Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by civ_king, Apr 28, 2011.
I'll do that now.
Total literalism is fundamentally flawed, starting with the fact that the meanings of passages may change with translation. "Thou shalt not kill" is actually closer to "Thou shalt not murder", so if you take that commandment literally you have to watch where you step so you don't kill an ant, or not eat anything that lives including plants.
In the example above of Jesus reciting psalm 22, if you took that passage literally you'd think he was actually crying out thinking God had forsaken him.
When it comes to taking everything literally for the purpose of enforcing church doctrine (which protestants like to do when attacking the catholic church), the stumbling block comes from the fact that for the first 360 years or so christianity operated without a bible whatsoever. It was only in around 360 A.D. that a bible was printed, after an extremely long process (over 200 years) to establish which books were truly inspired and which weren't. Before the bible was created a "new testament" written by an anti-semite erased all references to Jesus being a jew, and that prompted the church to start the long process of establishing which books were inspired and canonical. None of the selections were made lightly, and none were supposed to overrule church traditions.
To change the subject a bit, who here knows that the vatican has it's own observatory that's regularly used to search for extraterrestrial life? Church leaders to this day still feel guilt over the persecution of Galileo and the dismissal of scientific evidence, even though nobody alive today had anything to do with those events. They now welcome scientific study and revelation.
Very interesting stuff that I bet a lot of anti-catholics were not aware of.
It's weird that the 'you are Peter' passage appears in Matthew, but not in Luke.
The Corinthians and Ephesians references clearly make it look like Paul is trying to pass along the Apostleship that he feels that he has. However, the idea that Peter is the head of the church doesn't seem to be present. If the gospel of Luke was written by the same Luke that accompanied Paul, then you'd think that he'd have heard of the whole "Jesus anointing Peter" thing through Peter when Peter hung out with Paul, and have included the scene in his version of Jesus's story! If Peter and Paul thought it was important, that would have probably stuck!
But for that passage to be in Matthew only means that it's not in Q or Mark, and so was included by the author of Matthew due to other tradition ...
Your answer was, you would put God before your country. I am asking you specifically about the RCC, which is not God, but an organization that worships God, but is led by men. You haven't answered the question.
OK, you are right that I don't really understand it. I find it an odd idea to begin with... any human being a final authority.
So, none. Just making sure. You are right, he obviously taught more than that... but if you use that big unknown as a basis for a sacred rite (there are 7 in catholicism, no?)... I thought there would be a basis, that maybe I was missing.
And, you really don't believe it could be less centralized? Would that lead to it breaking down?
The Protestant churches are way less centralized, and they tend to splinter more and more and more... See the Lutherans and Presbyterians for examples.
Ok, so, that's just part of the belief system of the RCC then, correct?
I mean, the earliest Christian leaders, preachers, whatever you want to call them, were often women... because they were the more spiritual force in the family unit. At some point, the Church (because it wasn't split yet), decided to get all formal... I assume this is when this line of succession to the Apostles was mandated.
Or am I missing an actual "direct line of succession" that you mention?
One other question that was never answered...
I asked, if the Protestant Reformation was not divinely guided, as was as said by some Catholic here (not sure who), but it was actually a design by Satan/evil...
Who was the evil party in the Catholic/Orthodox Schism of 1054?
Civ_King... thanks for your patience. This is quite an undertaking, and I understand your purpose, and think it is a positive thing.
The cross is also to remind us that His death washed away our sins directly... I know you know that Civking, just making sure others did.
Seriously... why are you the only one, well, one of two, who just has to get nasty all the time?
You are not the moderator of the thread dude, let it go.
I know Takhisis. He was kidding.
And yes, I did start a thread with that title
That's fine in this case, but I have seen several temper tantrums from him... just sayin'.
And, I have commented in your thread, being that I am also outside "Christ's Church", as decided by those inside "Christ's Church".
By that standard, I'm not in his church either. But the "Church" refers to Christianity in general, so it doesn't matter...
Read this then.
Peter also rejects Christ 3 times before the cock crows and is a violent man...
How does that mix in?
Anyhow, how does the selection of Peter mean that their should be a succession of his personal selection? Peter was selected...
Paul was later selected, right?
Why is it assumed that there is some kind of direct line from Peter to today's Pope? If there is one, can you please provide me the names of all the Popes? Bishops of Rome I guess, since Peter?
Even if you can, which is certainly possible, where is the idea of his special position being passed down the line/inherited?
Didn't Jesus tell Peter to to feed His sheep 3 times? Men don't have to be perfect. Jesus was violent too, after all, he threw violently the money changers out of temple with a whip!
List of Popes here.
God is allowed to punish... and they were blaspheming, which I believe is the only sin the Bible says, in the NT, that cannot be forgiven... Which seems a bit odd to me... which is, of course, blaspheme.
Interesting to see a solid line of popes.
I still don't believe that the Pope should be tops, but it is cool to see a historical list like that.
Wasn't Saul more important than St. Linus (2nd pope)??
He had to deny him three times. To not deny him would have been to condemn himself as well. It's not dissimilar to those who think Judas was truly an evil person for betraying Jesus, when his betrayal was necessary to set those events in motion.
Peter was the first head of the church, the "pope" which is an affectionate term meaning "papa". All of the church's priests and bishops can trace their ordinations back to the Apostles 2,000 years ago.
Sir Kochman, allow me to enhance your forum going experience
At the bottom right there's this button If you see multiple posts you want to respond to, click this button for each post. You'll notice the button turn darker red. Then when you click the posts you selected are ready all in one post.
1. Thoughts on the Ecumenical Catholic Church?
2. St. Augustine or St. Thomas?
Why thank you kind Sir Ziggy. I was not aware of that... I will still end up multiposting from time to time, because my train of thought sometimes will not be derailed.
Wait... any priest can too?
That's exactly what I mean by centralized... overly formal.
Man cares too much about these trifling issues.
Does it make one holier to be able to point out a line of succession? How many of the priests in those lines of succession were terrible people? So, what's the point of doing it?
There needs to be one guy with authority to solve disputes, other wise you end up with a thousand different churches that all teach different things. How are you supposed to know which one has the truth?
So, you're saying you'd rather let one guy make the decision, and call what he calls right... than be given choices of which to follow when there is a dispute?
I don't like that very much, too centralized...
Especially considering some of those who have worn the Pope's hat were terribly evil people.
We have a promise from Christ that the Pope won't error when he teaches on doctrinal and moral matters. Now that doesn't cover behavior.
Separate names with a comma.