Catholic?

[chevyontheriver]

Can we wait until tomorrow? This is a great place to bolster my patriotic pride by taking pot shots at Englishmen.

Not even funny.

 

[Lost4words]

This should have closed about ten posts ago.

It should have closed as soon as Major1 started replying by attacking Catholicism, of which, he always does!

 

[chevyontheriver]

It should have closed as soon as Major1 started replying by attacking Catholicism, of which, he always does!

Which was post 17. Now we're at 585.

I have a general dislike of any thread over 100 posts. I would actually prefer threads would auto-terminate at 100. If something is still worth discussing they could create a new thread for that.

 

[Major1]

It should have closed as soon as Major1 started replying by attacking Catholicism, of which, he always does!

Major did not attack anyone or anything. He only asked why the RCC believers accepted traditions of men over the Word of God by practicing non-Biblical things and still calling itself Bible Christianity.

As of this day, not one single person has answered that question. WHY is that do you think?

Instead of speaking to that question every Catholic believer has attacked the messenger.

Again, why do you think that is the case?

Example...….
The Roman Catholic Church argues that the Immaculate Conception is necessary because, without it, Jesus would have received His flesh from one who was herself a slave to the devil, whose works Jesus came to destroy. Mary, as the mother of the Redeemer, needed for her flesh to be free from the power of sin, and God gave her that privilege. From her time in the womb, Mary was sanctified because of her special role in bringing the Son of God incarnate into the world.

The problem with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it is not taught anywhere in the Bible. Even Catholics admit that Scripture does not teach the Immaculate Conception. The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now would you care to speak to this example or would you prefer to say something personal toward me for stating the facts?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Every time I pop in here I get a good laugh. Thanks

 

[Major1]

It should have closed as soon as Major1 started replying by attacking Catholicism, of which, he always does!

Double post.

 

[Major1]

Which was post 17. Now we're at 585.

I have a general dislike of any thread over 100 posts. I would actually prefer threads would auto-terminate at 100. If something is still worth discussing they could create a new thread for that.

The OP is in a "time Out".

 

[chevyontheriver]

Major did not attack anyone or anything. He only asked why the RCC believers accepted traditions of men over the Word of God by practicing non-Biblical things and still calling itself Bible Christianity.

As of this day, not one single person has answered that question. WHY is that do you think?

Instead of speaking to that question every Catholic believer has attacked the messenger.

Again, why do you think that is the case?

Example...….
The Roman Catholic Church argues that the Immaculate Conception is necessary because, without it, Jesus would have received His flesh from one who was herself a slave to the devil, whose works Jesus came to destroy. Mary, as the mother of the Redeemer, needed for her flesh to be free from the power of sin, and God gave her that privilege. From her time in the womb, Mary was sanctified because of her special role in bringing the Son of God incarnate into the world.

The problem with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that it is not taught anywhere in the Bible. Even Catholics admit that Scripture does not teach the Immaculate Conception. The Bible nowhere describes Mary as anything but an ordinary human female whom God chose to be the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Now would you care to speak to this example or would you prefer to say something personal toward me for stating the facts?

I will do both.
1.) you contributed to the ruining of this thread within the first 20 posts. It was a question by a seeker until you made it polemical. Go back and read the first 20 posts to see that.
2.) you lie about the Immaculate Conception of Mary being necessary. It is not 'necessary' but 'fitting'. If your examples are lies, what does that say about the point you make?
3.) you did not provide the source of your 'example' above, which you cut and pasted without attribution.
4.) you didn't respond to my calling out your false dichotomy between Scripture and pope. Your dichotomy was shown to be false. So you cook up #2 above instead.
5.) you don't know when to quit a ruined thread. One you ruined more than any other person who posted to the thread by attacking with scant understanding or charity. Do you think that glorifies God somehow?

 

[Albion]

2.) you lie about the Immaculate Conception of Mary being necessary. It is not 'necessary' but 'fitting'. If your examples are lies, what does that say about the point you make?

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a must-believe dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, however, not an optional belief or teaching.

 

[chevyontheriver]

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is a must-believe dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, however, not an optional belief or teaching.

Which TOTALLY misses the point Major1 tried to make and that I called out as a lie. Please read it again to understand what Major1 was saying.

He said:

Example...….
The Roman Catholic Church argues that the Immaculate Conception is necessary because, without it, Jesus would have received His flesh from one who was herself a slave to the devil, whose works Jesus came to destroy. Mary, as the mother of the Redeemer, needed for her flesh to be free from the power of sin, and God gave her that privilege. From her time in the womb, Mary was sanctified because of her special role in bringing the Son of God incarnate into

Which was borrowed without attribution from here: What is the Immaculate Conception?

 

[Albion]

Fair enough. I was only going by what was in front of me in that post.

EDIT: I wouldn't have put the point the same way, but Majors summary there looks about right. Certainly nothing requiring anyone to start talking about lies, etc.

 

[Albion]

Which was borrowed without attribution from here: What is the Immaculate Conception?

Okay, but what is wrong with it, in your view?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Fair enough. I was only going by what was in front of me in that post.

EDIT: I wouldn't have put the point the same way, but Majors summary there looks about right. Certainly nothing requiring anyone to start talking about lies, etc.

When one googles 'immaculate conception necessary' one finds several links by Catholic apologists that say 'no, not necessary, fitting but not necessary' and then there is one Protestant site which, the one Major1 borrowed from, which proclaims the opposite. So maybe I was overboard in calling an untruth a 'lie'?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Okay, but what is wrong with it, in your view?

It was a major quote without attribution. Most of us would not fail to attribute a substantial quote from another source if we quoted it. That is what #3 was about. The substance of it was in #2, where there was a claim that Catholics believe the Immaculate Conception was necessary for Jesus to have come out right. But Catholics aren't claiming what Major1 claims we claim.

Why Is the Immaculate Conception Important? – Jimmy Akin

Was Mary's Immaculate Conception Absolutely Necessary?

Was the Immaculate Conception Necessary?

Was the Immaculate Conception Necessary?

 

[Albion]

I think so. This particular issue is tricky and a lie is a deliberate misrepresentation.,

But also, that website is not known for being heavily slanted like some are.

Anyway, calling it necessary is in line with what Catholics have been taught for generations. Jesus could I suppose have been born of a person stained with sin, but the explanation has been that this would be unthinkable, so Mary was kept from any stain of sin from the time of her conception forward. Does that warrant the claim of it being necessary?

 

[concretecamper]

The Immaculate Conception was not necessary for Salvation. As was stated above, it was fitting.

BELIEF in the IC is required not for the above, but becasue it is a Divinely revealed truth, all Christians are bound to believe it.

And, the Church does an excellent job in showing where in scripture the IC is foreshadowed.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I think so. This particular issue is tricky and a lie is a deliberate misrepresentation.,

That I was overboard in calling a mistruth a lie? OK. But it is a mistruth. I will concede that Major1 may have thought it to be true, and thus not lying even if conveying a mistruth.

But also, that website is not known for being heavily slanted like some are.

Whatever. They are wrong in this instance and one wonders where else they might be wrong.

Anyway, is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception necessary or not? I think that it is a dogma of the church, infallible, and binding upon all members.

This has NOTHING to do with what Major1 was getting at. His was a misunderstanding of what the Immaculate Conception is about. That aside, it is a dogma of the Church, infallibly proclaimed, and binding upon all members.

I'm going sailing now.

 

[Albion]

The Immaculate Conception was not necessary for Salvation. As was stated above, it was fitting.

Was it said somewhere that the IC was necessary FOR SALVATION?

 

[chevyontheriver]

The Immaculate Conception was not necessary for Salvation. As was stated above, it was fitting.

You are mixing two things here. The Immaculate Conception was not necessary for Jesus to have come out right, but it was indeed fitting. That is Catholic teaching.

BELIEF in the IC is required not for the above, but becasue it is a Divinely revealed truth, all Christians are bound to believe it.

And, the Church does an excellent job in showing where in scripture the IC is foreshadowed.

OK. It is true so should be believed. In that sense necessary. In the sense of being necessary for Jesus to be sinless, no. But that is one of the commonest Protestant misunderstandings of the Immaculate Conception and I discovered this morning that it was perpetuated by gotanswers.

I'm going sailing now.

 

[concretecamper]

You are mixing two things here. The Immaculate Conception was not necessary for Jesus to have come out right, but it was indeed fitting. That is Catholic teaching.

You did not get my point

. In the sense of being necessary for Jesus to be sinless, no

I never addressed Jesus being sinless