims upset you. Your claims upset me. I respect what you believe however… I’m just curious what your belief is based on. “Death cult” carries some spesific accusations. Please back them up.
Çyrin
You’re not arguing. You’re not defending your case. All you’re doing is publishing the same BS again and again.
And like a COWARD you refuse to respond to those who challenge the views on the sites you push, and ask you why you push sites that DO NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE TEACHINGS OF CATHOLICISM!
Why, if every Catholic says your sites misrepreseent their religion, do you continue to do what you do?
Who gives a flip what you think? What gives you the authority to judge doctrine?
Only some of them, not all of them.
The Church does not create new doctrine, it merely refines, clarifies and explains existing doctrines.
Then you should thank the Catholic Church for assembling it for you.
Please show where the Catholic Church has done this, showing when something was specifically declared “okay” as opposed to when it had been specifically declared “bad.”
Of course, you won’t do this. You never do./
Try to get this through your head: I DON’T CARE IF YOU AGREE WITH CATHOLICISM OR NOT!
All I care is that you stop misrepresenting the religion, and stop pushing websites that lie about what Catholics believe. I don’t give a whit about your beliefs, but your actions.
Polycarp doesn’t agree with Catholicism. How do I know this? Because he isn’t Catholic. But people don’t jump all over him about this. Why? Because he doesn’t go around pushing lies about what Catholics believe, as you routinely do.
Kirk
His4ever, now you ARE spreading lies-the Pope is NOT infallible, and ex cathedra does NOT mean that the Roman Catholic church is infallible, either. It’s about a specific statement-that certain doctrines are infallible, and this has only been used a couple of times in the history of the church.
We have told you this time and time again. Why don’t YOU accept this?
Hmm, who gives a flip what you think? What gives you the authority to judge doctrine?
I don’t judge doctrine based upon my personal opinion, but based upon the historical positions of the Christian religion. That’s my authority: Christian history – what the first Christians, who knew the Apostles, who learned from them, believed. Who are you to deny the beliefs of the early Church and set up your own in their place?
What gives you that authority?
Kirk
I don’t deny the beliefs of the early Christians. You may think you’re right but I’m sure there are Protestants who can go back in history and show things that are contrary to what you’re saying.
Further debate on this subject is really pointless as everyone isn’t going to agree with catholicism’s interpretation of history. Were you actually there in the early church? Or are you just believing what the catholic religion tells you about it?
Kirk, did you have an answer to my “death cult” question?
Yes you do. You just don’t realize you do, because you are 100% ignorant on the subject. The early Christians had a priesthood, believed in the real presence of the Eucharist, so on and so forth. You can read the documetns yourself if you don’t believe me.
Not really. Most mainstream Protestants agree with the historical path that has the Christian religion flow through Catholicism, with caveats about the propriety of certain developments of thought on various doctrines, and thus fully recognize Catholics as Christian.
For people like you, faced with your statement that Catholics aren’t Christian, you must come up with great fictions in order to explain the Catholic-ness of the early Church. Nonsense like the “Trail of Blood” BS spouted in many Baptist and “non-denom” psuedo-churches across the country.
Who said anything about the Church’s interpretation of history? I don’t go to the Church for historical support for the Church. That would be circular logic.
Go to the documents themselves.
No. I wasn’t in Philadelphia in 1787, either, but I know what happened there.
Unlike you I don’t bleet like a sheep while waiting for my thoughts to be handed to me in the form of simplistic comic books. I’ve gone to the documents myself, and read them myself – as a Protestant, no less. Reading the extant documents of the Early Church, discovering what the Early Church members did and believed, was what led me, slowly but surely, forward to Catholicism.
I’m no John Henry Newman, but I followed in his footsteps, and like him discovered that, having become familiar with history, I could no longer be a Protestant.
Kirk
I consider fundamentalism to be a “death cult” because its entire focus is about where you go after you die (or after the Mythical Rapture Done Poofed You Out of Da Thin Air!). That’s no Christianity. Christianity is NOT about going to Heaven. It’s NOT about not going to Hell.
But I can only vaguely remember anything but those two matters ever being preached about in any fundie pseudo-church I’ve ever been to.
Being a religion focused entirely on death and what comes after it is my defintion of a death cult.
Kirk
Well, I thank Kirkland for being so civil to me. I’d thought he’d rant at me.
BTW,I, IMHO (which is what i have to go on) all you have to do to be a christian is accept Jesus’ atoning death on your behalf.
I don’t subscribe to the tongues, laughing stuff either.
But the church I am in now is called simply Pentecostal.
I am printing this out, as I’m in the library and don’t have time to read it, and will try to reply soon.
Anyway, thanks again for being nice. to someone with differing beliefs.
I used to be a Catholic, in fact I still have my Holy Communion picture!
Its been years since I’ve been in the church though.
And lots of sermons I’ve heard are on how to live like Jesus did.
:0
Sorry, there are no reliable sources indicating that there was more than one church prior to the Great Schism which led to the Eastern Orthodox Churches or that there was a Protestant church in any formal form prior to Martin Luther in the 1500’s. There are Protestants who can claim to show contrary evidence, just as there are people who can claim to show that the moon landings were faked. Both should be given about as much credence.
Also, several mainstream Protestant denominations, including Episcopalians and Lutherans call the head of their congregations their “priests.” Other denominations, such as Methodists and Presbyterians, while they may not use the word “priest” are headed by someone who has had formal training to become head of their congregations. In other words, priesthood is not simply a Catholic concept.
Earlier I said I do not believe that literal transubstantiation occurs during the Eucharist. However, I do believe that whatever you use for the Body and Blood of Christ, be it flatbread and wine or communion wafers and pasteurized grape juice, it becomes more than just food and drink. If nothing special occurs, then what makes this different from any other meal? Also, I know and respect, as much as possible, your church’s use of grape juice, but there are a couple of things which stand in the way of my accepting it. First of all, it wasn’t until the 1800’s that anyone found a way to prevent grape juice from turning into wine. Second, if Christ could transform water into wine as His first miracle no less, and good wine at that, I have no problem with drinking wine. I am aware that this is one area where my views on the subject of alcohol are more European than American, and I will make allowances for recovering alcoholics, but just as there are certain things about my faith you can’t wrap your mind around, there are certain things about your faith which I can’t wrap my mind around.
It’s funny. My Anglican church draws a lot of its foundation from a reaction to authority. One key point is reading the scripture in the language of the congregation. Another is that the church founders deliberately created a lectionary consisting of daily readings from the Old Testament, New Testament, Gospels, and Psalms which would ensure that the entire Bible would be covered over a three-year period, assuming daily morning and evening services. This was to prevent priests from picking and choosing their favorite verses and neglecting ones they disagreed with. When I hear that the only acceptable translation of the Bible is the King James version which doesn’t use current English anymore than Shakespeare does, and about pastors selecting verses, it seems to be going back to the some of excesses of Catholicism my spiritual ancestors decried.
CJ
Thanks Kirk, I just wanted to make sure I didn’t belong to something that you would consider a death cult… luckily the particular group of believers with which I associate myself with do not fall under that description in the least! phew
NO! No. no.
You're thinking of the wrath of Khan.KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!
Psst!
The wrath of Khan is insignificant next to the power of the Dark Side of the Force. (heavy breathing)
On the Pizza Parlor back when, we had threads (modeled on Esprix’s original) entitled Ask the UU Member, Ask the Orthodox Jew (which cmkeller kindly handled), and Ask the Catholic (which was Kirkland’s) – when it grew too large, its continuation was, in fact, “Ask the Catholic II: The Wrath of Kirk” 
Maybe I should have started an “Ask the Ir-religious Christian” thread?
Actually, Polycarp, IIRC, it was “Ask the Catholic II: The Wrath of Kahn”. Back before that board became a pit of fundamentlist vermin.
Kirk
Kirk, would you PLEASE stop this!!!
sigh
RELIGEON??!?!?!?!
I am a follower of Jesus Christ and the trinity. IT IS MY FAITH, NOT MY RELIGEON!!! Yes maybe webster and his dictionary say otherwise, but what does he know about religeon?? Or faith? We don’t know what webster thinks but as far as I know, just because I love and follow God, DOES NOT I REPEAT DOES NOT MEAN I AM RELIGEOUS! I have faith in God and no religeon or pompous person who thinks all christians are religeous will make me think otherwise. Faith, faith, again i say faith. Not religeon, when are you people gonna get it straight?