Catholic bashing....

sunlover1 · Jan 4, 2014

Originally Posted by ebia
...What you've described is "self explanatory" (which clearly the bible isn't or we wouldn't get the level of disagreement that we do).

sunlover1 said:
If you and I both see the same car wreck, we will have two different
stories to tell, from two different pov's.
Was the car wreck not "self explanatory"? Sure it was.

God's word was written FOR us, BY Him.
If one has a question, they can ask Him
and what He has done for others, He'll
continue to do in/for us.

Who did you 'think' should explain God's Word to you?

ebia said:
The level of disagreement over the bible seems to be well beyond that.

Like every Christian until very recently; that it's meant to be understood in the community of God's people.

sunlover1 said:
Well it should be as that was by design.
But it has everything to do with closing
of the ears and hard hearts.

No reading God's word alone with the author?

ebia said:
So it only self-explains to people who agree with you?

Why not just address my words, rather than twist them?

ebia said:
Rephrasing what you've written can reveal the nature of what it is you've said.

Well, you didn't "rephrase" anything.
Whatever it was that I said, that caused
all this..., may be something worth looking into.

May God bless you.

steve_bakr · Jan 4, 2014

Albion said:
Well, sure. The Christian churches throughout the Roman Empire of the first two centuries used these books and considered them to embody God's will and intention for his people. There's nothing about that which makes any particular church council the "originator" or "authorizer" of God's word, nor is it historically accurate to think that the church thought of these writings no differently than it did of the opinions of various bishops or teachers, folklore, custom, or the like.

But that is exactly the intent when anyone says that the Bible was the doing of the Church, rather than correctly describing the Bible books as having been compiled or recognized for what they are (revelation).

It is incorrect to say that the Church does not recognize the NT as revelation. That is just off the mark as to what the Church teaches. The point was that the NT emerged in the context of the Church.

steve_bakr · Jan 4, 2014

ChristianT said:
I can agree, it would make sense to be consistent regardless of who we would be agreeing with - truth is truth the same. However, to the Orthodox, it's a silly claim that the Ecumenical councils were only due to the Roman Catholic Church, or other similar claims to being the full and oldest Church. This is because the Schism is interpreted as the bishop of Rome leaving the Pentarchy - the 4 others of the traditional 5 Patriarchates. So I guess when it happens and an Orthodox person can respond, it's just easy to take it for granted.

I'll say to the best of my ability what I learned from my mentor (may he rest in the peace of God). The original Church is Catholic (the Universal Church). We Roman Catholics are, more accurately, Catholics of the Roman Rite. As JPII suggested in his two-lung metaphor, we view the Orthodox Church as vitally and essentially a part of the Universal (Catholic) Church.

Albion · Jan 4, 2014

steve_bakr said:
It is incorrect to say that the Church does not recognize the NT as revelation.

Uh...sure. Why would you think this is a point you ought to make?

Sword of the Lord · Jan 4, 2014

SwordFall said:
There's a lot of Protestants I would like to bash, but then I'd be called the Antichrist

I could probably dig up 10-15 posts by you in the past few days in which you are bashing Protestants as a group. Some of them are quite nasty.

sunlover1 · Jan 4, 2014

steve_bakr said:
I'll say to the best of my ability what I learned from my mentor (may he rest in the peace of God). The original Church is Catholic (the Universal Church). We Roman Catholics are, more accurately, Catholics of the Roman Rite. As JPII suggested in his two-lung metaphor, we view the Orthodox Church as vitally and essentially a part of the Universal (Catholic) Church.

As God suggested, in His body/church metaphor
we should view the body of Christ as the whole
of the Universal Church.
If we all agree with what is written, we can be
in agreement.
Here it says that the church is the body of Christ.
The body includes all who are followers of Christ, no?

Colossians 1
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church;
he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead,
so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Ephesians 1
. 22 And God placed all things under his feet and appointed
him to be head over everything for the church,
23 which is his body,
the fullness of him who fills everything in every way.

sunlover1 · Jan 4, 2014

MoreCoffee said:
Is it okay to debate word-of-faith-doctrine?

The name it and claim it stuff?

The God wants you to be wealthy stuff?

The if you're sick it's because you lack faith stuff?

One must assume that God knows what He's talking about:

According to Jesus
this kid was sick because of lack of faith:

16And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him.
17Then Jesus answered and said: O unbelieving and perverse generation,
how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you?
bring him hither to me.
18And Jesus rebuked him, and the devil went out of him, and the child
was cured from that hour. 19Then came the disciples to Jesus secretly,
and said: Why could not we cast him out?
20Jesus said to them: Because of your unbelief. For, amen I
say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall
say to this mountain, Remove from hence hither, and it shall remove; and
nothing shall be impossible to you.
21But this kind is not cast out but by prayer and fasting.

And here he commends a woman for her own faith

Matthew 9:22
Jesus turned and saw her. "Take heart, daughter," he said,
"your faith has healed you." And the woman was healed at that moment.

Does faith heal?
According to Jesus it does.

LittleLambofJesus · Jan 4, 2014

steve_bakr said:
I'll say to the best of my ability what I learned from my mentor (may he rest in the peace of God). The original Church is Catholic (the Universal Church). We Roman Catholics are, more accurately, Catholics of the Roman Rite.

As JPII suggested in his two-lung metaphor, we view the Orthodox Church as vitally and essentially a part of the Universal (Catholic) Church.

Is the RCC the right lung or left lung

http://www.christianforums.com/t7490477/
Question on "2 Lungs" of the Church

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus .

I saw this thread on the OBOB earlier mentioning "2 Lungs". Did this concept arise from out of the RCC or EOC?
And what are the EOs views on it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7468666/
Orthodox and Catholic Bond Deepens: Will the Two Lungs of the Church Breathe....

*snip*

brinny said:
"Lungs"....hmmm, that's a new way to look at it...

buzuxi02 said:
I believe this phrase originated with Pope John Paul II. Some Orthodox ecumenists may have adopted the phrase.

Recently there has been a backing away from this phrase by both. It is a heresy and developing it to its ultimate conclusion may even be a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

Barky said:
This.

The Romans are in schism with the Orthodox, they do not share in our sacramental life nor are they in communion of belief. The Romans don't see it this way.
The two cannot be two "lungs" of the same Church if they are not in communion of belief. This is a simple logical conclusion.

"If trees are the lungs of the world, what will happen ..."

....................................................

.................................................................
.

Rick Otto · Jan 4, 2014

Can they be water wings?

christianmomof3 · Jan 4, 2014

Setyoufree said:
I have been guilty of bashing Catholic doctrine - especially the Pope....Now don't get me wrong, I still disagree with some of their teachings, however bashing them isn't how you make friends. So, no more bashing for me....

For some reason, Christians are really into bashing any religious belief or practice or whatever that is any different than their own particular one.
I don't think that Jesus did that.

steve_bakr · Jan 4, 2014

Albion said:
Uh...sure. Why would you think this is a point you ought to make?

Read the last sentence of your post, Albion. Perhaps it was not intended the way it reads. Ironically, in a thread that decries Catholic bashing, the post as a whole engages in that very thing. :sad:

Rick Otto · Jan 4, 2014

steve_bakr said:
It is incorrect to say that the Church does not recognize the NT as revelation. That is just off the mark as to what the Church teaches. The point was that the NT emerged in the context of the Church.

That sounds so much more soothing than, "Without The Church, there would be no bible!

steve_bakr · Jan 4, 2014

Rick Otto said:
That sounds so much more soothing than, "Without The Church, there would be no bible!

Then I'll try to retain that wording; but seriously, Rick, Christianity emerged in community, and by and large, remains so.

Standing Up · Jan 4, 2014

christianmomof3 said:
For some reason, Christians are really into bashing any religious belief or practice or whatever that is any different than their own particular one.
I don't think that Jesus did that.

Sure He did (vipers, white-washed tombs of dead men's bones). So did Paul (if someone preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed).

I think the real problem is failure to discern the Lord's Body, which is made up of all believers everywhere with a minimalist belief structure (original Nicene Creed). This is why we have RC bashing P and vice-versa and EO doing their thing. What kind of person bashes his brother/sister or stands aloof?

The real question is whether we all have "the same faith". If not, then ... But if we do, then ...

PS. At the same time, within any group, there are behavior issues that should be dealt with regardless of one's gospel.

Standing Up · Jan 4, 2014

steve_bakr said:
Then I'll try to retain that wording; but seriously, Rick, Christianity emerged in community, and by and large, remains so.

The issue is people trying to pass off the idea that the Roman Church gave Christianity its bible.

So, say something like Christians gave Christianity its bible. (in this way it accounts for OO, RC, EO, P bibles.)

steve_bakr · Jan 4, 2014

Standing Up said:
The issue is people trying to pass off the idea that the Roman Church gave Christianity its bible.

So, say something like Christians gave Christianity its bible. (in this way it accounts for OO, RC, EO, P bibles.)

Well, you didn't pay attention because I said that the NT emerged within the context of the Church, which I identified as the Catholic (Universal) Church.

Standing Up · Jan 4, 2014

steve_bakr said:
Well, you didn't pay attention because I said that the NT emerged within the context of the Church, which I identified as the Catholic (Universal) Church.

Except that is still not accurate. The books each part (OO, EO, RC, P) accepts is not universal (except P's).

Given this, we could say Protestants (of that earlier time) gave us the Bible.

Or we could identify Protestants as the Catholic (Universal) Church. Sound good to you?

LittleLambofJesus · Jan 4, 2014

Originally Posted by steve_bakr
Well, you didn't pay attention because I said that the NT emerged within the context of the Church, which I identified as the Catholic (Universal) Church.

Standing Up said:
Except that is still not accurate. The books each part (OO, EO, RC, P) accepts is not universal (except P's).

Given this, we could say Protestants (of that earlier time) gave us the Bible.

Or we could identify Protestants as the Catholic (Universal) Church. Sound good to you?

Nice!

.

SwordFall · Jan 4, 2014

Mike to Michael said:
I could probably dig up 10-15 posts by you in the past few days in which you are bashing Protestants as a group. Some of them are quite nasty.

I don't know about 'nasty'. Definitely do not pull any punches though, not with the way protestants go about catholic belief.

As I've stated on this thread already, protestants just can't take their own medicine. It's gotten so commonplace to show conviction and sling mud at catholic notions that it doesn't quite stand out the way catholic conviction does.

steve_bakr · Jan 4, 2014

Standing Up said:
Except that is still not accurate. The books each part (OO, EO, RC, P) accepts is not universal (except P's).

Given this, we could say Protestants (of that earlier time) gave us the Bible.

Or we could identify Protestants as the Catholic (Universal) Church. Sound good to you?

I would certainly have a problem saying that the Bible was originated by Protestants but not that they are part of the Catholic (Universal) Church. Alright?

Catholic bashing....

Beloved, Let us love one another

Christian

Christian

Facilitator

In need of a physician.

Beloved, Let us love one another

Beloved, Let us love one another

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

The Dude Abides

pursuing Christ

Christian

The Dude Abides

Christian

On and on

On and on

Christian

On and on

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Junior Member

Christian

Similar threads