Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men?

Could it be for the same reason that you choose to not accept the statements of Catholics, but rather the writings of Protestant writers about Catholics?Look, whether or not you agree with the way that the Catholic church chooses to worship God does not take away from the fact that they do worship God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and God the Holy Spirit. The second of those things that they believe in is what is required to be a Christian, nothing else. Any other outside information is not imoprtant to the fact that these people believe that Jesus was the CHRIST, aka they are Christians.You take the teachings of a church that you are not part of and twist them so that you may show only your viewpoint, which incidently, does not coincide with what the ACTUAL Catholic Church teaches. (Your praying to Mary example is a great one of these misconceptions). Then again, you won't take my word for it, even though I taught youth group for the Roman Catholic Church for 9 years, you won't take Catholic Scientist's word for it, even though he is still a Catholic. So............why on Earth should we take your word for the fact that these individuals are not Christians, when based on the simple to understand definition of believes in the divinity of Christ, they fall smack dab in the Christian category. Hell, you may want them on your side in a Trinitarian discussion since they are some of the most ardent supporters of the idea of the three gods in one God viewpoint. Remember that this was one of the requirements of belief to not be placed under anathema during the Reformation.

Tradition is important, however it does not, nor has it ever taken the place of Biblical understanding according to the Catholic Church. This is why when I taught youth group, it was important to look to the Bible for what it had to say on certain topics. Tradition is important mostly to the structure of the Mass and the internal structure within the Vatican. As for how one lives their life? That should come from the Bible according to Catholicism, most importantly from trying to emulate Christ's actions. Incorrect, mainly because you seem to not know what the word Vicar means:Vicar - a representative, deputy or substitute; anyone acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior (compare "vicarious" in the sense of "at second hand"). In this sense, the title is comparable to lieutenant.Nowhere does this word mean that the Pope takes the place of God or the Holy Spirit, but rather that the Pope is, according to Catholic dogma, God's current representative on this planet. I know of the one line you are referring to that mentions the Holy Spirit as the Vicar of Christ, but that line does not limit someone else from being Christ's representative/Lieutenant/Stand in as well.As for the infalliable part, Yes, Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible........in religious matters. This does not mean that the Pope is right in political manuvering or any other area and it does not mean that the Pope cannot sin. Rather, when the Pope decrees scriptures to mean something or that a tradition should be adjusted to become more in accord with God's will, then as the representative of Christ, he is considered infallible. WRONG!!!!! Until you are willing to remove your Protestant bias from your mind when looking at this, you will continue to be WRONG!!! Catholics and the Catholic Church do not pray TO the Saints and Mary. I have tried to explain this to you from someone who taught it to others and you simply refuse to accept that you are WRONG! Rather, they pray through these individuals for GOD to answer their prayers. It is not Mary or the Saint that answer prayers according to Catholic Dogma, but rather they intercede with God on your behalf. This is how it is in the Roman Church, accept it or not, but stop lying and saying that these people are praying TO anyone other than God. Catholics know who they think answers their prayers and it is not Mary. While I understand the church thoughts that Priests are supposed to be wed to the God, his Church, and the Faith, I agree that this is an outdated system and should be changed. However, I do not see this as anything that should remove them being considered Christians, it is simply a different way of worshipping the same God.As for the abuse and suffering that was felt by many at the hands of Pedophile Priests, this is not completely the fault of lack of marriage for Priests. Rather there was a structure that gave unsupervised access between an authority figure and young children who were taught to listen to everything that this authority figure said. Why, because he is speaking for the church and God (although infallibility only applies to the Pope, many Catholics misunderstand this point). The other problem was the attempt to hide the problem from the public to safe the Church's image. Had these events been reported correctly right away, the Church could have stopped many children from being abused and determined how it was continuing to allow individuals who would take advantage of those they had authority over to become Priests and fixed it. The choice of turning a blind eye was the problem in this situation, rather than the lack of marriage rights for Priests. Agreed that this was a terrible, terrible thing. However, it does not change anything about whether or not the Roman Catholic church teaches belief in Jesus Christ, making them Christian. WRONG!!!! Where do you get this information from? The Catholic Dogma of not eating meat on Friday (only during Lent, it is not a year round thing) is actually something that can be derived through Scripture and your argument against Catholics states that they do not listen to scripture. During Lent, giving up meat on Friday and something precious are supposed to represent the fasting that Jesus went through for forty days in the desert.In addition, there is some historical evidence that Catholics were allowed to eat Fish on Fridays during Lent because it would help the fisherman to sell product. But, still nothing in this would remove Catholics from being Christians. Why? Because they do all of this to honor God the Son, or Jesus Christ, whom they believe in making them Christians (no matter how you try and spin it). Hey, you got one right! Yes, the Catholics do believe that Mary and the Saints can intercede on their behalf. However, it is important to remember that any blessings or gifts are not considered o be from Mary but from God. This stems from the birth of Mary, where if Mary had been born with original sin, then it would be impossible for Jesus to be born without original sin. Mary had to have a special birth for herself (minus original sin) in order to give birth to the blameless Son of God. She was not immaculately conceived either, rather she was born free of original sin. This way the Sin of Adam and Eve could not be passed onto Jesus through his birth as a man.Question for you. How in your Protestant faith do you avoid Jesus being born with Original Sin, if his mother who birthed him was guilty through her own birth of original sin? Catholics state that Mary was born to her parents (normal humans) but that God allowed her to be born without Original Sin. This was the only way to ensure that Jesus was born clean...since Original Sin is passed from parents to children and Jesus had one human parent... I would like to see some evidence that this is stated in Catholic Dogma, preferably from a non-biased source. As far as I was taught and I ever taught all salvation comes through Jesus who died for our sin. Good works were required as well, but that was because those show your faith in Jesus. This is simply a difference in translation that leads to a huge difference between groups.Catholics take the words, "This IS my body" to mean that it actually IS the body and blood of Christ.Protestants take it as a metaphor, meaning it represents his body and blood.This is interesting since if the Bible is infallible in your eyes and the source of all answers, then why should we interpret most of it as literal and this segment as metaphor. Jesus said it IS, therefore it IS. Catholics stand by that, but it also is not enough to make them un-Christian. Ummmmmmm....not until recently. Prior to perhaps the last couple of years the congregation was given, from third grade on, the chance to partake in both the body and the blood of Christ. You would walk forward and take the body from the first Eucharistic minister and then move slightly to the side and receive the blood from a second Eucharistic minister. So...unless you are talking about recently, when the health scares made the Church decide to stop sharing a cup between many people, you are stating a complete falsehood. Lies! Unless you have proof, please retract this statement that they still practice selling indulgences. People are not required to pay any money to have the names of their dearly beloved read at any Mass. The money given in donations is considered separate. In fact, even without a donation it is possible to have an entire Mass said in honor of someone you know who has passed. And how is praying to God or Jesus for the dead un-Christian? It is a symbolic reference to the sacrifice Christ made. Yes, Christ is present in the Body and the Blood, but as Catholics, they were instructed to partake in that meal by Christ. Also, the Mass is set up in the order it is far more by tradition and how the early Church began than specifically as a resacrifice of Christ. Rather, it is similar to the set-up one would see at a Mass taking place in a secret location. There is a greeting, then the good word is heard. Someone discusses the good word and what God intended with it. Then, you celebrate the sacrifice of Christ for all of us once-fallen mortals. Then there is a dismissal and people go on their way. Also, nothing in this practice that makes them believe in Christ any less, nor is it Blasphemy...Hence, still Christians. Right and the persecution, torture, and murder of Irish Catholics by Irish and English Protestants was completely okay......not going to say the Catholic Church has not made mistakes. However, I have not heard of one instance of this Canon Law being applied in modern times. Perhaps you could point me to one. Otherwise, I will just chalk it up to your paranoid delusion that the RCC is planning on instituting another Inquisition. Yes, because they believe that sitting in a corner and believing in Jesus with all of your heart is not good enough to get you into Heaven. Which makes complete sense, what good is a religion preaching to treat people well, if you do not go out and take part in the World in this manner. They feel that if you truly had faith in what Jesus taught, you would live that faith through works. Ummmmm........welcome to the Earth. People with large amounts of Authority tend to accumulate wealth. This is just how it is. I am sure that Pastor Billy Graham simply lives in a ramshackle building, and Martin Luther only wore a sackcloth, and Kent Hovind uses all the money he receives for either religious purposes or gives it back to the poor. Should they do this?....No. Am I surprised that a group with as much power and authority as the RCC has had for as long as it has is extremely wealthy....nope. Still doesn't remove the Christ believing part, still making Catholics Christians. In America, take a look into a Catholic service. At this point the Church would just like to stop the extreme numbers that are dropping the faith as important. There is a Priest shortage and a congregation shortage within the Catholic community. Churches are combining with neighbor parishes and one of them closes the doors on their church. Do they want to have power again, I am sure that they do. Why? Because they strongly believe what they follow, so they want to help anyone get into heaven... While this is idiotic to me, wanting everyone to accept what you are sure is right is absolutely no different from what you ask people to do Faith...They just have a better centralized authority. Whine all you want, but Protestants all wanting things exactly their own way is why they continued to splinter and shrink while the RCC just grew larger. All I will say to this is evidence please? A case can also be made that Hitler had given up his Catholic ways and was far more into practicing Protestantism when he began to come to power. Yes, he was born Catholic but as an intelligent person (albeit crazy) I would expect him to begin to question the Catholic faith.As for the comment about doing the "work" of the church, not going to argue that they said that, nor that many protestants also took part in the decimation of the Jewish people. The Nazis simply gave people an excuse to let their anti-semitism rise to the surface. Also, the mentality that existed in that day can be seen in the treatment of Asian people, Jewish People, or Black People. There was far more violence in general against different races. Nothing. But, there is also nothing un-Christian in them in the fact that Christian means believing in Jesus as Christ. That is it...your arguments against Catholics never touched on this one important fact. Are they Gaudy? Yes. As much as the Greek Orthodox churches? No. Does it matter toward them being Christian? Nope. Should they reevaluate and find a way to make the finery work toward good in the world? Yes, but doing so would not make them more or less Christian, since they already believe in the divinity of Christ.

Since you are a female and chose to quote 2 Timothy, don't forget that the same writer of this section of the Bible informs you in his first book that you have zero authority to teach anything to us males, since 1 Timothy 2:12 clearly states: So, Faith, Miss or Mrs. Bible is inerrant...Why should we trust any aspect of you trying to teach us about the Bible, since according to you the Bible is inerrant meaning you have no right, according to scripture, to teach us men anything. We should not accept your teachings, nor should you even offer them...unless of course this is another little segment out of the whole that you want to read metaphorically?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

I would only be ignoring you because your inerrant Bible states that I should. Luckily, I do not believe the Bible is:
A. inerrant
B. factual
and
C. Anything more than a good storybook.So, I have no reason to ignore you because believing that women cannot teach men anything is stupid and chauvinistic.I am merely pointing out one section that you seem to gloss over in your inerrant Bible (one out of I am sure many more little phrases that you do not obey). How can you reconcile this idea of the fact that women should never attempt to teach men? Is this not to be read literally, while much of the rest of the Bible is?

Great! You are right! They are all Christians!However, you are still wrong on your classification of the RCC as anything other than Christian. Are they your brand of Christian? Definitely not! But, nothing you have stated changes anything about the fact that they are Christians. And again, for arguing the Trinity, some of the best sources you will find are Catholic sources for this. (And I know, shockingly, you can find Catholic sources with scriptural evidence!)

Which, to me shows that you are adding to your inerrant Bible. There is no specification in this verse about simply not teaching within the structure of the church. Even going through different translations of the verse, it never gets better for women.NIV: I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.KJV: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silenceNASB: But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.CEV: They should be silent and not be allowed to teach or to tell men what to doRSV: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.Nowhere, in any of these messages is it specified that this is only in a church setting. What you are doing is adding the words "In church" to the end of the Bible verse....words that do not exist in the actual scriptures, so that your verse ends up reading (Using KJV):But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence in church.How can something that is inerrant miss those words? There is an enormous difference between never teaching men anything and it applying only to church.

So......who cares? And many Catholic scholars, independent of one another, throughout the years have come to a different conclusion about this...so the question is how are we to judge which one is correct?Well, we can start by looking at what they are saying about one another. This is what we have been doing and it seems to be a lot of mud slinging and very little effective information.So, in the end, it must come down to what the actual definition of being a Christian is. As you have been told multiple times, A Christian or Christians are described as an individual or group that believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Both Protestantism, the RCC, the Mormon church, etc... all agree on one thing and that is that Christ was divine (whether or not the are Trinitarian). Therefore, regardless of personal opinions (which is all that the founding protestant fathers count as, same as the early Vatican writers), both groups strongly believe in the dogma of Christs divinity. Therefore, both groups qualify under the definition of Christian.You may want to argue that the definition is too loose, and this is where you are falling under the No True Scotsman fallacy. If it were to continue deeper into scriptural evidence, I am sure you could find ways to remove almost every other sect of Christianity as being Christian. Luckily for the world, you are not in charge of definitions and Christian has been defined. Baptists are Christians, the RCC is Christian, Mormons are Christians, Non-denominationals are Christians....cause they all believe Christ is divine.

That is a wonderful opinion of one person on the meaning of the verse...and I agree with the sentiment that it is only intended to be applied to certain times. Although, I do not agree that in church or anywhere else women should not be permitted to teach or have authority because I am not living in the Bronze Age. However, this still shows one instance where the Bible is not inerrant because no specification is given in the Bible about when a woman must be quiet.You can read between the lines, add a couple of words, or whatever you like to make the verse read that way, but it is all mental gymnastics to keep your infallible Bible safe, rather than to realize that the Bible occasionally gets things incorrect (such as items that were written during a strong patriarchal society that can affect women negatively).Also, as per your comment in the previous message to PaulK: You have been shown where you incorrect on this. Christians has a specific definition, do you deny this?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Okay, still opinion of a man on what the scripture means with added meaning that is not contained within the text....so the Bible is not inerrant.Back to your comment to PaulK: Do you deny that Christian has a specific definition? If so, what would be your definition of Christian?Also, you still have all of this Message 250 to answer too...so whenever you get a chance...Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.