Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catholics are making it up.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 308 of 507 (823517)
11-11-2017 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by LamarkNewAge
11-11-2017 12:28 AM


Re: Catholics are honest on marriage issues.
It is true that the RCC has a truer view of marriage and divorce than at least some Protestants do. I've had a problem with this for years. I also have a problem with the rejection of the clear teaching that women should cover our heads in Church, and the invention of reasons that contradict what Paul himself taught on that subject.
While voluntary celibacy is fine, enforcing it for all clergy is evil and the cause of all kinds of sexual sins in the RCC down the centuries, Popes and priests having many children by mistresses, and now all the homosexual crimes against children, and since celibacy was also required of monks and nuns sexual sins were common in those supposed bastions of holiness too.
As Paul says, not everyone can live that way, and marriage shouldn't be a barrier to serving the church. Scripture clearly says that elders, which include all ministers of the Church, should be the husband of one wife...
In the circumstances of the early church especially during the persecutions there were advantages to not being encumbered with a spouse, but as Paul said, this is not possible for some and "the marriage bed is not defiled."
There is also nothing wrong with choosing to be a vegetarian for spiritual reasons that I know of, but there is everything wrong with forcing everybody to give up meat even on one particular day of the week, and as scripture says "forbidding to marry" and forbidding to eat meat" are a mark of heresy. Scripture itself tells us that meat is to be received with thanks. It goes back to Job whom God told to eat meat. Then the levitical priests had the meat given for sacrifice as their food too. Whatever other views there may have been in support of vegetarianism, scripture is clear that meat is acceptable.
I do, however, agree, again, that Protestants need to clean up our act too, and I shouldn't have said we differ only on minor points since some of these aren't exactly minor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-11-2017 12:28 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 323 of 507 (870153)
01-13-2020 4:52 AM
Reply to: Message 322 by Tangle
01-13-2020 3:44 AM


It's ALL made up, both sides of the issue, forget what God has to say about it
So Francis want to allow Amazonian priests to marry but Benedict is intervening and says that they mustn't.
Catholics are having to make stuff up faster and faster these days.
Retired Pope warns against celibacy change/
So I guess this whole issue is to be decided on the basis of Catholic tradition rather than the Bible? That would figure of course. It's Catholic tradition, meaning the stuff they made up, that requires celibacy of its priests, which is THE major cause of all the sexual misconduct in the RCC going back to the beginning. Now it's paedophilia, often homosexual, but it used to be priests and nuns getting together. All of it is caused by the rule of celibacy.
Which is contrary to scripture, in case anyone cares:
1Timothy 4:1-3: Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
This passage was recognized by the Reformers, at least particularly by Luther, as condemning the practices of the RCC which at the time of its writing were yet future, the passage being prophetic. It clearly refers to two RCC practices, the rule of celibacy for priests and the abstention from meats, which in the last century was on Fridays only. These days Protestants are not educated in any of this history and I've heard this passage discussed as related to all kinds of things other than the RCC. The RCC has indeed made up most of its doctrine, deriving very little of it from the Bible. That is what the Protestant Reformationj was all about.
I suppose Francis isn't interested in going back to the Bible, he just likes the idea of allowing priests to marry in some circumstances to make life easier in the church. Just another twist of the tradition without reference to God's word. Benedict is of course insisting on holding onto the RCC doctrine of celibacy, also nothing but tradition, denounced by the scripture I quote above. Neither one cares a fig for God's word.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by Tangle, posted 01-13-2020 3:44 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by Tangle, posted 01-13-2020 6:32 AM Faith has replied
 Message 326 by ringo, posted 01-13-2020 11:04 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 325 of 507 (870157)
01-13-2020 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Tangle
01-13-2020 6:32 AM


Re: It's ALL made up, both sides of the issue, forget what God has to say about it
Cartwheeling indeed.
'Course fasting isn't a lifetime obligation as their version of celibacy is. But we don't have to worry our little heads about such small glitches, do we?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Tangle, posted 01-13-2020 6:32 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 331 of 507 (870173)
01-13-2020 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by Tangle
01-13-2020 5:13 PM


I have a very strong aversion to seeing that movie but since you think it's worth it could you give a little more of an idea why you think that? Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Tangle, posted 01-13-2020 5:13 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Tangle, posted 01-13-2020 5:36 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 333 of 507 (870175)
01-13-2020 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by ringo
01-13-2020 11:04 AM


Re: It's ALL made up, both sides of the issue, forget what God has to say about it
That passage is understood to refer to Catholic practices so abstaining from meats is understood to refer to abstention on Fridays, when fish is eaten instead. I was wondering if maybe the abstention was more lengthy in other times, but Friday is the practice we were all aware of when I was growing up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by ringo, posted 01-13-2020 11:04 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 336 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 10:48 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 334 of 507 (870183)
01-14-2020 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by Tangle
01-13-2020 5:36 PM


two popes
Thanks. Enough to get me to give it a look.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Tangle, posted 01-13-2020 5:36 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 337 of 507 (870190)
01-14-2020 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 335 by ringo
01-14-2020 10:42 AM


Re: It's ALL made up, both sides of the issue, forget what God has to say about it
Cain and Abel were after the Fall, so what's the problem with the burnt offering Abel gave? Offerings were needed for sin, sin followed the Fall.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 335 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 10:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 11:15 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 341 of 507 (870194)
01-14-2020 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by ringo
01-14-2020 11:15 AM


Re: It's ALL made up, both sides of the issue, forget what God has to say about it
That DOES look like the first time God told people to eat meat, what's the problem with that? Do we have to assume that Abel ate the sacrifice he made? It doesn't say one way or the other, so if they were still under the vegetarian rule of Genesis 1:whatever it was, then he wouldn't have eaten the sacrifice.
And what's stupid about fitting all the parts of the Bible together anyway? Isn't that what one would expect if it's God's work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 11:15 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 11:40 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 342 of 507 (870195)
01-14-2020 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 336 by ringo
01-14-2020 10:48 AM


Re: It's ALL made up, both sides of the issue, forget what God has to say about it
The RCC seems to have decreed that fish was not the meat their tradition forbade, who am I to argue?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 10:48 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 344 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 11:41 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 345 of 507 (870198)
01-14-2020 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 344 by ringo
01-14-2020 11:41 AM


Re: It's ALL made up, both sides of the issue, forget what God has to say about it
Oh nonsense. They put their traditions above the Bible and I'm trying to stick with the Bible. Forbidding meat is already wrong according to the Bible so if they also want to decree that fish aren't the kind of meat that's forbidden there's nothing to tell them they're wrong about that either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 344 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 11:41 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 11:53 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 347 of 507 (870200)
01-14-2020 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by ringo
01-14-2020 11:53 AM


Re: It's ALL made up, both sides of the issue, forget what God has to say about it
Oh you give me a headache with your weird illogic. Meat wasn't for us to eat until after the Flood, that's very clear according to the Bible but since then we are free to eat meat.
(I tend to think of this as related to the deterioration of the whole Creation after the Flood, the decrease in longevity for instance that had preceded it, and even though plants and animals would also have suffered some loss that might reduce their nutritional value, meat would probably have offered more nutrition to hard-working humanity in the Flood-devastated world).
So AFTER THAT to forbid it is wrong according to the Bible. I don't see that we are REQUIRED to eat it, but forbidding it is clearly wrong.
Sigh.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 11:53 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 12:08 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 349 of 507 (870204)
01-14-2020 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by ringo
01-14-2020 12:08 PM


Re: It's ALL made up, both sides of the issue, forget what God has to say about it
The deterioration after the Flood ought to be obvious for pete's sake. Death and disease were already in the world since the Fall but after the Flood the whole environment changed for the worse. The decrease in longevity is clear from the Bible itself, I certainly didn't make that up, but it's possible to infer many other changes that contributed to hardship for man and beast.
The vast majority of living things had died, all were starting over with reduced genetic diversity, the world must have been devastated, and though it recovered to some extent, the changed climate, ice age, soil depletion would have meant the recovery fell far short of the level of vigorous life before the Flood.
Both Methuselah and Adam lived before the Flood, I was talking about after the Flood when you can track the decrease in longevity through the genealogies.
Yeah meat would have offered more nutrition before the Fall or the Flood, but pay attention, the idea is that before the Flood there was adequate nutrition in plant life, but afterward with the deterioration of all forms of life more was needed.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 12:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by jar, posted 01-14-2020 12:39 PM Faith has replied
 Message 352 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 7:06 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 353 of 507 (870224)
01-15-2020 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by ringo
01-14-2020 7:06 PM


Re: It's ALL made up, both sides of the issue, forget what God has to say about it
ringo writes:
Faith writes:
The deterioration after the Flood ought to be obvious for pete's sake.
Not only is it not "obvious", it's contrary to the evidence.
I gave evidence for my side, where's yours?
ringo writes:
Faith writes:
...after the Flood the whole environment changed for the worse.
That's both factually false and unscriptural.
I believe I said it's an inference and listed some differences that support the inference. But of course it's not "unscriptural," that's a really silly idea. Scripturally, after the Fall thorns and thistles came up and growing food became difficult, so much more so one would expect would there be such problems after the Flood wiped out the whole early environment. For it to be "unscriptural" you'd have to show that scripture says the environment changed for the better. You got a verse or two for that?
ringo writes:
Faith writes:
... the idea is that before the Flood there was adequate nutrition in plant life, but afterward with the deterioration of all forms of life more was needed.
That's also completely made up.
No, it's an inference based on Biblical references plus common sense. Such thinking is not "made up." Simple logic should tell you that, or even basic principles of language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by ringo, posted 01-14-2020 7:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by ringo, posted 01-17-2020 7:04 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 354 of 507 (870225)
01-15-2020 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by jar
01-14-2020 12:39 PM


Re: It's ALL made up, both sides of the issue, forget what God has to say about it
jar writes:
There is no Fall in the Bible and death existed before the Garden of Eden was created...
You must have repeated that canard dozens of times by now and been answered that many times:
Romans 5:12 writes:
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned
jar writes:
which is why there was a Tree of Life.
As just quoted, the Bible says death ENTERED by sin, which was the Fall when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, therefore death did not exist before that point so the Tree of Life had some other purpose than you are imagining, which is usually understood to sustain the life Adam and Eve had, in that case immortality, just as food sustains our mortal lives now.
And of course God's barring the way to that tree after the Fall is understood to protect them against becoming immortal in their sinful condition, as Satan and his demons are.
jar writes:
Only fools that have never honestly read the Bible believe in silliness like the Fall
So you have no scruples about condemning the entire history of Christian theologians as fools who have never sincerely read the Bible. Obviously we should have made you Pope over all history and theology as the only one who ever understood these things.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by jar, posted 01-14-2020 12:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by jar, posted 01-15-2020 6:58 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 355 of 507 (870228)
01-15-2020 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by Tangle
01-14-2020 12:56 PM


the two popes movie
Just to say: I've been watching it from time to time and it IS very good, I'm glad. I do have a problem reading the subtitles so I'm glad so much of it is in English. I hadn't known who the actors were before or I might not have hesitated at all as I did, but the two of them are great, Anthony Hopkins and Jonathan Pryce. And it is raising some of the important issues in Catholicism I appreciate the opportunity to think about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Tangle, posted 01-14-2020 12:56 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024