|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,789 Year: 4,046/9,624 Month: 917/974 Week: 244/286 Day: 5/46 Hour: 1/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Anti-theist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
what is your understanding of the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility?ringo writes:
There's a bit more to it than that. Tell me, if the Pope goes out and rob banks and rapes altar-boys and becomes a serial killer, does that mean he has contradicted the Catholic dogma of Papal Infallibility?
quote"the pope when he speaks ex cathedra is preserved from the possibility of error on doctrine "initially given to the apostolic Church and handed down in Scripture and tradition". Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
boo hoo ... like I'm real interested in your opinion! Makes it real difficult to be a christian, yet that is what the man said. If you believe in this crap then your bible says exactly that. Bummer. I guess you don't qualify as a True Christian® TM © either. You still love your possessions more than you love your god. I guess your satan must be happy then too. The only opinion that matters to me is that of the Catholic Church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
You're on the right track. According to Catholic dogma, the Pope doesn't have to "impeccible" (sinless) to be "infallible" (preserved from officially (ex cathedra) declaring doctrinal error). Papal Infallibility does not cover your High Priest’s physical actions but only his pronouncements on dogma. And a Pope's personal opinion is irrelevant to the pope's infallibility. It's possible (albeit unlikely) for a Pope to personally disagree with any infallible declaration that he is forced to make.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
ringo writes:
When did Jesus tell his followers to live in the commune described in Acts 4:34-35? The early church did exactly as Jesus said: Acts 4:34-35 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. How did you get from ...Jesus telling the rich young to give away all his wealth to the poor TO Jesus (allegedly) telling all his followers to live in a socialist commune? You seem to be conflating two different and separate matters.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Good luck getting rid of the Catholic Church. Jesus promised that it will never be destroyed; that "the gates of hell will not prevail against" it (Matt 16:18-19).
The infallible declarations of your pope add to the mountain of abuse humans suffer under your cult. This is one of the reasons humanity must be rid of you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
How ironic ... the only people who listen to your idiotic interpretation of the Bible are your fellow atheists.
That's what your god said to do. Those were specific instructions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
When did Jesus tell his followers to live in the commune described in Acts 4:34-35?ringo writes:
In other words, you have zero evidence that Jesus said all his followers must live in socialist communes. Therefore your claim is baseless.
It doesn't mention when He told them.
It also doesn't mention His shoe size or His favorite pizza topping.
A devastating argument, to be sure.
The point is that THEY thought He told them.
The Holy Spirit told them (after the day of Pentecost), not Jesus.
Dredge writes:
How did you get from ...Jesus telling the rich young to give away all his wealth to the poor TO Jesus (allegedly) telling all his followers to live in a socialist commune? ringo writes:
Jesus instructed the rich man to give away his wealth to the "poor" ... which has got nothing whatsoever to do with donating all his wealth to, and then living in, a socialist commune.
Jesus told the rich man he MUST sell what he had and give to the poor. It was a requirement for salvation.
It was a requirement for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem at that time, not for all Christians. There is no evidence that Gentile Christians were commanded to live that way, let alone told that it is necessary for salvation.
Why would there be different requirements for different people?
I don't know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
Paradoxically, most of Satan's servants on earth don't even believe he exists. "the gates of hell will not prevail against" it (Matt 16:18-19). Oh, is that in the bible? Then it's rubbish as far as reality goes. As for knowing what reality is, you would know, being the Omniscient Master of All Reality.Edited by Dredge, .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
dwise1 writes:
That's a fool-proof test, no doubt about it. I can tell you put a lot of thought into that one.
Test for the True Believer: in an experiment in which an heavier-than-air object is to be released to fall to the floor, pray your greatest and most powerful prayers using your greatest and most powerful rituals to keep that object from falling at the rates predicted by physics. What will the effects of those prayers and rituals be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Jesus instructed the rich man to give away his wealth to the "poor" ... which has got nothing whatsoever to do with donating all his wealth to, and then living in, a socialist commune.ringo writes:
Absurd. The "poor" that Jesus refers to in Matt 19:21 could not possibly be the Christian commune described in Acts (2, 4, 5) ... simply bcoz the Acts commune was not formed until after the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) .... well after Jesus' time on earth!
According to Acts 4:35, "distribution was made unto every man according as he had need," so yes, it is the same thing.
So the chronology alone makes a nonsense of you argument. The "poor" in Matt 19: is not a reference to the Christian commune in Acts, but to any poor people in the general community. There are about Bible 300 references to caring for the "poor", and none of them refer to a commune such as the one in Acts. Unsurprisingly, you won't find one Bible scholar or commentary on the planet who agrees with your ridiculous interpretation.Neither will you find any of the Early Church Fathers agreeing with you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined:
|
ringo writes:
Jesus told the rich young man, in order to be "perfect" (Matt 19:21), he should give all that he had to the poor. So it was not a necessity, but a voluntary act on the part of the rich young man. He did tell one man specifically and the early church did live that way, so they must have thought that it applied to them too. Likewise in Acts 5:3-5, Peter said to Ananias,"why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not REMAIN YOUR OWN? And after it was sold, was it not AT YOUR DISPOSAL?" Peter is saying that before and after the sale of the land, Ananias was free to do with it whatever he wanted. In other words, the act of Ananias selling his land and giving the proceeds to the commune was not a necessity, but voluntary. The grave sin of Ananias and his wife was attempting to deceive the Christian community into thinking they were generous and devoted by donating all the proceeds of the land sale ... whereas the truth is, not only were they not as generous and devoted as they made out, they were dishonest as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member (Idle past 100 days) Posts: 2850 From: Australia Joined: |
Dredge writes:
It was a requirement for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem at that time, not for all Christians. There is no evidence that Gentile Christians were commanded to live that way, let alone told that it is necessary for salvation.
ringo writes:
Before I address your question, I would like to point out that I was wrong to state that it "was a requirement for the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem at that time". Donating to the first Christian community in Acts (2, 4-5) was not a "requirement" - it was voluntary. Where's your evidence for that? Now, back to your question:If donating all your possessions and wealth to a socialist Christain commune were essential for salvation, it would be emphasised throughout the NT. But there is no mention of any such requirement ... not even in the few verses referring to the first Christian community in Acts (2, 4, 5). Furthermore, there are many sins mentioned in the NT, but - surprise, surprise - not donating all your possessions and wealth to a socialist Christain commune is not one of them.
And how do you reconcile different people having different requirements for salvation?
There are not "different requirements for salvation".Contrary to your hillbilly reading of Scripture, donating all your possessions and wealth to a socialist Christain commune is not a requirement for salvation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024