Discovering the Truth...

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

I take your point but I still think the other interpretation is equally likely. Sometimes I wish the bible was more explicit on these things!

God bless,
Noel.

Why? You believe contraception is wrong because your church has taken a scripture, interpretted it a certain way, and used it to say contraception is wicked. Nowhere else is their any indication of such an act being wrong, yet there are many indications of such disobedience being wrong. Looking at the scriptures in context, it is clear which interpretation is correct. Only when it is isolated can you interpret it the way the RCC do. For me its clear. 'One scripture that could possibly be interpretted in a certain way, but has nothing else to back up that interpretation'. Or, 'Another interpretation, which has lots of scripture to back it up'. Quite explicit Tbh.

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

Why? You believe contraception is wrong because your church has taken a scripture, interpretted it a certain way, and used it to say contraception is wicked. Nowhere else is their any indication of such an act being wrong, yet there are many indications of such disobedience being wrong. Looking at the scriptures in context, it is clear which interpretation is correct. Only when it is isolated can you interpret it the way the RCC do. For me its clear. 'One scripture that could possibly be interpretted in a certain way, but has nothing else to back up that interpretation'. Or, 'Another interpretation, which has lots of scripture to back it up'. Quite explicit Tbh.

It's not clear from the passage which "detestable thing" the author was referring to. It could have been disobedience to the law or the spilling of seed, couldn't it? You have a biased view on it, just as I have.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

It's not clear from the passage which "detestable thing" the author was referring to. It could have been disobedience to the law or the spilling of seed, couldn't it?

As I have said already. Taken in isolation, it could be argued, but still not strongly, that the spilling of the seed was the wicked act. However, the fact that 'nowhere' else in scripture is this backed up knocks it down. While the disobedience interpretation is backed up many times. Even to the extent where the duty of a brother in law is mentioned. You can't be more explicit than that. The confusion starts when someone has an agenda to push regarding contraception and isolates a scripture like this and tries to use it incorrectly.

You have a biased view on it, just as I have.

How am I biased? I can see you are biased, as you just want to stay with catholic doctrine. But how am I? I have read it in context, and see no way that the RCC interpretation is correct. Once you start taking scripture out of context, you can say alot of things that look like they could be valid interpretation. its only in context can you pluck out the weeds.

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

As I have said already. Taken in isolation, it could be argued, but still not strongly, that the spilling of the seed was the wicked act. However, the fact that 'nowhere' else in scripture is this backed up knocks it down. While the disobedience interpretation is backed up many times. Even to the extent where the duty of a brother in law is mentioned. You can't be more explicit than that. The confusion starts when someone has an agenda to push regarding contraception and isolates a scripture like this and tries to use it incorrectly.

If you look in Deuteronomy 25:7-10, you'll find that the penalty for not keeping up the lineage is public humiliation, not death:

9 The woman shall come to him before the ancients, and shall take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and say: So shall it be done to the man that will not build up his brother's house: 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of the unshod.

JimiTime wrote: »

How am I biased? I can see you are biased, as you just want to stay with catholic doctrine. But how am I?

Everyone is biased to some extent. The first time I heard about the Onan passage was in defense of the doctrine on contraception. So did you come to your own conclusion without having heard an interpretation beforehand?

JimiTime wrote: »

I have read it in context, and see no way that the RCC interpretation is correct.

Are you being disingenuous now??

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Everyone is biased to some extent. The first time I heard about the Onan passage was in defense of the doctrine on contraception. So did you come to your own conclusion without having heard an interpretation beforehand?

TBH, yes. I never heard the RCC interpretation when I first read that, and I knew it wasn't speaking about contraception. Before I read it, I never heard of Onan at all.

Are you being disingenuous now??

NO. As I said, in isolation, I can see why you would say there is two interpretations. In context though, there is only one.

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

If you look in Deuteronomy 25:7-10, you'll find that the penalty for not keeping up the lineage is public humiliation, not death:

9 The woman shall come to him before the ancients, and shall take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and say: So shall it be done to the man that will not build up his brother's house: 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of the unshod.

Indeed good point Noel, I must say. But, wouldn't you think after continued unrepentant disobedience to give his seed to his deceased brothers wife, the Lord would give him his time for death?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed good point Noel, I must say. But, wouldn't you think after continued unrepentant disobedience to give his seed to his deceased brothers wife, the Lord would give him his time for death?

That seems a little bloodthirsty

Zombrex

bluewolf wrote: »

That seems a little bloodthirsty

Well this is the Old Testament God, which is different to the New Testament God


oh wait ....

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

Well this is the Old Testament God, which is different to the New Testament God


oh wait ....

Well I meant on jakass' part, demanding a death sentence when his own god didn't feel the need to

kelly1

As requested in another thread:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let me ask two brief questions however:
1. What version are you using that translates the Greek presbuteros as priests? The word means elders, not priests. The Greek for priests is hiereus.

I used the Douay Rheims online bible. In my own hard-copy of the Ignatius bible, it is indeed translated as elders. So who, in your opinion, were the "elders of the church"?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Are all the teachings of the Popes infallible? If not, how do we know which ones are and which ones aren't? Does that not put you in at least as much difficulty as the Protestants?

The pope teaches infallibly when he speak "Ex Cathedra" in order to define dogma formally. Otherwise, he's fallible like the rest of us.

See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05677a.htm and
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

God bless,
Noel.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

That seems a little bloodthirsty

well, it seems less bloodthirsty than death for withdrawl on one occasion. If man continually defies the word of God for his own pleasure this was the fate before the saving death of Jesus on the cross. I don't find that so hard to deal with.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

well, it seems less bloodthirsty than death for withdrawl on one occasion. If man continually defies the word of God for his own pleasure...

... then it's between him and his god.
I don't see why you want to go around suggesting death sentences for people doing things that are really none of your business. If god wanted them dead, god would kill them or say so.

philologos

bluewolf wrote:

I don't see why you want to go around suggesting death sentences for people doing things that are really none of your business. If god wanted them dead, god would kill them or say so.

Fair enough, isn't that the point though? God did kill Onan, through his ultimate disobedience and defiance of the rulings he had set. It seems to me to be a more logical reason than saying that God killed him for withdrawing during intercourse, as opposed to him defying God's rules continually.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

I used the Douay Rheims online bible. In my own hard-copy of the Ignatius bible, it is indeed translated as elders. So who, in your opinion, were the "elders of the church"?

They were comparable to the elders of the synagogue - the men more mature spiritually and (usually) in age. Not all such men, but those recognised by the church as being gifted by God to be pastors and teachers of the flock.

Their qualifications:
1 Timothy 3:1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

The pope teaches infallibly when he speak "Ex Cathedra" in order to define dogma formally. Otherwise, he's fallible like the rest of us.

Yes, but it is what is covered by "Ex Cathedra" that proves the difficulty. It seems that a broad swathe of truth is not covered by anything yet infallibly pronounced upon. So in that Roman Catholics are just as prone to error as the rest of us.

Then too, what exactly are the infallibly pronounced dogmas that are binding and irrevocable? How do they differ from what Evangelicals call the Fundamentals of the Faith? Evangelicals differ about non-fundamentals; it seems that RCs do so over non-infallibly defined dogmas.

"We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church,..."
Some practical issues - has the pope spoken infallibly on Contraception? On Creation/Evolution?


Maybe I'm missing something. Is it really the power of excommunication that gives more unity to Roman Catholicism, rather than any supposed infallibility?

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

The pope teaches infallibly when he speak "Ex Cathedra" in order to define dogma formally. Otherwise, he's fallible like the rest of us.

In 1324, Pope John XXII produced his Bull Qui Quorundam, a dogmatic assertion of doctrine made to the entire Church and thus infallible by today's rules. In it he reviled the doctrine of papal infallibility as "the work of the devil" and therefore heresy.

jawlie

It seems to me that, in this mainly Irish forum, there seems to be an assumption that the truth is largely connected with what various individuals in the RCC have said over the centuries. Christianity is more than just the RCC and, for example, the RCC's obsession with matters sexual over the 20th century, seems to show that the RCC is not the most reliable or consistent source for whatever truth it is we seek.

We are asked to believe that Jesus was born to a pure virgin thanks to the good offices of the Holy Ghost. He lived a good life, preaching and performing miracles, then died, cruelly but necessarily, to redeem the original sin of all mankind.

But, many Christians tell me that "virgin" is a mis-translation of "girl", in other words, Jesus was not conceived by miraculous means, although he was still "God" in a spiritual sense, and still died to save us from our sin. I am also told that Genesis is largely regarded as a creation myth, which, while it embodies spiritual truths, isn't literally true. So, why did Jesus have to die to redeem us from a myth? And did he live at all? The historical facts surrounding his life are shambolically inaccurate.

Nazareth didn't exist in the first century AD, while local historians completely failed to notice the earthquake which is said to have marked his death. You'd think God could concoct a more convincing tale, if he seriously wanted anyone to believe it.

But never mind, Jesus is still wonderful; he hears our prayers, guides our footsteps and makes us good. It's just so odd that Christianity has caused more bloodshed and misery than any other world-wide movement. The burnings and beheadings seem to have stopped, but the ongoing "does God approve of gays?" debate is breathtakingly cruel.

How can anyone with any sense of balance and clarity believe the RCC?

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

kelly1 said:

They were comparable to the elders of the synagogue - the men more mature spiritually and (usually) in age. Not all such men, but those recognised by the church as being gifted by God to be pastors and teachers of the flock.

Their qualifications:
1 Timothy 3:1 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you— 6 if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, 8 but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

You seem to be confirming what I said. Before a man can become a bishop, he has to be a priest first.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, but it is what is covered by "Ex Cathedra" that proves the difficulty. It seems that a broad swathe of truth is not covered by anything yet infallibly pronounced upon. So in that Roman Catholics are just as prone to error as the rest of us.

I'm not clear about what you're getting at here?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Then too, what exactly are the infallibly pronounced dogmas that are binding and irrevocable?

There's a list here:
http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.cfm

wolfsbane wrote: »

How do they differ from what Evangelicals call the Fundamentals of the Faith? Evangelicals differ about non-fundamentals; it seems that RCs do so over non-infallibly defined dogmas.

I don't know about Evangelicals articles of faith.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Some practical issues - has the pope spoken infallibly on Contraception? On Creation/Evolution?

I'm not sure if the evilness of contraception is infallibly declared. It's dealt with in Humanae Vitae (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html)
And no there hasn't been any declaration of evolution vs creation. The Church though has infallibly declared that God at some point created a first soul in a human being we know as Adam. There might have been humans before Adam who were without souls, who knows.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something. Is it really the power of excommunication that gives more unity to Roman Catholicism, rather than any supposed infallibility?

I don't see how excommunication can give any kind of unity?? There is unity via common doctrine, common tradition, common leadership under the pope.

God bless,
Noel.

philologos

kelly1 wrote:

"My own interpretation is of no use because I don't have the authority to do so. My point is that the NT was written by the Apostles and so the Church alone has the authority to interpret scripture correctly. If you want to understand the true meaning of a book, you go to the authors don't you?"

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, John, James, and Jude - the Christian authors of the Bible? The Catholic Church were merely the publisher.

Where does it say in the Bible that I cannot interpret this, or is this in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church?

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

In 1324, Pope John XXII produced his Bull Qui Quorundam, a dogmatic assertion of doctrine made to the entire Church and thus infallible by today's rules. In it he reviled the doctrine of papal infallibility as "the work of the devil" and therefore heresy.

PDN, could you do me the favour of showing me where in "Quia Quorundam" it says that papal infallibility is the "work of the devil"? Are you basing this on hear-say or did you actually read this for yourself?

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

jawlie wrote: »

How can anyone with any sense of balance and clarity believe the RCC?

I do and I don't appreciate your insult. I pray that God will lead you to the truth.

God bless,
Noel.

philologos

I believe the Catholic church is just as legitimate as any other and does recieve a lot of unfair criticism. I prefer being an Anglican however since the dogma of my church appeals more to my interpretation of the Bible. Perhaps this is a lot to do with my upbringing I don't know but I have recieved such an interpretation that balances out with the Church of Ireland.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

PDN, could you do me the favour of showing me where in "Quia Quorundam" it says that papal infallibility is the "work of the devil"? Are you basing this on hear-say or did you actually read this for yourself?

God bless,
Noel.

I've read that also. He denounced it as the work of the devil. It was around the 14th century? I'm sure google will point you to a source.

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

I've read that also. He denounced it as the work of the devil. It was around the 14th century? I'm sure google will point you to a source.

Jimi are you also going to believe this lie without investigating it for yourself?

Here is a translation of the bull:

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/qquor-e.html

If you read it, you will find not find the words devil, satan, infallible, papal or "ex cathedra" contained within it. The word "work" is used twice and not in relation to the devil.

I challenge PDN to prove his earlier allegation or withdraw it.

God bless,
Noel.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

Jimi are you also going to believe this lie without investigating it for yourself?

Here is a translation of the bull:

http://www.franciscan-archive.org/bullarium/qquor-e.html

If you read it, you will find not find the words devil, satan, infallible, papal or "ex cathedra" contained within it. The word "work" is used twice and not in relation to the devil.

I challenge PDN to prove his earlier allegation or withdraw it.

God bless,
Noel.

I gather its a paraphrase. his opening line is "Because the father of lies is said to have so blinded the minds of certain [men], that they by [means of] false madness have obscured Our constitutions".

He then proceeds to criticisise his predecessor, Nicholas III, about his dogma on vows of poverty, and on saying:

"On account of which moreover, since it was previously mentioned in the aforesaid consideration, namely, that "It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise," so they say, " in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power," it is evidently clear from the following things [that] this is directly contrary to the truth."

All the syuff I read was basically about how Nicholas loved the franciscans and endorsed their vows of poverty. John hated them because he was a money grabbing guy, who exploited his 'flock', with indulgences etc. He liked his lavish lifestyle etc, so the poverty vow made him look bad. Thus, it was in his best interest to claim that his predecessor was wrong.

Question is, which one was infallable? TBH, your comment about believing the lie without investigation while being wrong, is also of no concern tbh. Something like popes bickering does not surprise me at all. There have been many things in Papal history worse than that.

kelly1

JimiTime wrote: »

I gather its a paraphrase. his opening line is "Because the father of lies is said to have so blinded the minds of certain [men], that they by [means of] false madness have obscured Our constitutions".

He then proceeds to criticisise his predecessor, Nicholas III, about his dogma on vows of poverty, and on saying:

"On account of which moreover, since it was previously mentioned in the aforesaid consideration, namely, that "It is not licit for their successors to call again into doubt those things, which were defined once for all by the key of knowledge in faith or morals by the Supreme Pontiffs, although it is otherwise," so they say, " in regards to those things, which have been ordained by the Supreme Pontiffs by [means of] the key of power," it is evidently clear from the following things [that] this is directly contrary to the truth."

All the syuff I read was basically about how Nicholas loved the franciscans and endorsed their vows of poverty. John hated them because he was a money grabbing guy, who exploited his 'flock', with indulgences etc. He liked his lavish lifestyle etc, so the poverty vow made him look bad. Thus, it was in his best interest to claim that his predecessor was wrong.

Question is, which one was infallable? TBH, your comment about believing the lie without investigation while being wrong, is also of no concern tbh. Something like popes bickering does not surprise me at all. There have been many things in Papal history worse than that.

Jimi, getting back to PDN's claim that John XXII denounced papal infallibility, where is the proof of this claim?

I've been doing some research on this controversy and it's hard to get to the bottom of it. It seems Nicholas III defined dogmatically that Christ and His apostles owned no property and that John XXII disagreed with this. John appeared to say that this was not a matter of faith and morals.

So I don't know what the truth is but I don't think there is any evidence to say that John XXII denied papal infallibility.

God bless,
Noel.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

You seem to be confirming what I said. Before a man can become a bishop, he has to be a priest first.

Where do you see this in the texts I gave? It simply says If a man desires the position of a bishop, not a priest. And where do you find any reference to a Christian priesthood? The only priests in the New covenant era are the Lord Jesus, our Great High Priest, and all Christians:
[B]Hebrews[/B] 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

1 Peter 2:9 But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, but it is what is covered by "Ex Cathedra" that proves the difficulty. It seems that a broad swathe of truth is not covered by anything yet infallibly pronounced upon. So in that Roman Catholics are just as prone to error as the rest of us.

I'm not clear about what you're getting at here?

Many things divide Evangelicals:
Will Christ come to set up His reign for a thousand years on the Earth (the Millenium)? Will the Millenium occur before He comes back? Is the Millenium not meant to be understood literally, but spiritually - of the Gospel Age?

Has man the ability to repent and believe the gospel, or is he so depraved that he will never do so unless God enables him? If God enables him, can he still refuse? [I see from your site that this is covered by infallible pronouncement]

Did God make the universe in 6 days? Or did it take billions of years?

Are the speaking in tongues, prophecies, miracle-working gifts of the apostolic age still present today?

And so on. Have all of these been infallibly pronounced on by the Popes or are Roman Catholics allowed to believe whatever way?

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Then too, what exactly are the infallibly pronounced dogmas that are binding and irrevocable?

There's a list here:
http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefait...nts/dogmas.cfm

Thanks for that, Noel - very helpful. I take it then that anything not mentioned in this is open to debate. Wouldn't solve all our doctrinal arguments then.

But also, are these dogmas themselves not disputed within the RCC? For example, The Divine Work of Creation
The Doctrine of Revelation Regarding Man or "Christian Anthropology" Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are excluded from the Beatific Vision of God. (De fide.) This seems to mean that unbaptised babies never get to heaven. Is that not being 'reviewed'?

Another: The Necessity of the Church Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (De fide.) Did not the last pope teach that all who walked by the light they had are saved, be they muslims, Hindus or pagans?

I don't know about Evangelicals articles of faith.

A good source: http://www.grace.org.uk/faith/index.html This covers the 'Reformed' side of Evangelical - you need to check the Wesleyan, Anabaptist, etc. for their distinctives.

I'm not sure if the evilness of contraception is infallibly declared. It's dealt with in Humanae Vitae (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pa...-vitae_en.html)

That's a part of what I mean - if you are not sure this teaching is infallible, you are free to differ, are you not?

And no there hasn't been any declaration of evolution vs creation. The Church though has infallibly declared that God at some point created a first soul in a human being we know as Adam. There might have been humans before Adam who were without souls, who knows.

So again, you are free to differ with others you regard as true believers.

I'm sure you will agree these last two issues are causes of hot dispute even among Christians. So how has an infallible leadership helped there?

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Maybe I'm missing something. Is it really the power of excommunication that gives more unity to Roman Catholicism, rather than any supposed infallibility?

I don't see how excommunication can give any kind of unity?? There is unity via common doctrine, common tradition, common leadership under the pope.

Yes, the common doctrine, common tradition, common leadership under the pope gives unity - but only because it will excommunicate any who teach otherwise. I could get such unity in my local Baptist church: anyone who disagreed with our common doctrine, common tradition, common leadership under our elders could be excommunicated. We then could claim to be the pure inheritors of our fathers' religion and all who disagreed are heretics and schismatics.

Doesn't make it so, of course. The true inheritors of the apostles are those who teach what they taught, not those who have taken over a church or groups of churches.

jawlie

jawlie wrote: »

How can anyone with any sense of balance and clarity believe the RCC?
Noel.

kelly1 wrote: »

I do and I don't appreciate your insult. I pray that God will lead you to the truth.

God bless,
Noel.

The fact that you think it insulting to question the RCC demonstrates your bias and lack of objectivity. While I am envious of faith in Christ, your faith seems more a faith in the RCC rather than in Christianity.

As a matter of interest, (and I am betting you don't answer this point), how many people have the RCC put to death in the last 2000 years? And, can you tell us if you last think that is right that they did that? Do you find it insulting that I mention it? Do you agree with their often brutal and disgusting methods of killing people?

Are you really saying that your position is you find someone who finds it hard to believe the RCC after, for example, it institutionally conspired to cover up criminal acts by its members, and where those actions led to its members being put in positions where they were able to continue to abuse and degrades vulnerable people in its care?

That you should consider that person’s view “insulting” would be nearly as funny as your patronising and condescending “God bless” at the end of your posts!

kelly1

jawlie wrote: »

The fact that you think it insulting to question the RCC demonstrates your bias and lack of objectivity. While I am envious of faith in Christ, your faith seems more a faith in the RCC rather than in Christianity.

No, it's insulting to say that Catholics don't have a sense of balance and clarity. As regards my faith in Christ, I believe Christ founded a Church, and actual human institution with a divine Head charged with continuing the saving work of Christ. So I am being faithful to Christ by following the Church which He founded.

jawlie wrote: »

As a matter of interest, (and I am betting you don't answer this point), how many people have the RCC put to death in the last 2000 years? And, can you tell us if you last think that is right that they did that? Do you find it insulting that I mention it? Do you agree with their often brutal and disgusting methods of killing people?

Are you really saying that your position is you find someone who finds it hard to believe the RCC after, for example, it institutionally conspired to cover up criminal acts by its members, and where those actions led to its members being put in positions where they were able to continue to abuse and degrades vulnerable people in its care?

I don't overlook the failings and sins of the Church, I'm painfully aware of it and I don't need any more reminding! I don't know how many were put to death directly under the orders of the Church buy I'd safely say the figures are exaggerated. And as for the abuse scandals, there's no excuse for it. The bishops should be held responsible.

The Church will always be under attack from its numerous enemies because it dares to speak the truth in this corrupt world! The devil well that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ and seeks to destroy it. I make no apologies for saying this.

jawlie wrote: »

That you should consider that person’s view “insulting” would be nearly as funny as your patronising and condescending “God bless” at the end of your posts!

When I say "God bless" I really mean it! We all need God's blessings, don't we? Love your enemies and those who persecute you.

God bless you.
Noel.

philologos

kelly1 wrote:

Love your enemies and those who persecute you.

I don't think most of us intend to persecute you.

jawlie

kelly1 wrote: »

No, it's insulting to say that Catholics don't have a sense of balance and clarity. As regards my faith in Christ, I believe Christ founded a Church, and actual human institution with a divine Head charged with continuing the saving work of Christ. So I am being faithful to Christ by following the Church which He founded. .

I think it unlikely we will reach agreement here. While it is true the RCC has done a number of wonderful things, it’s also true it is responsible for a number of truly horrific, brutal, and disgusting things which include murder, torture, and widespread abuse of many individuals and abuse of its power. The actual “numbers” are not the issue. That the RCC did that to even a single human is disgusting, and one has to question why. Think about that. How would Jesus react to that? To suggest that any Pope has lived or is living the example of, or imitating the "saving work of" Christ is preposterous. Christ never lived in a palace with servants and wore clothes festooned with gold and having all the trappings of a rich King. Indeed, that very lifestyle was one which was anathema to him.

Christ’s message was to love one another as yourself. To suggest that, were Christ to come back today, that he would be happy with the current state, and track record, of the RCC, which you say he founded, is interesting to consider. Would he be, for example, happy that the RCC has, currently, assets of multiple billions, while people in the world starve from hunger and die from curable disease, for lack of funds?

kelly1 wrote: »

The Church will always be under attack from its numerous enemies because it dares to speak the truth in this corrupt world! .

By any measure, the RCC is also corrupt, and that is the nub of the issue. Apart from the murders, torture etc mentioned above, the RCC seems more interested in its own self aggrandisement, self enrichment and position, than to carry out the Lord’s work. That is the evidence of a church which could, if it so chose, turn some of its assets into cash, and use the cash to prevent death and disease across the world. It chooses not to do this and prefers instead to largely ignore all that, and continue to use its cash to fund its grandiose palaces and gold chalices and all the other trappings of its pomp and ceremony.

I agree we all need God’s blessings, but disagree that the way to get God’s blessing is to support and make excuses for the RCC. I find it incomprehensible that Jesus would agree that the RCC is doing what he expects. Do you really think that if today Jesus was elected Pope, he would carry on with no changes, living in a palace with servants at his beck and call, and not be outraged at the vast wealth and abuses carried out in his name, and be happy that while people starve and die from curable diseases, he would continue to live in his palace wearing gold robes, driving air conditioned chauffered limousines, and ignore it all?

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't think most of us intend to persecute you.

It is ironic, indeed, that an apologist for the RCC claims he is being persecuted, when the RCC has been responsible for real persecution, (torture & death & physical and psychological abuse) of so many over the years.