CHRISTS MESSAGE: God Hates Religion!

Great Debates
101

Çyrin, the Catholic Church has told me nothing because I have never been a Catholic, nor do I hold to it’s doctrines. Can you provide me with evidence that the Catholic Church is not directly descended from the teachings of the original 12?

As to my use of the words, “to this day”, that was a mistake on my part. I typed them before looking up “catholic” on dictionary.com and I didn’t expect the first two definitions to match what my understanding of what the word means so exactly. Quite frankly, I expected a definition relating to the Catholic Church. Knowing that people on this board are inclined to nitpick, I started a sentence then decided I’d better provide a cite.

Please give me a reason to get rid of the beliefs I’ve spent 30 odd years developing for what one person tells me when I have no idea what that person’s credentials are.

CJ

102

Thank you Polycarp, I am aware that it could possibly be factual that the Catholic church may have direct roots in the 12 diciples, and perhaps that they were responsible for the caretaking of the Bible…

My point, however, is that the Catholic Church is the authority and as such, must use circular reasoning to prove it’s origin.

Could we please get past this, I have no desire to further share my thoughts on the Catholic church, it’ll get me in too much trouble, AND it was not the intended discussion for this thread!

I am still rather interested in peoples opinions on the positive vs. negative effects of religion on history.

103

I made some arguments for authority earlier, if you’re interested in tackling them. My main point comes down to study and expertise.

CJ

104

“You are Peter (the Rock), and upon this Rock I will build my Church.” The Church that Peter led and whose leaders trace their authority back to him through Apostolic Succession is the Catholic Church.

Of course it didn’t. Denominations are, by and large, a Protestant invention.

Maybe in your opinion. In the opinion of the Church that Christ founded, this is not the case. There are many Christians (though a minority), who are not members of the Church, becuase they or their ancestors chose to rebel against the authority of God’s Church and splintered away.

Kirk

105

The letters of the Early Church Fathers support the notion of the continuing succession of bishops who themselves succeeded and assumed the authority of the Apostles whose Sees they administered. See the writings of (the real) Polycarp, Clement of Rome, amongst others, for support of this.

There is no evidence, that I have encountered, for the Fundamentalist Protestant’s position of denial regardig a hierarchial structure or idolization regarding congregational (read:chaos) nonsense in the Early Church

Kirk

106

And you know that good Orthodox people like WOI and Oblio pray that you Catholics will realize your mistake and rejoin the true church!! :wink:

(Which, without the humor, is intended to say that there is more than one perspective on this, and that nobody has a total grasp of the truth – read JPII, hardly a radical on the issue, on the “separated brethren” and their salvation.)

107

The Catholic position when defending the Apostolic Succession of the Bishops is NOT “the Church is authoritative, and they say it happens.” Catholicism doesn’t, generally work like that. The writings of the Early Church Fathers, as mentioned before, support the notion of Apostolic Succession.

**

No. You attacked the pope and the Catholic Church first, and repeatedly. You brought the Catholic Church into this discussion by calling the Pope selfish, you have proclaimed yourself “against Catholicism,” you have misrepresented Catholic beliefs, you have smeared Catholics by describing them as “pharisees.” You appear to be a typically dishonest, virulent anti-Catholic, and you WILL NOT recieve a free pass on your scurrilous attacks against the Catholic Church.

You admit that you were wrong in all your statements about Catholicism and plead for forgiveness, and then we can talk about “getting past” the topic. Until then, you’re the one whose brought it up, and it will remain a topic until you stand down or “prove” your spurious claims.

It only gets you in trouble because you are, apparently, an anti-Catholic. And if you didn’t want Catholicism to be the topic here, you shouldn’t have attacked it. Repeatedly. Without provocation.

**

Since you refuse to even realize that any Christian faith IS a religion, and thus do not even understand the term religion, no fruitful conversation on the topic can be had with you.

Kirk

108

They could be right. Though I find the Catholic position (both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are valid, albeit separated, like a family awaiting reconciliation) to be more charitable and logical, there is a lot to say for the Orthodox position, as well.

There is nothing to say in favor of the Protestant (particularly fundie prot) postion, though. At least not that I’ve ever seen or heard.

Kirk

109

Well, I have a B.A. in philosophy and religion. Does that count? I’ve also spent about fifteen years doing private research into virtually every world religion I can find. (ostensibly for the purpose of writing a book on the history of religion which I never seem to really make headway on) I have also made a concerted effort to learn Greek and Latin (Hebrew is next on my list) so that I can read some texts (such as the NT) in their original form. I meditate. (does that count as “spiritual study?”) I went to catholic schools as a kid. I’ve seen the Charlie Brown Christmas special about 35 times and I always tear up at the end.

Do I qualify as an authority yet? Absolutely not. I have absorbed a lot of information perhaps I have yet to stumble upon any real truth. I certainly haven’t acquired any wisdom.

[maudlin cliche]In fact, I think I’ve learned more about “spiritual” matters simply from being a father and a husband than I ever have from academic pursuits[/maudlin cliche].

110

Cyrin,

Here are a few things for you to think about:

  1. What about those Christians who were members of the only visible Christian church (Catholic) for the first 1000 years of Christianity? Were they really Christians?

  2. When our Lord ascended to heaven, he promised the Holy Spirit to guide us. Did the Holy Spirit wait 1500 years until Martin Luther’s protest? Or did the Holy Spirit wait 300 years later when the baptists and various other denominations started. Or did the Holy Spirit wait even longer until the fundamentalist/nondenominational churches started up so that the Truth could finally be revealed to God’s children?

  3. What about the early Christians who were alive before the the Bible was cannonized? Or printed? Or the Christians who lived before literacy was widespread? How could the Holy Spirit guide them if they could not read the Bible for themselves to discover the Truth?

Be careful thinking these things over :slight_smile: . These questions and my thinking about them have led me to seriously consider converting to the Catholic church. And one more thing, when Christ said “May they all be One”, I don’t think he had over 30,000 arguing protestant denominations in mind.

111

nonnieboo, thanks, I will think that over.

Kirk, I am NOT a Catholic. Furthermore, I would like to point out at this point that your arrogance, coupled with your intolerance of other peoples opinion has brought about a really interesting thought:

Why would I ever want to call myself a Catholic, if it meant I would have to be associated with someone like you. I don’t want to be part of an organization where the “Facts” the “rules” and the “infallibility” of the Church comes before the Church itself. The members who make that church up.

Your attitude towards other people is sickening, and I am afraid that people reading this will get the idea that all Catholics are as arrogant and un-loving as you.

My point with this thread was to point out that people associate themselves with Christ and then do terrible things, give Christ a bad name. You have associated yourself with Catholicism, the apparent “real church of Jesus Christ” and then proceeded to act in a manner very much inconsistent with Christ.

I RESPECT and love you. I have TRIED to state my opinion on your beliefs without insulting you. I have tried to help you recognize that there is nothing wrong with someone who disagrees with you.

Your implication that I should apologize for ever doubting the Catholic Church is insulting. But I forgive you. Now, if you would do me the favor of accepting my apology. I am sorry if anything I said offended you. Your strong beliefs may be warranted, however, in my so-called “attacks” I was stating my OPINION, and as such intended no personal offence.

112

Sorry for the total hijack, but it seemed to me such a little question wasn’t worth an OP.

I’m possibly pretty dense, but I never understood what meant this smiley: ;j
Reading your post, I suddenly figured it could mean “jew” or “Jewish” (and writing this post, I notice the smiley include a “j”). Am I right, or totally off-base?
And if I’m right, why was such a peculiar smiley included? :confused: There’s no “christian” or “french” smiley, after all…

113

I’m the only one thinking there’s something contradictory in these statements?

114

Diogenes the Cynic, I hearby acknowledge your credentials on religion and spirituality, and remind myself that longshots do payoff and have so quite often in my life. You know more about this than I do. I’ll try to remember that in future discussions.

That said, can I indulge in one minor nitpick? My user name is cjhoworth, not Howarth. “'Tis a small thing, but my own.” :wink:

CJ

115

Lets see… nope, I still respect and love him despite the fact that he is all of the things that I mentioned…

116

Clearly not. Were you a Catholic, you would hopefully not be going around posting such nonsense about Catholicism as you have done on this message board.

I’m arrogant? You’re the one dismissing all real forms of Christianity as “religion” while claiming that your form of Christianity is magically not a “religion,” and can only validate your position by performing Clinton-esque contortions regarding what the word “religion” actually means. You’re the one who derided the Pope as “selfish,” without provocation, and compared Catholics to the Pharisees.

You haven’t shown the intellectual heft necessary to be a competent Catholic, so forgive me if I’m not upset by your declaration that you won’t become one. And why do I care? I never asked you to convert.

Non-sequitor. Where has anyone said that the people of the Church are secondary to the Church’s “facts,” "rules’ or “infallibility”?

And you make all Christins look like illiterate imbeciles with your inane rantings about your inability to understand what the word “religion” means.

Oh, and you’re a paragon of virtue, as you belittle Catholicism, lump it in with Islam as being “Pharisetical” (which is a stupid thing to do – Islam and Christianity are totally different religions, so what does it matter?). You mocked the pope, you misrepresent the nature of the Catholic faith. You are, like all anti-Catholics, a liar.

The hell you have. You insulted the Pope right off the bat, and then pissed all over Catholicism with glee, calling it Pharisetical. That’s not insulting me? Are you really that dense?

You have belittled the Pope without cause, attacked Catholicism without fact or reason. Any decent person would recant and apologize.

Take your forgiveness and stuff it. I’ve done nothing wrong. You’re the person who started pissing all over my religion. You apologize for your lies and attacks against Catholicism, and then we can talk.

Kirk

117

Case and point.

118

I was overboard with the “imbeciles” comment, and don’t thinks that is appropriate for this forum. Sorry about that.

119

Whatever. I see you still refuse to apologize for your lies about the Catholicism and your attack on the Pope.

120

For the hard of hearing:

I’M SORRY!