Topic awaiting preservation: Pope Denounces 'Imbalance' of Wealth ... (Page 2 of 5)

MD

Yes. I have read all of the post up to your last post. Realistically speaking, you do understand totally where I am coming from. I do know the definition of irony. What I have tried to get across is irony doesn't apply in the comparison of the purported wealth of the Pope and his statements of the plight of the poor. Since your on the outside looking in and don't understand the mission of the RC hierarchy to the simple man on the street you remain blind. You don't see because your not a practicing Roman Catholic who adheres to its teaching. Seems that the Catholic that posted doesn't see it either. Because if he understood, as a follower, he would never have posted it.

Let me educate you a little on Catholicism.
There are Catholics who proclaim to be Catholic but are not because they do not fully believe in its teaching. You cannot be a little Catholic or a touch of Catholic. Or just because you are born Catholic you remain one. A true Catholic is in total submission to the mission of the church in its fullness. Yes, sure you can question something if you don't understand and maybe search for answer. There are Catholics who we call " cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose what they want to believe and choose not to believe because it may fit their lifestyle better. One example would be "Kerry" a proclaimed Catholic who does not believe or adhere to its full teachings in matters of birth control and marriage, etc. For Catholics, its a mortal sin to have an abortion or to remarry if you have divorced your wife and she is still living. Many Catholics may not agree with this. Maybe its because they do not understand the full teachings in reqard to scripture and the church. But you cannot be in full communion with the church if you are against its teachings. Is it up to the people within to change the teachings of the church or the heirarchy? For submissive believers its the hierarchy. Christianity is not a democracy to be voted on. So that should be respected from the outside looking in. And when we believe this way we are following scripture. In matters of doctrine of the church there is never any room for debate. So that being said, if you think the Pope lives too rich, its just an opinion. It doesn't hurt the church if you or anybody else feels that way. It won't make any difference or change anything. The Pope may live that way for another 500 years and it will not shake the faith of its believers.

(Edited by jade on 10-04-2004 04:44)

quote:

---

It is about preaching one thing and doing the other. Something the whole Christian faith and every other religion in existance is guilty of

---

What about we athiests?
I don't preach much; moreover, I don't preach against a god's existence and believe in one.

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

Jade - you're right, I don't understand the mission of the Catholic Church. The reason I don't understand it is because I see the message of Christ getting lost in this Hierarchy that you claim is the end-all-be-all of the Church. I don't understand how a Church can tell it's followers to seek redemption, but you can't go straight to the source because you aren't pure enough - you have to go through a priest to seek forgiveness. Is the mission of the Catholic church to be good Christians and show the world what that means; or is the mission to keep control over a congregation by filtering the teachings of the one called Jesus?

I really can't understand where you are coming from, Jade. I can't blindly follow the teachings of men. I wish I could read ancient Greek and Hebrew and have access to all the texts that were scoured before being canonized into the book today called the Bible. I wish this because I don't trust the men who chose the books that became the Bible, regardless of whether or not they were "divinely inspired". However, this gets into a whole separate subject that better belongs in another thread...

Here is my understanding of the Christian faith without all the dogma, without the Heirarchy, without the trappings of Religion: Believe in Jesus as the Savior, truly repent for the wrongs you do others, be kind to those around you and you will gain Salvation. For what it's worth, that is an outsider's view.

From an outsider's view, Jade you are blind to the irony of the posted article because you believe so wholly in the heirarchy of your Chruch. They tell you it is okay and that is good enough for you. I'm sorry, but that sort of blind faith and trust frightens me.

tntcheats - are you asserting that Atheism is a religion?

Umm, Jade I think what Jestah was trying to do with this thread was to point out the IRONY in a SEEMINGLY rich person telling EVERYBODY ELSE to get rid of their riches. That person just happened to be catholic.Also :

quote:

---

If the church sells everything it has in artwork and buidings, and property and gives it to the poor, it won't last long.

---

Doesn't the scripture say that prayer should be a private action done in your closet? Also, the point of The Word is that it is to be passed on to those who do not have it correct? So if a minister of a church, be him/her Catholic, Methodist, Baptist or otherwise, only teaches in his church then he achieves as much as a person that teaches a junior in highschool addition. But if he goes out on the streets and does not preach in his church then he does more good than he could possibly know. Therefore, in my oppinion churches are not needed except as places for christians no matte their denomination to meet, and co-exist, which is what their supposed to do anyhwere not just in church. So by that way of thinking aren't churches more of a hindrance to the passing on of religious knowledge than a helping hand to them?

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

quote:

---

A true Catholic is in total submission to the mission of the church in its fullness

---

Which basically means that your viewpoint on the subject is irrelevant. If you are in total submission, whether or not the view in question is supported by reality, then how can you hope to ever have a meaningful conversation about it?

How can you possibly dare to call someone on the "outside" blind, when you have blinded yourself through your submission to a fallable human institution?

Wouldn't somebody on the 'outside' be able to see more of whats going on (once they understand the whole situation) then somebody on the inside? After all you can't see your own nose without a mirror or somebody else describing it to you.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

quote:

---

Moon Dancer: Here is my understanding of the Christian faith without all the dogma, without the Heirarchy, without the trappings of Religion: Believe in Jesus as the Savior, truly repent for the wrongs you do others, be kind to those around you and you will gain Salvation. For what it's worth, that is an outsider's view.

---

I couldn't agree more, and I am not an outsider. Well said.

Hey Ramasax haven't enjoyed a post from a you in a while. did I ever tell you people that you are all mint? Well you are, Gideon, you already know your mint.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

Hey Moon Dancer, if tntcheats doesn't assert that Atheism is a religion, then I will. Athiesm - the belief that there is no God or gods - is the definition of a religion that is the opposite of Godly religion, or the anti-religion. But, anti-religion is still religion, is it not?

Jade~ I understand your feelings. Really, I have been through stuff like that before, but I want to ask you to take a breath, open your heart and mind, and hear - not listen, but hear - what I have to say. I am a Christian (no doubt about that), but I do listen to arguments. I even used to be on the other side of them. I don't know if you always were Christian, but I was not. I want to say that I understand both sides. I understand secular, and I understand spiritual. I have found that spiritual makes a lot more sense, even in the face of all the quick, cheap perks of the secular side. When I picked up the Bible I started to read about Jesus and what He said. He said:

quote:

---

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

---

He denounced the nit picky teachings of the pharisees, and told them to look at the big picture. Yes, abortion is bad. Yes, divorce is bad. But, don't let them become stumbling blocks in the path of the weak. Do not accuse, simply forgive, and give a helping hand. Jesus, as He was being crucified, did not curse the people around Him, instead He asked for His Father to forgive them:

quote:

---

Luke 23:34
But Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.

---

He wants to forgive people like that, not whip them into His idea of a perfect person. I see this many times that Jesus will help you only if you ask Him to. "If you ask, it will be to given you."

The reason for the rules is to show us how imperfect we really are. Paul says many times in Romans that the Law can only create death not life. That is why Jesus came. He was the life (see John 14:6). I understand all these veiws, and why they should be taken seriously. Abortion is bad: it is killing a life. Divorce is bad: it is forcing the spouses to commit adultry, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. We do need to fight those issues, but it is more important to win peoples' hearts and souls, rather than their agreement in an argument. That can come later when they start having wisdom: "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom".

Another thing is that we can't do anything. Sorry Jade, but we are just mere mortal shells (right now) with no real power inside of us (contrary to all those "positive" speeches made by those public speakers). Our power comes from Jesus Christ, and that is a mighty power indeed. He wants us to give love, not accusations. That is why I am opposed to some of the things some Catholic churches do. It is because the accusations are needed, but only to show why we need Jesus, not as continuing sight of how bad we are. I was watching this one sermon by a guy on TV, and He said that when you look forward (toward God's grace and forgiveness) things get accomplished, but when you look backward (seeing your sin shoved in your face over and over) you just wallow in your own guilt for a long time. I think there is real validity in this thought.

Also, the Church can be changed by it's congregation, because the congregation is the church, not the hierarchy. Without the people, the priests and bishops would have no one to talk to. People make up the Church, but the real power of the Church is: Jesus is the head.

quote:

---

Ephesians 5:23
...as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body

---

Jesus mandates what we say and do, not the pope, not a bishop, not a priest, not a pastor, not a sunday school leader, and not a friend. They can only suggest what He may mean, but the real, true teachings are found in the Bible. The reason there is a need for them is that we can not all know what the whole Bible is saying. We need people to go through, and figure out what some of the teachings are, what some of the passages mean to us. They are good teachers. They need our prayers, but we need them about as much as they need us.

Sangreal~ I may have answered somethings earlier in this post about the absolute necessety of a church. But here are the main reasons:
-It is a place where a body of believers congregate (he he) in His name under one roof (or outside) to worship, praise, and learn about him.
-It is a place of fellowship, where Christians can come together to give each other help, comfort one another, and share in burdens.
-It is a place for unbelievers with questions to go to fulfill their hunger for answers
-It is a place where God's divine Grace is shown in the openmany, many times.
-It is a place to pray with others, and ask for them to pray for you and yours

You see Sangreal, these are only a few reasons that I could come up with off the top of my head why a church is so important. If you can do all of these things alone in your closet, I commend you. But to me, the closet is for you to pour your heart out to Jesus, and to make your greatest praises and hardest confessions. In the closet (or where ever you pray by yourself) is necessary to a healthy relationship with God.

Jesus said that He was talking about how the pharisees went out in the middle of people and used their "piousness" as a way to gain favor in the eyes of men. If that is why you pray in Church, then that is what you will get. But if you pray in secret, then your Father in Heaven will reward you openly (I believe that is the rest of the verse). That means that if you pray to men, you get thier rewards. If you pray to God, no matter who is watching you, and just to pray to Him, then your prayers will be answered and you will be rewarded.

One last thing:

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

Believe in Jesus as the Savior, truly repent for the wrongs you do others, be
kind to those around you and you will gain Salvation.

---

You gain salvation purely by confession and faith in Jesus, you cannot attain it by works. (little pet-peeve of mine)

Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you, rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

jade, i think one of the problems people have, or at least that i have, is that you don't answer questions you ask. you made a comment about what scripture says about wealth and i asked what you felt that was, you then turned the question on me and asked what i thought. i gave examples from scripture and a real life example and you never responded. why should i bother to try to discuss this intelligently if i can't actually discuss it with you? people around here are quite intelligent, and while opinionated will certainly listen to what you have to say if you say it logically and listen to what they say as well,

whatever the case...

quote:

---

For Catholics, its a mortal sin to have an abortion or to remarry if you have divorced your wife and she is still living.

---

if the catholic church annuls a marriage doesnt that make it "ok" to remarry? i'm not positive but that was always my understanding.

quote:

---

Is it up to the people within to change the teachings of the church or the heirarchy? For submissive believers its the hierarchy. Christianity is not a democracy to be voted on. So that should be respected from the outside looking in. And when we believe this way we are following scripture. In matters of doctrine of the church there is never any room for debate.

---

i'll be honest, this sort of thinking scares me. i agree that christianity is not a democracy to be voted on, but a singular church or denomination is not christianity. i greatly respect the pastor of my church but he is human and can make mistakes, i don't know of any major "mistakes" he's made in his personal life but i've certainly seen things happen to other pastors (and we've certainly seen it in priests as well), in some cases destroying entire churches/congregations. on a less destructive note, he or other pastors who i've seen may occasionally say things that i don't necessarily agree with, nothing that's going to make me leave a church but there's certainly difference in interpretation on some issues; if anything it'll make go back and research scripture to see how accurate i feel their interpretation is. people are people no matter what their position, we all make mistakes and interpret things differently. the only thing constant (and i know some will debate this, but for the sake of argument) is the bible and that's what i base my faith on, not a church or a pastor. blindly following anything is, to be blunt, stupid imo. we're designed to think for a reason, we're supposed to be exploring and growing in our faith. simply taking things at pure face value and "right" because they're what a certain person or church says isnt what God intended (and that is scriptural, as someone else quoted we're not to have any mediator between us and Christ).

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Gideon -
I will have to disagree with you regarding Athiesm being a religion. A single belief does not a religion make. Religon is a system of practices surrounding a belief. Athiesm is not the opposite of religion and the abscence of religion does not make "anti-religion".

quote:

---

Gideon: You gain salvation purely by confession and faith in Jesus, you cannot attain it by works. (little pet-peeve of mine)

---

I think I'll have to disagree with you a little there too. I think the two go hand in hand. And if it's all the same, it doesn't really interest me to know whether or not certain interpretations are your pet-peeves or not.

quote:

---

jade: I wish you well in your endeavor to understand Christianity.

---

Thank you. Believe it or not, that means a lot. I'm sorry I didn't say it sooner.

And in other news:

Ron Jeremy denounces premarital sex.

:::11oh1:::

(Edited by krets on 10-10-2004 15:17)

quote:

---

Hey Moon Dancer, if tntcheats doesn't assert that Atheism is a religion, then I will. Athiesm - the belief that there is no God or gods - is the definition of a religion that is the opposite of Godly religion, or the anti-religion. But, anti-religion is still religion, is it not?

---

That's like saying that since I don't like butter on my toast....the 'nothing' that is on my toast is really anti-butter, and is therefore butter all the same.

How can you possibly dare to call someone on the "outside" blind, when you have blinded yourself through your submission to a fallable human institution

Your right DL, Bad choice of words.
Sorry MD. Know you are not blind, but on a quest for understanding the Christian way. Sorry again.

It is I who am blind. Who see only the way, truth and light of Jesus by my choice. I must come down to earth and touch ground.

Found this bible scripture in reference to blindness.

Isaiah 2918
On that day the (1) deaf will hear (2) words of a book, And out of their gloom and darkness the (3) eyes of the blind will see.

John 9
35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

John 9
7 and said to him, "Go, wash in (1) the pool of Siloam" (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and (2) washed, and (3) came back seeing.
(Referring to the washing away of sins and coming to the Lord in sight.


Luke 4:18-19

The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim
freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favour.

Do I take my faith too seriously?

You gain salvation purely by confession and faith in Jesus, you cannot attain it by works. (little pet-peeve of mine)

Gideon, I don't agree with this. Check out this passage in scripture:

Letter of James: 2: 1-17

What good is it my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks food and one of us say to them"Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill" & yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith, by itself , if it has no works, is dead.

quote:

---

You gain salvation purely by confession and faith in Jesus, you cannot attain it by works. (little pet-peeve of mine)

Gideon, I don't agree with this. Check out this passage in scripture:

Letter of James: 2: 1-17

What good is it my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks food and one of us say to them"Go in peace, keep warm and eat your fill" & yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith, by itself , if it has no works, is dead.

---

yay, more misquoted scripture sorry, i just see people use this all the time taken totally out of context. i actually taught on this several months ago so i happen to know it fairly well, lets look at the rest of this passage (from the new american standard as i can look that up online with strong's numbers):

quote:

---

18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

---

ok, we see "wasn't abraham justified by works". ooh, see, he was justified by his works, saved by works. err, let's think about that a second. if i ask you to justify your actions on something, what am i asking for? not for you to do anything regarding that action, you've already done it. i'm looking for an explanation, a reason you did it. justify isnt really quite an accurate term here anyway, the greek term used here is "dikaioo" and means "to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous". we've confused the term justification here, abraham's actions many years before and his faith in God are why he's saved. he is now demonstrating his righteousness by his actions, his salvation has resulted in this. because of what God has done in him he feels a call to righteousness on his life and demonstrates it thru his actions. he's not saved because of what he's doing.

i'll let a fellow by the name of john wesley sum this up as he knew his bible a bit better than i do:

on 2:14

quote:

---

From 1:22, the apostle has been enforcing Christian practice. He now applies to those who neglect this, under the pretence of faith. St. Paul had taught that "a man is justified by faith without the works of the law." This some began already to wrest to their own destruction. Wherefore St. James, purposely repeating (James 2:21,23,25) the same phrases, testimonies, and examples, which St. Paul had used, Romans 4:3, Hebrews 11:17,31, refutes not the doctrine of St. Paul, but theerror of those who abused it. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the apostles: they both delivered the truth of God, but in a different manner, as having to do with different kinds of men. On another occasion St. James himself pleaded the cause of faith, Acts 15:13- 21; and St. Paul himself strenuously pleads for works, particularly in his latter epistles. This verse is a summary of what follows. What profiteth it? is enlarged on,
James 2:15- 17; though a man say,
James 2:18,19 can that faith save him?
James 2:20.
It is not, though he have faith; but, though he say he have faith. Here, therefore, true, living faith is meant: but in other parts of the argument the apostle speaks of a dead, imaginary faith. He does not, therefore, teach that true faith can, but that it cannot, subsist without works: nor does he oppose faith to works; but that empty name of faith, to real faith working by love. Can that faith "which is without works" save him? No more than it can profit his neighbour.

---

and 2:21

quote:

---

Was not Abraham justified by works - St. Paul says he was justified by faith, Romans 4:2, yet St. James does not contradict him; for he does not speak of the same justification. St. Paul speaks of that which Abraham received many years before Isaac was born, Genesis 15:6. St. James, of that which he did not receive till he had offered up Isaac on the altar. He was justified, therefore, in St. Paul's sense, (that is, accounted righteous,) by faith, antecedent to his works. He was justified in St. James's sense, (that is, made righteous,) by works, consequent to his faith. So that St. James's justification by works is the fruit of St Paul's justification by faith.

---

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Fig

I am not convinced or I just don't see it your way.
I am sure Mother Theresa's works helped her a great deal in her faith. She was a living example of faith. Besides, if we are suppose to imitate Christ, who would be considered a great worker of miracles who spread his teaching thru good works in feeding thousands, that should speak for itself. Who is the greater Christian? One who goes out and visits the sick in the hospital, people in prision, gives food to the homeless and visits the lonely elderly in the nursing homes, assist the dying or the one who just stays home and reads scripture? I feel we are judged by our actions.
Per the ministry of Jesus Christ, we are encouraged to to die to self and live for others . Yes, Christ died for our sins and his redempitve work is complete, but the merits of his redemption must still be applied to each person in order for him to be saved. So a person must repent (Mt4:17), believe in Jesus (Acts 16:31), and live a life of charity (1 Corth 13:1,3) as scripture plainly teaches. A Christian who performs good works in Christ isn't denying the completed work of Christ's redemption; he is depending on it. Also in Romans 11:22 Christians are warned that they will be cut off if they don't perserve in the kindness of the Lord. So how would you define kindness here and to who? Doesn't the act of kindness require work and to other persons? And in the famous words of Saint Paul 2:12 "work out your salvation with fear and trembling " I drive my body to train it for fear that after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified." 1 Corth 9:27. Scripture is very clear. Christians can loose their salvation. So, yes God completed his redemptive work but we must continue his work(s). If a kind person who sincerely performs acts of charity and mercy by works but doesn't know scripture through no fault of his own because it has never be available to him, does he have the opportunity to gain heaven like Chrisitans? I think he does. Because when you do these things you are following Gods greatest commandements in showing love to him by serving others. If your sincere in these works then your fulfilling the will of God.

(Edited by jade on 10-12-2004 13:02)

(Edited by jade on 10-12-2004 13:05)

I'm coming in late and I see this has become a faith versus works discussion.

I think faith is more than just belief. If belief was the only criteria then the devils would be saved.

I believe it is faith alone that saves an individual but just as James points out a person cannot have faith without works. A fruit tree that bears no fruit is worthless and I think that applies to us as well.

So practically it comes down to this for me. Faith alone saves and it is that salvation that frees us up to do all good works. Faith and works are inseparable as far as I can tell from scripture.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Well said and to the point Bugs.

Faith involves good works. I don't think you can separate them. In that context faith saves.

Thanks, jade. I don't for a second think that this resolves the centuries long theological debate about faith versus works, but at some point we have to take a practical view of things and get down to living out our beliefs for Christ. As you know, I love a good discussion on these topics

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

jade, i'm not sure what you're arguing. do i believe that in being a christian we're called to do good works? absolutely, never said we were weren't, faith and the following maturation in christ gives us a desire to. however, your statement to gideon was:

quote:

---

You gain salvation purely by confession and faith in Jesus, you cannot attain it by works. (little pet-peeve of mine)

Gideon, I don't agree with this.

---

and you then quoted the passage in james. i agree as bugs said that simply believing something isnt enough, maybe we should add to the idea of having faith in something that you also trust in something. those works should follow, but because you're at a certain point where they have or haven't doesn't affect your salvation.

if someone comes to faith in christ and starts to truly change their life, cleaning up areas they've had problems with, but are suddenly killed before they've begun to reach out to others, do they get to the pearly gates and told "sorry, you didnt quite get all the requirements needed for admission"? i don't think so...

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Fig - just to clarify: Jade was quoting Gideon in the bold text she posted there.

She was saying essentially what you are saying, and used that quote to make the same point you are making

thanks DL, but unless i'm misreading i think i'm arguing what i'm trying to argue

gideon's comment was: "You gain salvation purely by confession and faith in Jesus, you cannot attain it by works. (little pet-peeve of mine)" which i believe to be true, and jade disagreed. i totally agree that faith and works are linked as i discussed, but you cannot attain salvation through your works. based on the last few comments i'm trying to figure out exactly what people's opinions are here, bugs' viewpoint is very similar to mine but that would contradict jade's comment to gideon. if that makes sense

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

quote:

---

if someone comes to faith in christ and starts to truly change their life, cleaning up areas they've had problems with, but are suddenly killed before they've begun to reach out to others, do they get to the pearly gates and told "sorry, you didnt quite get all the requirements needed for admission"? i don't think so...

---

I agree with this. When it comes down to it, only Jesus can offer mercy. And I believe that if you have as many sins as the blades of grass in this world, but intend to do the will of God through a conversion,for example like a death row inmate who is truly sorry, then Jesus will offer u a place in his kingdom.

Heh - now I'm confused Fig. But that's ok - since you know my stance on the 'faith' issue anyway

Here's how i see it: Faith alone saves one person ( the faithful) acts saves thousands. used CORRECTLY it will save a thousand and one.

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

On a subjective level, i really can't get to do definintions properly. But "catholics" and "non-catholics" don't really seem like definitions, do they?
That was to take me apart from the two party formation on this subject.

Now that we have that cleared here is a simple thought on this:

look you daft bastards, none of you is older than 100, so there isn't much on wisdom and experience you can give to the big brothers of this worlds organizations. Specially those who have gotten over the thousands years old mark.
I think and trust that after that much maturing they are, as an entity, in a good position to make any decision.

They are rich because they are old. It's a trend, you'll get used to it.

(Edited by Arthemis on 10-13-2004 15:46)

Ahhh...and Buddhism? Hinduism? I mean...they are old, right?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

But the thing is: if they donate so much money and have no worldly posessions of their own and are so dedicated to helping the homeless and the starving where is this surplus of money coming from?

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

quote:

---

But the thing is: if they donate so much money and have no worldly posessions of their own and are so dedicated to helping the homeless and the starving where is this surplus of money coming from?

---

I think they go with this ideology "God will provide"
And does.

Just because an organization is old does not mean that it cannot also have flaws.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Just because an organization is old does not mean that it cannot also have flaws

---

\

What is your definition of flaws used here?


I think your referring to humans here. But in the respect to the ideology of which this 2000 year old organization stands, it is not flawed.
But if you do believe this organization is flawed in respect to what its ideology represents, could it be since your faith is a spin off from which this organization stems from there is a possiblity your beliefs are flawed also? Being that your fairly young compared to how old this institution has been around and will be long after your gone. How could you be able to judge it for what it means to the world?

First off Arthemis i am confused by what you said, nobody is claiming wisdom or that they are over 100. And nobody is 1000 years old. Life expectancy for MY generation is only around 75.

quote:

---

I think they go with the ideology that God provides. And does.

---

so if God has provided the Pope and/or The Vatican with all these riches why is it that the POOR (who don't have money in the first place) get rid of their riches (which they don't have). Now I can guess that you are going to retort with a previous arguement made that it is not fitting for the 'earthly ruler' or whatever title you want to give the Pope to go around dressed like a commoner. But before you do I would like to say this, Does a man's riches and wealth define how holy he is? Would you think less of him if you knew he was just as wealthy as any other everyday Joe Schmoe?

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte

jade, that comment wasn't actually meant to single out your church, but since you took it that way I will address the point directly.

Christ didn't seem to have a problem with going around dressed like a commoner. Therefore I think the idea that the Pope needs all his extravagance to be fitting as an earthly ruler is extremely flawed. So, jade, that is one example of why I think the institution is flawed.

That being said, it is important to recognize that God's people must reach the rich and powerful as well as the poor and destitute. That means that attire and wealth will vary throughout God's kingdom. These things are tools used to reach all peoples.

quote:

---

...could it be since your faith is a spin off from which this organization stems from there is a possiblity your beliefs are flawed also?

---

Firstly, we are all susceptible to flaws.

Secondly, I belong to an organization that predated your church by about 300 years. I do not accept the view that the Roman Catholic church began from day one. Your church came into being roughly around the time of Constantine.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

jade - your understanding of history is most certainly one of the things that is very flawed.

The protestant reformation was hardly a "spin-off" of roman catholicism. It was taking away the pomp, corruption, arrogance, and bloated uselessness of what had been for centuries a primarily political organization (with limited individual exception).

It took christianity back to what it was before the christians became so full of themselves and so empty of humility.

And, as bugimus alluded to, the idea that the catholic church began at day 1 is purely imaginary.

quote:

---

Secondly, I belong to an organization that predated your church by about 300 years. I do not accept the view that the Roman Catholic church began from day one. Your church came into being roughly around the time of Constantine.

: And, as bugimus alluded to, the idea that the catholic church began at day 1 is purely imaginary

---

.

OK, Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
But secular historians and encylopedias will disagree with you.

And Bugs would your church happen to have any flaws? I want to know where you get your view that your church is the true church that God refers to in scripture and if you could show me where in scripture it validates it? And if there exist a governing body of believers who along with your members helps and guides your sect?

This is a joke, right?

Seriously, there must be records documenting the establishment of the Catholic Church as an entity. How is it possible, that this is not a fact?

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

The catholic church was not something that was just one day established, but neither did it exist right from the start.

Like any other major organization, it was an evolutionary process. One full of twists, turns, and all the rest.

To say that it didn't exist until the time of Constantine is not really accurate. But it is absolutely true that it did not come into being as we know it until around that time, and was not centered in Rome until around that time.

The direction that it took after that time is very different from the path it had followed before hand. It is more accurate to say that catholicism is a spin off of the basis of christianity than it is to say that any other version of christianity is a spin-off of catholicism.

That might not jive with popular catholic view, but that's ok with me....I prefer to look at things objectively.... =)

quote:

---

...catholicism is a spin off of the basis of christianity...

---

This is precisely my view. I believe that it is important for followers of Christ to stay as true to "basic Christianity" as possible.

Jade, our congregation does not claim to be the only Christians, but rather that we be Christians only. We strive as much as we can to emulate the structure of the earliest churches that can be plainly seen in the New Testament. It's really that simple.

It would be absolute foolishness to claim that the church I attend was without flaws because there is not an organization in existence, nor was there ever, that was.

I most certainly can provide scripture references for why we do the things the way we do. But I suspect you already know what those are. The *key* difference in our views will come down to this, I accept scripture alone as my authority while you accept scripture *and* the leadership of Rome as yours. If you want to discuss more specifics you know that I am always open to that.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Being that your fairly young compared to how old this institution has been around and will be long after your gone. How could you be able to judge it for what it means to the world?

---

How can you?

And I love to have not-butter on my toast.
I believe that not-butter is something that you can have on your toast, isn't it logical?
It's like another way of saying no butter.

-----------------------------------------------------
funny websites | funny signatures | funny jokes

Ozone Asylum KILLED my inner child.

Jade- Roman Catholicism was not the first religion nor was it here since day 1. First off THERE WASN"T ANY FORM OF CHRISTianity ON DAY 1. CHRIST WASN"T HERE ON DAY 1! Therefore since christian means follower of Christ" you Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism, United Methodistism, Baptist....and so on and so forth through any form of Christianity can't have existed on day 1. And before you call this an oppinion heres an exert from a 'secular' (or not particularly religious) encyclopedia on the founding of Roman Catholicism:
"World Book Encyclopedia Volume 16"
The Early Church
'The first christians were jews who believed that Jesus was the messiah, the savior expected for the jews.' (wouldn't this mean they had the first church?) 'The early church gradually divorced itself from Judaism, the religion of the Jews.' (In otherwords Catholicism branched off Judaism therefore making Judaism the FIRST religion that ever had anything to do with christ.) 'However, the church accepted the Jewish scriptures, both as the recordof God's dealings with His chosen people and as a guide leading to Jesuse Christ' (So at this point we still don't have Roman Catholicism merely and offshoot form of Judaism) {From there it gives a few sentences about Paul and how he carried the word to Gentiles. Then goes on to say that Rome would enter hold a religous state called Gnosticism. Still not Roman Catholicism yet. Then in it says
"In 313, Constantine the and Licinius, granted freedom of religion and equal rights to all religious groups. And brought christianity to Rome. (NOW WE HAVE ROMAN CATHOLICISM, an interesting, and good religion that speaks the word through tradition YAY!)

History is nothing but a fable that has been agreed upon.
-Napolean Bonaparte