What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

[Standing Up]

At first, when I read the title, and saw it was about Mary, I thought it was Catholic or Catholic inspired. The magazine article was rather vague - then when I saw the Amazon description, I realized that it is a bit off of the deep end.

Things are advancing. What do people expect?

Lady of all Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MrMoe]

Why though? Why not just ask the question without bringing up any controversy?

Since the question was about god given power and authority and what it would take to lose that power and authority
I chose something that I know God would despise as an example to see what Catholics would say and see if they had scripture to back up their claim if they said the priest would not lose his God power to forgive or retain sins.

Those who are the church are those who are loyal to Christ, and other christians, even the ones who have sinned. Loyalty can be hard to define, but we know what it is not by a few examples in the Gospels, including Judas' betrayal and the execution of Christ by the authorities who thought to use the law to justify it.

I think the majority of people would agree that hiding a known paedophile and keeping him in a position of power and trust would not be loyalty to Christ. I hope you agree too.

You do know that scripture says vengeance is coming upon those who don't obey the Gospel, right? All scripture may be profitable for instruction, but not all scripture can be called the Gospel.

Jesus told us to judge righteously. that's part of the gospel

According to you. If I were to judge by appearance, I would have to say you seem to be on a righteous crusade to hold the RCC accountable to the word of God, as you said, because of crimes committed, but that wasn't my conclusion.

what was your conclusion then? and do you have any prove to back it up besides what your own perception. I wouldn't say crusade but yes the RCC should be accountable to the word of God like every other Christian on this earth.

Can we at least agree that judging others can lead a person into judgment, that condemning others can lead a person into condemnation,

judging is not the same as condemning. If a person is judging righteously then that person should not be judged since he is following the word of God. If that person is not judging according to the word of God they should be judged with righteous judgment.

and that righteous judgment isn't a simple matter where just anyone can pick up the bible and start using it to accuse other believers?

I agree an atheist or any non Christian can't just pick up a bible and start using the bible, but as Christians when we use the bible we aren't accusing we are judging. If you had a child and you heard them tell a lie and you told them that lying is a sin (We know this cause the bible says it is) Would that be accusing or judging?

If all you can pin me on is that I've made an assumption, then, OK, but I'd add that the assumption that I've made an assumption is itself an assumption.

Your creating a strawman argument here. It clear you were making an assumption on me. You made a claim without prove, that is an assumption.

Making observations of the facts is not the same as making a false accusation or false assumptions

In both our little debate here and in that other argument, strife was stirred up. Who dunnit?

I dunno... The debating was going smoothly till you showed up and one of the mods deleted both our posts..

Scripture tells us that hatred stirs up strife, and that if we love Christ we'll obey His commandments to love one another as He has loved us (there's that obeying the Gospel thing again).

I agree. Judging is also showing love. like the example I used above, if you judge according to the bible and you tell your child they are doing wrong, is that love? Or is not telling them and letting them continue sinning because you don't want to hurt their feelings, showing love?

That excludes slander even where sins have previously been committed, since love covers all sins.

I previously gave you the definition of slander (it is a false damaging statement without evidence) if a sin is proven to be committed, the revealing of that sin is not slander.

Further, I'd add that obeying His instruction to abstain from judgment so that you will not be judged is very beneficial in avoiding this situation.

Sigh. Those scriptures I keep giving you on judgement just seem to go over your head.

where does he say to abstain from judgment? If you are talking about the "judge not" verse you keep quoting, I've already given you the context for that verse, which is about hypocritical judgment. The chapter shows he expects us to judge

there are literally thousands if not millions of questions like mine on these threads. If we all did that there would be no debate.

Of course, if you don't wish to obey the Gospel, that's your choice.

there's that accusing spirit again.

You can join the others who prefer to use the word of God to work against grace and mercy if you want to.

we should all show mercy and grace to those who are repentant. Also to those who aren't repentant (Remember, judging isn't the same as condemning)

I, like the Catholics don't believe in 'Once saved always saved' God knows our hearts and motivations. A person can ask for forgiveness but can go on committing the same sin and have no conviction in their heart. No fear of God.

Watch the documentary Deliver Us From Evil on YouTube to see what I mean

If a paedophile priest is truly repentant of his actions they should be shown mercy but should be stripped of his priesthood

Matt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

that's the loving Lord Jesus Christ's judgment of pedophiles. What I'm suggesting is far less painful

Just because the RCC may not feel the need to answer to people outside the church

So if a fellow catholic confessed to a priest that they had murdered a whole family, the priest can choose to keep it to themselves?

does not mean it's a deliberate cover-up (as if they're not judging controversies inside the church- matters I'm not privy to).

Matt 10:26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

Considering that christians have been instructed to obey the Gospel,

Agreed

to cover sins

Where does it say that?

not to slander,

I agree.

etc, I'd say that charges of a cover-up (something that implies criminal intent to commit crime and get away with it) falls dangerously close to an accusation of the Spirit of Grace Himself.

there is evidence of cover up (watch the documentary I mentioned) Prove me wrong if you can

You're free to stop arguing at any time.

I was about to tell you the same thing.

Sure, ok, according to you.

The definition of slander is according to the writers of the dictionary

The claims of molestation by priests are according to the victims

Could you could show me evidence of slander besides your own perception please?

Does not follow.

then there's no point explaining it again

It wouldn't make much sense to me, but plug in a controversial subject where slander, manipulation and other motives become possible, and then it would make more sense.

why should I not use this as an example just because of all the baggage it carries with it? Like I said it wasn't the talking point of the question? I didn't know people were so precious about this

Sure, ok, according to you.

...Are you trolling me?.... Or are you just playing devils avocado?
This is a well observed human reaction, not opinion.

Quote me or it never happened. I don't post propaganda.

quote you on what? I don't think you read the whole post properly

 

[Rev Randy]

I think the majority of people would agree that hiding a known paedophile and keeping him in a position of power and trust would not be loyalty to Christ. I hope you agree too.

Hold the phone here: Did the RCC keep a convicted molester in his position? Or are you using the word "known" too liberally?

Please don't read this as me excusing the practice of moving an accused priest to another jurisdiction. Just wondering if I missed something in the news.

 

[Albion]

Hold the phone here: Did the RCC keep a convicted molester in his position? Or are you using the word "known" too liberally?

Hmmm. The key word there seems to be "convicted." But what do we say in the cases where "known" (to the bishops) molesters were moved to another parish and allowed to continue as if nothing were wrong with them....or an "accused" molester, or protector of molesters, were spirited away to some political jurisdiction from which he could not be extradited?

The apologists here are working hard to keep the cover-up going, but I dunno if that works or is even moral......

 

[Rev Randy]

Hmmm. The key word there seems to be "convicted." But what do we say in the cases where "known" (to the bishops) molesters were moved to another parish and allowed to continue as if nothing were wrong with them....or an "accused" molester, or protector of molesters, were spirited away to some political jurisdiction from which he could not be extradited?

The apologists here are working hard to keep the cover-up going, but I dunno if that works or is even moral......

I'm not excusing a cover-up. I'm simply pointing out that while it was know some were accused, it may not have been known they were guilty.

I had a dear friend who was accused and I did not believe it. In the end, the accuser admitted it had not happened. Now I'm very sure that isn't always the case as pedophiles are good at covering what they do. But I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that in many cases it simply wasn't believed as true by their superiors. No, that isn't an excuse. Just a thought on the matter.

I can't, for the life of me imagine anyone finding pleasure in such. That means it's not always easy for me to grasp the reality of such a situation. I think what happened is a lesson for us all.

 

[Albion]

I'm not excusing a cover-up.

I wasn't referring to you, if that's what you thought.

I'm simply pointing out that while it was know some were accused, it may not have been known they were guilty.

Yes, that might be true of Lee Harvey Oswald, but you can't talk that way about (for example) the Third Reich, if you see what I mean. If we focus on one particular priest, maybe...but if we look at the whole situation, that argument can't stand.

 

[Rev Randy]

I wasn't referring to you, if that's what you thought.


Yes, that might be true of Lee Harvey Oswald, but you can't talk that way about (for example) the Third Reich, if you see what I mean. If we focus on one particular priest, maybe...but if we look at the whole situation, that argument can't stand.

Taking in the whole, I would agree. But when this began, they did not have the luxury of the totality of it. By the end, they were in complete damage control mode and that's where I see the greatest err. (Actually second greatest as the acts themselves where the greatest err)

 

[Standing Up]

Taking in the whole, I would agree. But when this began, they did not have the luxury of the totality of it. By the end, they were in complete damage control mode and that's where I see the greatest err. (Actually second greatest as the acts themselves where the greatest err)

And I thought I was naïve.

 

[Nanopants]

Since the question was about god given power and authority and what it would take to lose that power and authority
I chose something that I know God would despise as an example to see what Catholics would say and see if they had scripture to back up their claim if they said the priest would not lose his God power to forgive or retain sins.


I think the majority of people would agree that hiding a known paedophile and keeping him in a position of power and trust would not be loyalty to Christ. I hope you agree too.

So if I disagree what then?

Jesus told us to judge righteously. that's part of the gospel

what was your conclusion then? and do you have any prove to back it up besides what your own perception. I wouldn't say crusade but yes the RCC should be accountable to the word of God like every other Christian on this earth.

judging is not the same as condemning. If a person is judging righteously then that person should not be judged since he is following the word of God. If that person is not judging according to the word of God they should be judged with righteous judgment.

Ok, so assuming I'm wrong and you're right, what differentiates righteous judgment and the judgment administered by those who crucified Christ?

I agree an atheist or any non Christian can't just pick up a bible and start using the bible, but as Christians when we use the bible we aren't accusing we are judging. If you had a child and you heard them tell a lie and you told them that lying is a sin (We know this cause the bible says it is) Would that be accusing or judging?

It depends on motive.

Your creating a strawman argument here. It clear you were making an assumption on me. You made a claim without prove, that is an assumption.

Which claim are you referring to?

I agree. Judging is also showing love. like the example I used above, if you judge according to the bible and you tell your child they are doing wrong, is that love? Or is not telling them and letting them continue sinning because you don't want to hurt their feelings, showing love?

We still have yet to make a useful comparison between judgment as administered through Christ and those who killed Him.

I previously gave you the definition of slander (it is a false damaging statement without evidence) if a sin is proven to be committed, the revealing of that sin is not slander.

Though satan is known as the father of lies, do you think he would not delight to get his hands on a truthful accusation?

Sigh. Those scriptures I keep giving you on judgement just seem to go over your head.

where does he say to abstain from judgment? If you are talking about the "judge not" verse you keep quoting, I've already given you the context for that verse, which is about hypocritical judgment. The chapter shows he expects us to judge

I disagree. "Judge not" screams out as a warning, but He was not a hypocrite, and He did not forbid judging, probably because He came for the purpose of judgment, that all who judged Him would be judged. The concept of justice comes to mind here.

there are literally thousands if not millions of questions like mine on these threads. If we all did that there would be no debate.

there's that accusing spirit again.

*ignored*

we should all show mercy and grace to those who are repentant. Also to those who aren't repentant (Remember, judging isn't the same as condemning)

I, like the Catholics don't believe in 'Once saved always saved' God knows our hearts and motivations. A person can ask for forgiveness but can go on committing the same sin and have no conviction in their heart. No fear of God.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario: two individuals have a disagreement over an interpretation of sin. The first practices what he preaches, and the second charges him of "living in sin," "judges" him, finds him to be "guilty" and then "unrepentant," hands him over to the "authorities" where he refuses "correction" and is eventually executed for his "crime."

Who is unrepentant?

Watch the documentary Deliver Us From Evil on YouTube to see what I mean

No thanks.

If a paedophile priest is truly repentant of his actions they should be shown mercy but should be stripped of his priesthood

Who are you to make that decision?

Matt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

that's the loving Lord Jesus Christ's judgment of pedophiles. What I'm suggesting is far less painful

How do you know that is His judgment?

When I was a child, I was abused physically, mentally, emotionally and even "molested" sexually, by different individuals and on separate occasions. My case doesn't apply to all, but I can assure you that the emotional and physical abuse was far more damaging to me than the sexual aspect of it. Actually, much of the physical and emotional abuse was an indirect consequence of being a child with sexual desires in a culture which I believe to have an unhealthy and twisted view of sex, seeking to instill guilt, fear and shame in ways that it ought not.

But the verse you referenced is true to my experience: the woman who abused me physically and emotionally was jailed and institutionalized on multiple occasions which, at least according to my interpretation of the events, was supernaturally administered justice, but the woman who molested me sexually was not. To this day I have no animosity toward her, especially considering that she also was sexually molested by someone else beforehand.

So, from my perspective, the controversy here seems to be a complicated mess: the molestation itself being a kind of sickness in need of treatment, but the "villainy" of it being mostly a fiction perpetuated by a culture that seeks human sacrifice. Now, if a mob armed with pitchforks came to my door looking for the pedophile that molested me, would I protect her? You bet. Does that mean I approve of pedophilia? Absolutely not. I only dare to disagree with the accepted norms of the West, and would go about seeking a solution in a different way.

So if a fellow catholic confessed to a priest that they had murdered a whole family, the priest can choose to keep it to themselves?

Priests answer to God, not you.

Matt 10:26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

I don't believe that's about uncovering your neighbor's sins.

Agreed

Where does it say that?

Is [the fast that I have chosen] not to share your bread with the hungry,
And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out;
When you see the naked, that you cover him,
And not hide yourself from your own flesh?
Then your light shall break forth like the morning,
Your healing shall spring forth speedily,
And your righteousness shall go before you;
The glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard. -Isa 58:7,8

In you are men who slander to cause bloodshed; in you are those who eat on the mountains; in your midst they commit lewdness. In you men uncover their fathers’ nakedness; in you they violate women who are set apart during their impurity. -Eze 22:9,10

Hatred stirs up strife,
But love covers all sins.
...
Whoever hides hatred has lying lips,
And whoever spreads slander is a fool. -Prov 10:12,18

I agree.

there is evidence of cover up (watch the documentary I mentioned) Prove me wrong if you can

I already know enough to make an informed decision, but thank you.

The definition of slander is according to the writers of the dictionary

The claims of molestation by priests are according to the victims

Could you could show me evidence of slander besides your own perception please?

The fact that there was no need to bring up the controversy in asking your question is evidence enough to expose an ulterior motive.

then there's no point explaining it again

"Does not follow" is English for "non sequitur," a kind of logical fallacy.

why should I not use this as an example just because of all the baggage it carries with it? Like I said it wasn't the talking point of the question? I didn't know people were so precious about this

It is precisely because of the baggage carried by the example that you wouldn't use it, if you were only after the truth you were asking for.

 

[SwordFall]

What errors and inventions arose in Roman Catholicism?

None.

I'll put it in perspective for you: Rome has witnessed it all, from 33AD to now. My church is as orthodox as orthodox can be
Protestants just labor under falsehoods. Legal fictions.

 

[Albion]

None.

I'll put it in perspective for you: Rome has witnessed it all, from 33AD to now. My church is as orthodox as orthodox can be
Protestants just labor under falsehoods. Legal fictions.

Keep repeating that if you need to convince yourself.

But really, you can't take seriously that your church has never changed any belief. And if it has changed any, it must mean that either the old way or the new one is...wrong.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Keep repeating that if you need to convince yourself.

But really, you can't take seriously that your church has never changed any belief. And if it has changed any, it must mean that either the old way or the new one is...wrong.

That is the very nub of the problem. If there is any change at all, as you say, either the old position or the new position must be wrong. They both cannot be right. The doctrine of Purgatory is a classic example.

 

[Creech]

There are cases where Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church directly contradict each other, such as the statements concerning salvation outside the Catholic Church. I think it is extremely safe to say that the infallibility of the RCC is entirely false.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

There are cases where Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church directly contradict each other, such as the statements concerning salvation outside the Catholic Church.
I think it is extremely safe to say that the infallibility of the RCC is entirely false.

But in their minds, I would tend to think that they would disagree with that premise.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7642161-20/

Church or papal infallibility is a demonstrably historically false belief.

View Poll Results: Church or papal infallibility is a demonstrably historically false.

True. Infallibility is historically demonstrably false.

19 54.29%

False. Infallibility is historically demonstrably true.

10 28.57%

Other.

6 17.14%

.

 

[pathfinder777]

Keep repeating that if you need to convince yourself.

But really, you can't take seriously that your church has never changed any belief. And if it has changed any, it must mean that either the old way or the new one is...wrong.

Sorry if you have touched on this earlier, admittedly I haven't read earlier posts. Dogma or ecclesial propositions that express aspects of divine revelation in formulas are historically and culturally conditioned. They are true statements but they do not state the whole truth and they may be mixed w/ elements that are not part of revealed truth. Dogma is not identical w/ the original word of revelation but makes possible a common profession of faith that is critical to the unity of the church and to the worship and praise of God. The truth of a dogmatic statement is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit but it isn't written under the inspiration of the HS as Scripture is. Even though dogma is a provisional expression of the word of God it still leads beyond itself into the ultimate mystery. The act of faith does not terminate in the dogmatic proposition but rather in the reality which it signifies.

Regarding change Vatican II retracted nothing in the dogmas of Trent or Vatican I. Vatican II located certain dogmas within the whole of tradition of faith especially the trinitarian and christological confessions of the ancient church. The continuity of Catholic teaching as understood by Vatican II is seen by the council as a unity between tradition and a living interpretation in light of current situations which is no different than previous councils that gave tradition an articulated formation or formula against some specific error.

 

[pathfinder777]

There are cases where Ecumenical Councils of the Roman Catholic Church directly contradict each other, such as the statements concerning salvation outside the Catholic Church. I think it is extremely safe to say that the infallibility of the RCC is entirely false.

"The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another" Pope John XXIII VCII

The CC has acknowledged in Mysterium Ecclesiae that over the centuries there has been changes in the way the teaching has been presented. It recognized the "historical conditioning" which affects the way in which her faith has been expressed. The CC for the first time to my knowledge acknowledged that at an earlier period a dogmatic truth might be expressed incompletely or imperfectly and only later when considered in a broader context of faith or human knowledge recieve a fuller and more perfect expression.



Distinguishing the substance of the doctrine from the way it is expressed, many Catholic theologians after vatican II would see the substance as being that God has assigned to the church a necessary role in the divine economy of salvation. Christ is the one mediator and his body the church has a subordinate but necessary role of mediation in the salvation of mankind.

Im not sure if this would invalidate the doctrine of infallibility as I understand it. How do you understand the doctrine of infallibility?

 

[bbbbbbb]

"The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another" Pope John XXIII VCII

The CC has acknowledged in Mysterium Ecclesiae that over the centuries there has been changes in the way the teaching has been presented. It recognized the "historical conditioning" which affects the way in which her faith has been expressed. The CC for the first time to my knowledge acknowledged that at an earlier period a dogmatic truth might be expressed incompletely or imperfectly and only later when considered in a broader context of faith or human knowledge recieve a fuller and more perfect expression.



Distinguishing the substance of the doctrine from the way it is expressed, many Catholic theologians after vatican II would see the substance as being that God has assigned to the church a necessary role in the divine economy of salvation. Christ is the one mediator and his body the church has a subordinate but necessary role of mediation in the salvation of mankind.

Im not sure if this would invalidate the doctrine of infallibility as I understand it. How do you understand the doctrine of infallibility?

Putting some substance to this hypothesis, which is true?

1. Purgatory is a literal place where the souls of Catholics go and receive punishment for their temporal sins for a specified period of time, after which they go to heaven.
2. Purgatory is a non-literal experience in which the soul of a Catholic receives a refreshing cleansing, not unlike a shower prior to entering heaven.
3. There is no such thing as Purgatory.

Thank you.

 

[MrMoe]

So if I disagree what then?

Like I've said before, our opinions don't matter, what matters is the truth. Opinions can be right or wrong, God's word on the other hand is truth and cannot be questioned.

If you disagree you need to say why you disagree and show that scripture backs you up. otherwise its just opinion

God tells us to submit ourselves to the laws of the land. If someone commits paedophilia they have committed a crime in the eyes of the law

here is a link that describes what I'm trying to say in more detail.
Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?

Ok, so assuming I'm wrong and you're right, what differentiates righteous judgment and the judgment administered by those who crucified Christ?

it wasn't righteous judgment. They bought false witness against him. They slandered him by saying he was a Samaritan and had a devil, which neither was true. they didn't crucify him for any crime but for what he believed

It depends on motive.

Yes. But it's wrong to second guess a persons motives

Which claim are you referring to?

The one I was answering to:

I'd add that the assumption that I've made an assumption is itself an assumption.

We still have yet to make a useful comparison between judgment as administered through Christ and those who killed Him.

You avoided my question.

John 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

those who killed him judged him after the flesh, they did not judge righteous judgment. When Jesus gave them truth about what they where doing was wrong they did not use scripture to reason with him, they got angry at him and tried to stone him for speaking out. They brought false witness at his "trail" something the law condemns even though they claimed to follow it.

I don't know how much more clearer I can make it

Though satan is known as the father of lies, do you think he would not delight to get his hands on a truthful accusation?

Could you give me an example where he would delight in a truthful accusation?

Satan just wants to cause anarchy among Christians, that's his motivation. People who judge paedophiles just want justice

I disagree. "Judge not" screams out as a warning,

Yes it's warning us not judging the way he mentions in the following verses after that phrase

but He was not a hypocrite, and He did not forbid judging, probably because He came for the purpose of judgment, that all who judged Him would be judged. The concept of justice comes to mind here.

actually he didn't come to judge but to save. His second coming is where he will come to judge


John 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

who's judging Jesus? If you are using his word to expose truth and reveal error you are for him not against him.

1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

*ignored*

Why, cause I told you the truth? That's very dismissive

Consider the following hypothetical scenario: two individuals have a disagreement over an interpretation of sin. The first practices what he preaches, and the second charges him of "living in sin," "judges" him, finds him to be "guilty" and then "unrepentant," hands him over to the "authorities" where he refuses "correction" and is eventually executed for his "crime."

If the second is charges the first of "living in sin" then they must have scripture to back it up. If the first peson thinks he is right then he needs scripture to back it up
Sin is a transgression against Gods law.
you can't punish someone for having a certain belief. like you said, the punishment must fit the crime.

Again you are painting the persons judging as the villain.

No thanks.

Why not? Is it because your afraid you won't like what you hear?

You need to give me a good reason why you don't want to watch it.

I'm asking you to watch this cause it's relevant to our debate and it will make my position more clear.

here is part 1

deliver us from evil-1. - YouTube

the great thing is that its separated into five minute segments so you don't have to watch the whole thing at once.

Who are you to make that decision?

we are the body of Christ. we are the church, so we have a right to make righteous judgments.
if a priests molests a child they have lost the position of trust. they are sick.
I know I wouldn't trust a known pedo priest being around peoples children.

one of the commandments of god in the old testament for priests was for them to be holy

Leviticus 21:6 They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy.


If you don't think I have the right then who do you think has the right to make that decision?

How do you know that is His judgment?

he wouldn't have said it if he didn't agree with it.

he said something similar about his betrayer

Matt 26:24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born

so what he's saying is that the judgment he is giving is much less harsher than the punishment they deserve.

When I was a child, I was abused physically, mentally, emotionally and even "molested" sexually, by different individuals and on separate occasions. My case doesn't apply to all, but I can assure you that the emotional and physical abuse was far more damaging to me than the sexual aspect of it. Actually, much of the physical and emotional abuse was an indirect consequence of being a child with sexual desires in a culture which I believe to have an unhealthy and twisted view of sex, seeking to instill guilt, fear and shame in ways that it ought not.

Sorry you had to go through that

But the verse you referenced is true to my experience: the woman who abused me physically and emotionally was jailed and institutionalized on multiple occasions which, at least according to my interpretation of the events, was supernaturally administered justice, but the woman who molested me sexually was not. To this day I have no animosity toward her, especially considering that she also was sexually molested by someone else beforehand.

yes, people like this need our help not our condemnation

So, from my perspective, the controversy here seems to be a complicated mess: the molestation itself being a kind of sickness in need of treatment, but the "villainy" of it being mostly a fiction perpetuated by a culture that seeks human sacrifice. Now, if a mob armed with pitchforks came to my door looking for the pedophile that molested me, would I protect her? You bet. Does that mean I approve of pedophilia? Absolutely not. I only dare to disagree with the accepted norms of the West, and would go about seeking a solution in a different way.

You seem to be on one side of two extremes. I've meet the other side too. The ones who judge you on everything, from what clothes you wear to what music you listen to and what you watch on tv. They live a very legalistic lifestyle and make those who they criticise for not living like them feel guilt and shame. I don't think that's right.
You are on the other side, who say we shouldn't judge at all and condemn anyone who does as coming against Christ and questioning their Christianity by putting the word Christian in quotation marks. I don't think that's right either
Both sides have a completely warped view of the perceived enemy

In every example you use you paint the people who are judging as blood thirsty villains who are just out for blood. You have created your own boogie man
these people only seek justice

Priests answer to God, not you.

That's what I keep telling you. Like I stated above, God commands us to obey the laws of the land

Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?

if a crime is committed it must be taking to the authorities since harbouring a criminal and prevention of justice is also against the law.

I don't believe that's about uncovering your neighbor's sins.

Why do you think this?

Is [the fast that I have chosen] not to share your bread with the hungry,
And that you bring to your house the poor who are cast out;
When you see the naked, that you cover him,
And not hide yourself from your own flesh?
Then your light shall break forth like the morning,
Your healing shall spring forth speedily,
And your righteousness shall go before you;
The glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard. -Isa 58:7,8

In you are men who slander to cause bloodshed; in you are those who eat on the mountains; in your midst they commit lewdness. In you men uncover their fathers’ nakedness; in you they violate women who are set apart during their impurity. -Eze 22:9,10

Hatred stirs up strife,
But love covers all sins.
...
Whoever hides hatred has lying lips,
And whoever spreads slander is a fool. -Prov 10:12,18

these verses are referring to literal nakedness.
Nowhere in those verses is the word sin mentioned

In you men uncover their fathers’ nakedness;

it's in reference to Leviticus 18:8 where it was talking about sexual sins

Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.


who's slandering? Are you implying me? if so show me where I have slandered.

I already know enough to make an informed decision, but thank you.

I've said that to myself to, but then when I learn new information It turned out I was wrong.
like that saying goes "the more I know the more I realize I don't know."
God also warns not to reject knowledge or be willingly ignorant

Methinks this is an effort to avoid an inconvenient truth (I'm making an unfounded assumption about you here. I'm judging according to appearance as an example to you on how it's wrong to assume things about a persons character and motives)

The fact that there was no need to bring up the controversy in asking your question is evidence enough to expose an ulterior motive.

I wasn't bring in up the controversy I was bringing up the subject. You where the one who brung up the controversy by seeing my question as perceived attack.

God knows my motives, I know my motives, you do not no my motives, you can only guess. For someone who talks so much about not judging or slandering, you have done a good job of making me out to be the bad guy and questioning my well intentioned motives.

It is precisely because of the baggage carried by the example that you wouldn't use it, if you were only after the truth you were asking for.

So anyone who ever uses a subject that has controversy behind it must have ulterior motives?
So a lawyer can't use the O.J Simpson trail in an example cause of the controversy behind it?
So no one can use the 9/11 attacks in an example cause of all the controversies?
It'll pretty hard since almost everything about the catholic church is filled with some sort of controversy.

Sorry but I really despise political correctness. How it makes the person seeking out answers and truth look like the villain and how its used to shutdown debate

 

[Nanopants]

Like I've said before, our opinions don't matter, what matters is the truth. Opinions can be right or wrong, God's word on the other hand is truth and cannot be questioned.

If you disagree you need to say why you disagree and show that scripture backs you up. otherwise its just opinion

I disagree with the assumption that the Bible is an easy-to-apply rulebook to keep for times of emergency judgment of your neighbor. I don't need to bring up scripture when I already have, in that Christ warned us about judging our neighbors.

God tells us to submit ourselves to the laws of the land. If someone commits paedophilia they have committed a crime in the eyes of the law

here is a link that describes what I'm trying to say in more detail.
Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?

I don't wish to debate that subject.

it wasn't righteous judgment. They bought false witness against him. They slandered him by saying he was a Samaritan and had a devil, which neither was true. they didn't crucify him for any crime but for what he believed

Yes. But it's wrong to second guess a persons motives

Since evil proceeds from the heart, and if one is judging the way he ought, wouldn't he be judging the motives of the heart, like Christ, who knew what was inside of others? In other words, we ought to be concerned with the motives of others. It's not that we always know, so we test the spirits.

The one I was answering to:

This doesn't help me any.

You avoided my question.

The conversation is way too fractured and complicated at this point.

John 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

those who killed him judged him after the flesh, they did not judge righteous judgment. When Jesus gave them truth about what they where doing was wrong they did not use scripture to reason with him, they got angry at him and tried to stone him for speaking out. They brought false witness at his "trail" something the law condemns even though they claimed to follow it.

I don't know how much more clearer I can make it

Could you give me an example where he would delight in a truthful accusation?

Satan just wants to cause anarchy among Christians, that's his motivation. People who judge paedophiles just want justice

Yes it's warning us not judging the way he mentions in the following verses after that phrase

actually he didn't come to judge but to save. His second coming is where he will come to judge

John 8:15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

who's judging Jesus? If you are using his word to expose truth and reveal error you are for him not against him.

1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Why, cause I told you the truth? That's very dismissive

If the second is charges the first of "living in sin" then they must have scripture to back it up. If the first peson thinks he is right then he needs scripture to back it up
Sin is a transgression against Gods law.
you can't punish someone for having a certain belief. like you said, the punishment must fit the crime.

Again you are painting the persons judging as the villain.

Why not? Is it because your afraid you won't like what you hear?

You need to give me a good reason why you don't want to watch it.

I'm asking you to watch this cause it's relevant to our debate and it will make my position more clear.

here is part 1

deliver us from evil-1. - YouTube

the great thing is that its separated into five minute segments so you don't have to watch the whole thing at once.

we are the body of Christ. we are the church, so we have a right to make righteous judgments.
if a priests molests a child they have lost the position of trust. they are sick.
I know I wouldn't trust a known pedo priest being around peoples children.

one of the commandments of god in the old testament for priests was for them to be holy

Leviticus 21:6 They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the Lord made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy.

If you don't think I have the right then who do you think has the right to make that decision?

Someone who is hopefully qualified to judge, and is appointed to a position of authority, like a police officer or a real judge, not just anyone, like an angry mob.

he wouldn't have said it if he didn't agree with it.

he said something similar about his betrayer

Matt 26:24 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born

so what he's saying is that the judgment he is giving is much less harsher than the punishment they deserve.

Sorry you had to go through that

yes, people like this need our help not our condemnation

You seem to be on one side of two extremes. I've meet the other side too. The ones who judge you on everything, from what clothes you wear to what music you listen to and what you watch on tv. They live a very legalistic lifestyle and make those who they criticise for not living like them feel guilt and shame. I don't think that's right.
You are on the other side, who say we shouldn't judge at all and condemn anyone who does as coming against Christ and questioning their Christianity by putting the word Christian in quotation marks. I don't think that's right either
Both sides have a completely warped view of the perceived enemy

In every example you use you paint the people who are judging as blood thirsty villains who are just out for blood. You have created your own boogie man
these people only seek justice

That's what I keep telling you. Like I stated above, God commands us to obey the laws of the land

Do Christians have to obey the laws of the land?

if a crime is committed it must be taking to the authorities since harbouring a criminal and prevention of justice is also against the law.

I believe putting people in danger of imprisonment for selfish motives is wrong.

Why do you think this?

these verses are referring to literal nakedness.
Nowhere in those verses is the word sin mentioned

In you men uncover their fathers’ nakedness;

it's in reference to Leviticus 18:8 where it was talking about sexual sins

Leviticus 18:8 The nakedness of thy father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.

who's slandering? Are you implying me? if so show me where I have slandered.

I've said that to myself to, but then when I learn new information It turned out I was wrong.
like that saying goes "the more I know the more I realize I don't know."
God also warns not to reject knowledge or be willingly ignorant

Methinks this is an effort to avoid an inconvenient truth (I'm making an unfounded assumption about you here. I'm judging according to appearance as an example to you on how it's wrong to assume things about a persons character and motives)

I wasn't bring in up the controversy I was bringing up the subject. You where the one who brung up the controversy by seeing my question as perceived attack.

God knows my motives, I know my motives, you do not no my motives, you can only guess. For someone who talks so much about not judging or slandering, you have done a good job of making me out to be the bad guy and questioning my well intentioned motives.

So anyone who ever uses a subject that has controversy behind it must have ulterior motives?
So a lawyer can't use the O.J Simpson trail in an example cause of the controversy behind it?
So no one can use the 9/11 attacks in an example cause of all the controversies?
It'll pretty hard since almost everything about the catholic church is filled with some sort of controversy.

Let me cut to the chase. Generally speaking, we have systems of rule and law to take care of the world, inside and outside of churches, and authorities are appointed for the purpose of administering judgment. I have no qualms with that unless a law is unjust. But if one tries to take the law into his own hands when he has not been appointed for that task, and when he could otherwise make use of the proper channels, then he usurps authority, as is the case with mob justice.

Now, what was it that you said on that subject?

Like I stated above, God commands us to obey the laws of the land

Satan just wants to cause anarchy among Christians, that's his motivation.

All I am doing for the most part is discussing the truth of your words (or lack thereof) and the truth in scripture, and I hope for your case that your judgment is incorrect, but now do you understand that the measure you use will be measured back to you?

In any case, the important point is this: it is out of pride that we want to exalt ourselves to make ourselves judges of our neighbors, but God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble (James 4:6), and clearly you will reap what you sow: excessive judgments will create your own punishment where you cannot walk accordingly, and if you do not practice what you preach, that is none other than hypocrisy, which is the antithesis of justice, the reward of faith (Hab 2:4).

...Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. -Luke 12:1

Sorry but I really despise political correctness. How it makes the person seeking out answers and truth look like the villain and how its used to shutdown debate

This isn't about political correctness, this is for your own good. You're not the most terrible person I've ever run into but if you ignore the plainly stated words of Christ, the end won't be good.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hello, I've been wanted to ask these questions for a few days now and I thought this would be the right thread to post them in. they're about Catholicism so I'd prefer a catholic reply, but anyone can reply to these questions if they want.

Gladly

Q1. Catholics say a persons sins can be forgiven by a Catholic priest when they go to confession. They use John 20:23 as their prove. My question is, if a person goes to one of these priests then later it is found out that this priest was one of those paedophile priests and was secretly molesting children all the time he had been forgiving this persons sins and this person dies before finding out the truth, does this person sins remain unforgiving? If the priest chose to retain their sins do their sins remain retained?

Why is the person who's confessing supposed to know the inside of the man they're confessing to? Especially when many confessions are behind a screen and you wouldn't know who the priest might be? It's the heart of the penitent confessing that Jesus, in the person of the priest, hears, and that's what forgives. FWIW, there are at least 10 other passages which demonstrate clergy forgiving sin. Lev. 5:4-6; 19:21-22 - even under the Old Covenant, God used priests to forgive and atone for the sins of others.
The penitent is not responsible for the priest being a sinner, too. In your scenario, if the person dies not knowing that the priest was doing evil, the penitent is not responsible.
The priest really doesn't have the choice to retain a sin, if the person is repentent. But, for example, if the penitent is living in sin with his girlfriend, goes to confession, but will not break the sinful relationship, he retains the sin, and so does the priest.

I don't think the God I know would allow someone who molests children to have this kind of power.
Matt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

For said priest? Very true. He will answer to his confessor, and to God.

Q2.Why do some Catholics post what I call catholic spam, on peoples visitor message walls? They don't say "Hi" "Hello" "How's it going?" or anything, they just post a picture of some catholic image or saint and then leave.
I've seen this on other peoples profiles too. Is this meant to convert me? Am I meant to take one look at these slighty creepy pictures and suddenly get the desire to become a Catholic?

This is not a Catholic question.

Q3. Why doesn't John The Baptist get any love? If Catholics can pray to Mary why not John the Baptist as well?
.He Baptist Jesus
.He was born with the holy spirit
.He died as a martyr
.Matt 11:11 Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist.
Yet all I hear is Mary, Mary, Mary, Mary. People go to pray in front of giant statues of Mary, they have small Mary statues and paintings in their homes. They say prayers to Mary (I've never heard one prayer to John the Baptist) Mary gave birth to Jesus in human form but that's about it. The birth probably wasn't even painful. I think John the Baptist deserves as much praise if not more than Mary.
So where's Johnny?!

We have many churches named for John the Baptist. We celebrate two days, his nativity June 24 and his birthday Aug 29.
FWIW, there are also statues of John the baptist that some people pray in front of, and all the stuff you say about Mary can be applied to John.
What I want to know is: what's you're gripe with Mary? We revere Mary for the same reason everyone, even the toughest boxer or football player says "Hi Mom".

Q4. Why did the pope kiss the Quran?.....I've also seen him kiss the ground. I bet both were crawling with bacteria

The pope also kissed a man whose body was covered in boils, and a man whose facial features were, for the most part, missing. For the pope to bend down and kiss anything is a sign of humility.

Why are you so judgemental of some people's actions???