Christianity & Catholicism

[heartofgold]

... History, read some more. There were many other priests (besides Luther) that went against what the Church had said. Many (if not all) got killed or were forced to recind what they had said.

Oh I'm in no way denying that, but if we're going to play this game...

www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd05033.htm

Here's a list of Catholics murdered for their faith. The Protestant church wasn't exactly an innocent bystander.

Yes, you were just talking about the pope and how it fits in. (which it personally doesn't)

Well, he's the head of the church. Top dog, head honcho, all that.

Also, didn't I just say that the perfect government was one ruled directly by God? And also, let me get this straight... so, God tells the Pope (instead of US, the PEOPLE) what to tell us, who then passes the memo down the ranks... seems kinda unlikely.

Well, frankly, your government didn't work. We now have thousands of denominations all claiming to be ruled directly by God. Who's right? You don't know...

I find it hard to believe that God would say "Go kill all those that do not believe, even the Jews whom I treasure." Which mind you happened in the Inquisition. (By the by, brief history. Jews in Spain flee to Britain. Shortly afterwards, Spain launches armadda against Britain. Unforeseeable weather and other problems. Arrmadda scattered and mostly destroyed. Britains much smaller navy then takes the rest out piece meal)

Well, I don't think God told Luther and all the rest to go kill Catholics. So, I guess God wasn't leading either group.
I have trouble believing that.

Furthermore, God doesn't abandon, he may let us work and reap our "just deserts" but he is always there to pick us up. Take a look at the history of the Jews, or how about Paul, or John the Baptist, and probably many others. You will find something very interesting, that God is there during the tough times, just we can't see him at first glance.

Its one thing for God to be there during tough times like, say, when the Jews were in captivity. Its another thing to say, "he was there for the church he left in the dark after promising not to." There's a difference.

About the Peter part. What if he's simply saying that he is correct or true, or even that he is solid or of firm belief?

Well I don't know. Jesus named him that, you can ask why later. The second part of the verse is what we're discussing, "and on this rock I will build my church."

Note: you said Peter means rock, not "the rock".

Don't confuse me with facts .

Also, you said earlier that 4 ppl in this forum believed that all Catholics were going to Hell.

I personally believe that there is a fine line. A line not easily crossed but nonetheless a fine line between a Catholic and a Christian.

So, whether or not your actually a Catholic I do not know. But I believe that you are one or the other.

Well, I'm a pretty good Catholic, so you're gonna have to assume I'm going down.

[Teckor]

heartofgold said:

... History, read some more. There were many other priests (besides Luther) that went against what the Church had said. Many (if not all) got killed or were forced to recind what they had said.

Oh I'm in no way denying that, but if we're going to play this game...

www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd05033.htm

Here's a list of Catholics murdered for their faith. The Protestant church wasn't exactly an innocent bystander.



Well, he's the head of the church. Top dog, head honcho, all that.



Well, frankly, your government didn't work. We now have thousands of denominations all claiming to be ruled directly by God. Who's right? You don't know...



Well, I don't think God told Luther and all the rest to go kill Catholics. So, I guess God wasn't leading either group.
I have trouble believing that.



Its one thing for God to be there during tough times like, say, when the Jews were in captivity. Its another thing to say, "he was there for the church he left in the dark after promising not to." There's a difference.



Well I don't know. Jesus named him that, you can ask why later. The second part of the verse is what we're discussing, "and on this rock I will build my church."



Don't confuse me with facts .

Also, you said earlier that 4 ppl in this forum believed that all Catholics were going to Hell.

I personally believe that there is a fine line. A line not easily crossed but nonetheless a fine line between a Catholic and a Christian.

So, whether or not your actually a Catholic I do not know. But I believe that you are one or the other.

Well, I'm a pretty good Catholic, so you're gonna have to assume I'm going down.

Wow, nice list. Although, I'm not entirely sure that I'd say that they all were "martyred", some were (as it states in some of their profiles) falsely accused of being in connetion with something or other.

Why have a imperfect, human top-dog, when God would be the ultimate top-dog? Doesn't make sense, if u ask me.

True, u bring up a good point, however, Jesus told us to be like the Berians (spelling?), and to analyze things to scripture. Hence, we can figure out who's right (to a point). Some parts of the Bible though are difficult to determine because of the fact that they sometimes require interpretation.

If I do recall, Luther never said "Kill the Catholics!" nor did any of the others (in all likely hood). Chances are, it was some king (or multiple) who simply didn't like Catholics and decided that they were going to kill them. (Kinda like the Romans killing the Christians) And the Protestant Church had very little power to do anything (not as agressive as the Catholic Church was) so, they could either say something and get condemned by people who simply didn't like Catholics (similar to the Nazi's hating the Jews) or simply lay low and probably try to help the Catholics as much as possible.
But yes, not all Protestants were the best examples either.

As I said earlier, he didn't "leave the church in the dark". Many priests, etc. knew the truth and often times shared it, either with the penalty of death or with beng forced to rebuke what they had said. Furthermore, there were probably "Catholics" who didn't believe exactly what the "quota" was.

Yes, we are talking about the second part of the verse, but in order to fully understand any part of a verse, we need to look at the whole verse and even verses before and after it.

Not trying to confuse u, just point out specifics

Well, you're probably right about that, just makes it more of a shame


P.S. Nice arguement, really caught me by surprise


Oh, and here's another website that (kinda ironically) talks alittle about both sides and the different persecutions.

www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html
www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/subdivisions/catholic/index.shtml



Note: King Henry the 8th was the one that started the Church of England and had done so because of a disagreement with Catholics, which would explain the start of the persecutions. Done not by theProtestants themselves, but by an angry King.

Also, the Church of England is quite similar to the Roman Catholic Church. (Both have center heads: the King/ the Pope; centralized power; hiearchy of power;... and oddly enough, a bad history)

[heartofgold]

Why have a imperfect, human top-dog, when God would be the ultimate top-dog? Doesn't make sense, if u ask me.

Maybe I said that wrong. God is the Top-Dog (by the way, you are talking to the only catholic who would refer to God as "top-dog"), but he is guiding the Pope. Weather the Pope is evil or not the Holy Spirit is still guiding him. And, in essence, the church. Some of this goes back too that story about the pope being struck dead after trying to get a heretical doctrine passed. If that's what it takes, that's what God's gonna do.

True, u bring up a good point, however, Jesus told us to be like the Berians (spelling?), and to analyze things to scripture. Hence, we can figure out who's right (to a point). Some parts of the Bible though are difficult to determine because of the fact that they sometimes require interpretation.

Exactly. They require interpretation. It just seems like I'd rather go with the church that was interpreting them as they were written. Also, the Catholic Church's interpretation of the bible has never changed over 2000 years, so you know its just as good as ever.

Of course, since I've kinda been dodging it, (not intentionally, though the issue has been sorda coming up), this seems like a good place to plug in Sola Scriptura, or bible alone. Most everyone hear would base their entire faith on the bible alone, but there are some problems with this. First off, there's the verse in the bible that says, "hold onto traditions, both written and oral," so the bible itself says don't just use the bible. So thats where the Catholic Traditions come from, even though a lot of them don't seem very biblical (though they usually have some grounding in scripture).

If I do recall, Luther never said "Kill the Catholics!" nor did any of the others (in all likely hood). Chances are, it was some king (or multiple) who simply didn't like Catholics and decided that they were going to kill them. (Kinda like the Romans killing the Christians) And the Protestant Church had very little power to do anything (not as aggressive as the Catholic Church was) so, they could either say something and get condemned by people who simply didn't like Catholics (similar to the Nazi's hating the Jews) or simply lay low and probably try to help the Catholics as much as possible.
But yes, not all Protestants were the best examples either.

Actually, I just said Luther and all the rest 'cause I can't spell Protestants. No, Luther and the first rebels didn't say, but in happened. And Catholics killed Protestants. Welcome to the world of people.

As I said earlier, he didn't "leave the church in the dark". Many priests, etc. knew the truth and often times shared it, either with the penalty of death or with beng forced to rebuke what they had said. Furthermore, there were probably "Catholics" who didn't believe exactly what the "quota" was.

I just have trouble believing that only a small percentage of Christians were actually Christians. All those Christians being killed were actually all wrong? Just seems kinda hard to believe.
Also, this brings up an interesting point, what about Marian devotion (devotion to Mary)? Martin Luther was real big on it. He used to say the Hail Mary before he preached. Was he wrong? Was he not a Christian? Marian devotion got kicked out around Calvin's time, but not before.

Yes, we are talking about the second part of the verse, but in order to fully understand any part of a verse, we need to look at the whole verse and even verses before and after it.

To me, this whole verse makes a lot of sense. Rock, solid foundation, the glue that holds the church together. Thats the Papacy. Its obviously not just Christ, since we now have thousands of denominations claiming Christ alone holds the church together. So, building the church on Peter, the first pope, makes perfect sense, since thats what holds the church together.

P.S. Nice arguement, really caught me by surprise

Well, my parents are both lawyers, so I've got the gene. Which would make me a good COL member!

Note: King Henry the 8th was the one that started the Church of England and had done so because of a disagreement with Catholics, which would explain the start of the persecutions. Done not by theProtestants themselves, but by an angry King.

Well, actually, he wanted to get divorced, and the church wouldn't let him (for good reason).

Also, the Church of England is quite similar to the Roman Catholic Church. (Both have center heads: the King/ the Pope; centralized power; hiearchy of power;... and oddly enough, a bad history)

Well, except that the Catholics Church has been around longer, and it isn't just full of bad history. It had some bad times, but the whole thing wasn't just a total flop.

[falklands]

Well, my parents are both lawyers, so I've got the gene. Which would make me a good COL member!

Shameless advertisement... I can't fathom the depths that this guy will go to to get elected.

Well, except that the Catholics Church has been around longer, and it isn't just full of bad history. It had some bad times, but the whole thing wasn't just a total flop.

Well, that was the same with the Protestant church...So we are at a conclusion. Both had their bad moments and good moments. Also, since the Pope does not officially have jurisdiction over the Protestant church, and yet it is so large...

[heartofgold]

Shameless advertisement... I can't fathom the depths that this guy will go to to get elected.

Hey, if my Father (the practicing lawyer) was like all the other lawyers, do you think I'd be talking to you? No! I'd be sitting in my mansion with all my other rich friends laughing 'cause I get a higher allowance. But my Dads honest and fair and all that, so instead I'm stuck talking to you.

Well, that was the same with the Protestant church...So we are at a conclusion. Both had their bad moments and good moments. Also, since the Pope does not officially have jurisdiction over the Protestant church, and yet it is so large...

Well, the Protestant church completely denied the authority of the pope, so there's not much he can do.

[falklands]

heartofgold said:

Hey, if my Father (the practicing lawyer) was like all the other lawyers, do you think I'd be talking to you? No! I'd be sitting in my mansion with all my other rich friends laughing 'cause I get a higher allowance. But my Dads honest and fair and all that, so instead I'm stuck talking to you.

THIS guy's going down one road I don't want to follow... ;D

Well, the Protestant church completely denied the authority of the pope, so there's not much he can do.

I wouldn't completely deny the authority of the Pope...regardless of one's interpretation of Matthew 16 he still happens to be the leader appointed over hundreds of millions. I can't say he doesn't have any authority if God has put him in such an obvious leadership position ;D

[Geberia]

falklands said:

I can't say he doesn't have any authority if God has put him in such an obvious leadership position ;D

Well he dosn't really get elected by God. They have cardinals and stuff that appoint him.

[Teckor]

Since I'm short on time right now, and seeing as that we aren't making any real headway (although, this debate has been very enlightening), I'd like to try to conclude this as simply as possible.

Many beliefs are very similar in origin but yet are different. These differences arise from points of view, also known as interpretation. Not all interpretations are right, but yet it becomes quite difficult in some matters to determine "whose right, and whose wrong". However, God has given us this gift, independance. We are allowed to make decisions about what we believe, and why. Although thier reasonings may not seem clear to us, it may seem much clearer to others.

In short, we can all disagree, that's bound to happen, and it's okay to test individual people's standpoint, but when debates "rage" (or continue ) for an extended period, without success, then lets simply agree to disagree and let it rest as it is.

[heartofgold]

I wouldn't completely deny the authority of the Pope...regardless of one's interpretation of Matthew 16 he still happens to be the leader appointed over hundreds of millions. I can't say he doesn't have any authority if God has put him in such an obvious leadership position ;D

I meant, though, that if the pope said to stop eating forever (which he wouldn't, in case you didn't get that), you wouldn't do it. The Pope doesn't have any power over Protestants is what I'm saying.

Well he dosn't really get elected by God. They have cardinals and stuff that appoint him.

But he might as well be elected by God. God's supposed to guide the church, so electing the pope would be part of that.

Since I'm short on time right now, and seeing as that we aren't making any real headway (although, this debate has been very enlightening), I'd like to try to conclude this as simply as possible.

Many beliefs are very similar in origin but yet are different. These differences arise from points of view, also known as interpretation. Not all interpretations are right, but yet it becomes quite difficult in some matters to determine "whose right, and whose wrong". However, God has given us this gift, independance. We are allowed to make decisions about what we believe, and why. Although thier reasonings may not seem clear to us, it may seem much clearer to others.

In short, we can all disagree, that's bound to happen, and it's okay to test individual people's standpoint, but when debates "rage" (or continue for an extended period, without success, then lets simply agree to disagree and let it rest as it is.

You know (not singling you out Teckor), I've noticed that a lot of people seem to end debates with, "well, we all disagree." Wait. So the only good debate is one where we all agree? Just thought I'd point that out (and accept your surrender ).

[Armany]

The only good debates are the ones that include people that firmly believe what they are talking about. If you combine such people, you'll find more passion and more enlightening information revealed than you will if listening to a bunch of wishy-washy people that can't make their minds up.

[heartofgold]

The only good debates are the ones that include people that firmly believe what they are talking about. If you combine such people, you'll find more passion and more enlightening information revealed than you will if listening to a bunch of wishy-washy people that can't make their minds up.

Oh, than you should think I'm just great... (vote for me).

Good campaign strategy. If you annoy the people enough, they'll vote for you just to get you to stop. ;D

[falklands]

heartofgold said:

Oh, than you should think I'm just great... (vote for me).

He's at it again.

[falklands]

armany said:

The only good debates are the ones that include people that firmly believe what they are talking about. If you combine such people, you'll find more passion and more enlightening information revealed than you will if listening to a bunch of wishy-washy people that can't make their minds up.

Yeah. Once in a group of friends, we had a huge - shall we say - "frank" discussion over the e-mail. It was basically all of us versus one person who adamantly held the belief that God shows favouritism and hates people who do evil. I confess, it didn't end all that well. So we should be careful about how our message comes across, and make it less "frank", but still keep on debating

[heartofgold]

Yeah. Once in a group of friends, we had a huge - shall we say - "frank" discussion over the e-mail. It was basically all of us versus one person who adamantly held the belief that God shows favouritism and hates people who do evil. I confess, it didn't end all that well. So we should be careful about how our message comes across, and make it less "frank", but still keep on debating

Hey, this sounds familiar, where have I heard this...

[Teckor]

Politeness.

Also, it wasn't entirely a surrender more of an acceptance that you hold what you believe, and with good reasons that support your comprehend.

If I "surrendered", I would have said that you were right, or that you had convinced me. On the contrary, I still disagree, it's simply the fact that I've seen enough of this arguement to know that it will be a very long one. 14 pages, and little (if any) ground gained. Shows me that this is now a "debate of attrition", niether side making any (or little) ground.

I'm personally more of a short battle debator, once it gets long term, you might as well give them some respect and part ways knowing that you tried it and they held, but also knowing that you yourself held.


Furthermore, disagreements, good. Out of control arguements, bad. Keep it friendly and non-contradictory, and every1 can get along fine.

Also, we do need to make sure that our attitude towards debates like these is persuasive and not force. Force has never really accomplished anything (by itself at least). Take for instance, WW2. America and Japan. Brute force was used at first but given up on b/c of the futility of trying to use just brute force, technology and adjustment was used.

[heartofgold]

Also, it wasn't entirely a surrender more of an acceptance that you hold what you believe, and with good reasons that support your comprehend.

I was joking.

Furthermore, disagreements, good. Out of control arguements, bad. Keep it friendly and non-contradictory, and every1 can get along fine.

You just have to join my campaign headquarters, we have lots of fun there...

[Teckor]

lol maybe....

[Armany]

Me, I have a strange affinity for arguing. ;D Sometimes, I just can't resist trying to prove somebody wrong, even if I have to play devil's advocate to do so.

That's just me talking, though. Not speaking for anyone else on this forum...*cough*Falklands and heartofgold*cough*...

[Teckor]

I debate usually when I'm interested in the subject (not to mention if it looks like it might be easy prey *insert evil grin*) Either that or if the person is really acting stupid or contradictory.

[gynovia]

teckor said:

I debate usually when I'm interested in the subject (not to mention if it looks like it might be easy prey *insert evil grin*) Either that or if the person is really acting stupid or contradictory.

you woudn't be refering to anybody here now would you?? ;D jk

[falklands]

heartofgold said:

I was joking.

This is familiar...

You just have to join my campaign headquarters, we have lots of fun there...

Include me in the "we".



Wow, look at this "debate". We need to get some anger going or else there will be 14 more pages filled with *cough*me and *cough*heartofgold's banter! ;D

[heartofgold]

Wow, look at this "debate". We need to get some anger going or else there will be 14 more pages filled with *cough*me and *cough*heartofgold's banter!

YOU PROTESTANTS WILL RUIN THE WORLD SOME DAY!!! BECOME CATHOLIC, OR ELSE!!!!!

There. Instant anger.

[Chocolate Bar]

heartofgold said:

Wow, look at this "debate". We need to get some anger going or else there will be 14 more pages filled with *cough*me and *cough*heartofgold's banter!

YOU PROTESTANTS WILL RUIN THE WORLD SOME DAY!!! BECOME CATHOLIC, OR ELSE!!!!!

There. Instant anger.

Did you forget to take your medication today?

[gynovia]

i think he forgets it every day ;D

[falklands]

Some days he takes laughing gas. I know it.