Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8
  • 36
If the rapture really happens tomorrow . . .; AKA . . . the Good Bye Thread
Topic Started: May 20 2011, 01:21 PM (12,125 Views)
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Well, there were arguments about, say, whether Peter and Paul were Catholics. Arguments about that are futile unless one has agreed on a common definition of what constitutes the label "catholic".
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
KlavierBauer
May 23 2011, 11:28 AM
Quote:
 
In Catholic theology, Mary wasn't simply a young woman who had never had sex with a man when she became pregnant with Jesus, she was perfect, and she remained a virgin her entire life (how they deal with Jesus' brother James I'll never know...)

Larry, this is just another difference in our histories.
The early church didn't teach, and much of the modern church hasn't taught, that Mary and Joseph were ever husband and wife in the way that we think of it today.
It's historically accepted that Joseph took guardianship of Mary, and took her to be his wife as she was pregnant, and faced harsh problems.
She was probably 13-ish when she was married to Joseph, and he was much older (50s or 60s I believe?).
Christian teaching historically has never been that they were husband and wife - Joseph's other children came from his previous marriage as the historical accounts indicate (i.e. James). Jesus had no biological siblings, and Mary and Joseph never had sex - at least as far as historical Christian teaching goes. These are consistent with scripture, or at very least, are not inconsistent with scripture, but another area where your chosen history and mine may find conflict.
And what's the difference?

Seriously? How does this impact or affect the teachings of Jesus or the apostles in any way?
I think this is one of those Christian "laws" that I was speaking of before.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
I see them losing meaning and practice of their faith in denying the sacraments


The seven sacraments of the Catholic Church:

1. Baptism. For Catholics, this occurs at birth. So important to Catholics that even a baby dying at birth must be baptized. Nothing scriptural to support this view.

2. Confirmation. When a baptized child reaches 12 years old, he is "confirmed". Catholics believe that this ritual gives the child the Holy Spirit more completely. Nothing scriptural to support this view.

3. Holy Eucharist. Or, communion. In Catholicism, this is not just a symbolic ritual, the bread and wine actually turn into blood and flesh. Nothing scriptural to support this view.

4. Reconciliation. The sacrament by which sins committed after baptism are forgiven by Jesus through the ministry of a priest. Nothing scriptural to support this view.

5. Anointing of the sick. Formerly called "Extreme Unction". In Catholicism, this ritual takes away the sins of even an unconscious person who is at the point of death. Nothing scriptural to support this view.

6. Holy Orders. This is the one I have the most problem with - the teaching that this sacrament places a "spiritual mark" on the soul of the person who receives it. It makes it possible for a priest to carry out sacred duties such as baptism and communion. This mark can never be blotted out, meaning that no matter how wicked that priest might become, since he has received the sacrament of the Holy Orders, he can still function as a priest. Nothing scriptural to support this view.

7. Matrimony.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
KlavierBauer
May 23 2011, 11:28 AM
Quote:
 
In Catholic theology, Mary wasn't simply a young woman who had never had sex with a man when she became pregnant with Jesus, she was perfect, and she remained a virgin her entire life (how they deal with Jesus' brother James I'll never know...)

Larry, this is just another difference in our histories.
The early church didn't teach, and much of the modern church hasn't taught, that Mary and Joseph were ever husband and wife in the way that we think of it today.
It's historically accepted that Joseph took guardianship of Mary, and took her to be his wife as she was pregnant, and faced harsh problems.
She was probably 13-ish when she was married to Joseph, and he was much older (50s or 60s I believe?).
Christian teaching historically has never been that they were husband and wife - Joseph's other children came from his previous marriage as the historical accounts indicate (i.e. James). Jesus had no biological siblings, and Mary and Joseph never had sex - at least as far as historical Christian teaching goes. These are consistent with scripture, or at very least, are not inconsistent with scripture, but another area where your chosen history and mine may find conflict.
There is nothing scriptural to support such a silly view, sorry.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
It's not a law - but it paints a very different picture of Mary and who she was.
This is a very special piece of the faith that many in the west are missing out on - and that's why it can potentially be an important point.

If Mary's just another lady then you're right - who cares whether she and Joseph had relations or not? What does it change?
If she is indeed Theotokos however, it changes the view of her, her family, her purpose, her relationship with Joseph, and ultimately aids in painting a slightly different picture of who God is, and how he works in our lives.

To invalidate any part of the religion that exists outside of Christ's teachings gets rid of 98% of the Bible, and focuses on getting dessert rather than the entire meal.
It may be sufficient, as the thief on the cross taught us - but that doesn't mean I can't strive for a deeper understanding, nor does it mean that I shouldn't.
Reasonable people can disagree on many of these matters from a theological standpoint, but my comment above is about what has long been the accepted history by the church. Is there a chance its mistaken? Of course there is.
But if I'm having a debate about church history with someone, and they think that James is thought to have been Jesus's biological brother, we have a difference that needs to be addressed before we can move forward, as it changes a lot.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
There is nothing scriptural to support such a silly view, sorry.

I rest my case regarding my earlier comments about why it seems to me you'll only include scripture in your thinking.
If we're only accepting scripture, how can you be having a debate with me about church history - none of which is accounted for in scripture?


Quote:
 

Quote:
 
Evidence that your conclusion regarding what I see and accept is your own "limited interpretation".

Please correct me then, as in these discussions your main criticism of my points is usually that they're not scriptural, indicating that other sources of early church history and knowledge are not valuable or authoritative.
I've understood this to mean that you follow only what is said in the Bible, and assuming that you don't read in Greek, or any apocryphal books, I've also taken this to mean that you accept what are today's canonical scriptures, and not others (as we do).
If I'm mistaken I apologize, and please correct me.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
"God is love." (Unless you're WRONG, DAMMIT!!! AND THEN PEOPLE WILL POINT AND ARGUE A LOT!!!)

:rolleyes:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
The seven sacraments of the Catholic Church:

1. Baptism. For Catholics, this occurs at birth. So important to Catholics that even a baby dying at birth must be baptized. Nothing scriptural to support this view.

2. Confirmation. When a baptized child reaches 12 years old, he is "confirmed". Catholics believe that this ritual gives the child the Holy Spirit more completely. Nothing scriptural to support this view.

3. Holy Eucharist. Or, communion. In Catholicism, this is not just a symbolic ritual, the bread and wine actually turn into blood and flesh. Nothing scriptural to support this view.

4. Reconciliation. The sacrament by which sins committed after baptism are forgiven by Jesus through the ministry of a priest. Nothing scriptural to support this view.

5. Anointing of the sick. Formerly called "Extreme Unction". In Catholicism, this ritual takes away the sins of even an unconscious person who is at the point of death. Nothing scriptural to support this view.

6. Holy Orders. This is the one I have the most problem with - the teaching that this sacrament places a "spiritual mark" on the soul of the person who receives it. It makes it possible for a priest to carry out sacred duties such as baptism and communion. This mark can never be blotted out, meaning that no matter how wicked that priest might become, since he has received the sacrament of the Holy Orders, he can still function as a priest. Nothing scriptural to support this view.

7. Matrimony.


I'm really sorry to have to bring this up again, but I'm feeling a very severe reading comprehension FAIL might be occurring.
I'm part of the Catholic church, as are you, but I'm not part of the catholic church. I'm EASTERN ORTHODOX - you might want to look at the sacraments I'm referring to before criticizing the wrong ones.
And feel free to - you'll have even more wrong with them I'm sure - but at least you'll be arguing the right thing.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
KlavierBauer
May 23 2011, 11:31 AM
Quote:
 
Evidence that your conclusion regarding what I see and accept is your own "limited interpretation".

Please correct me then, as in these discussions your main criticism of my points is usually that they're not scriptural, indicating that other sources of early church history and knowledge are not valuable or authoritative.
I've understood this to mean that you follow only what is said in the Bible, and assuming that you don't read in Greek, or any apocryphal books, I've also taken this to mean that you accept what are today's canonical scriptures, and not others (as we do).
If I'm mistaken I apologize, and please correct me.
You are correct, I do not accept the apocryphal books as being equal to the Bible. While they have some historical value, they are worthless otherwise. They are certainly not to be considered equal to scripture, and therefore, are not authoritative whatsoever. This link will provide you with my reasoning:

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
I'm part of the Catholic church, as are you,


Sorry, I am NOT a part of the Catholic Church.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
KlavierBauer
May 23 2011, 11:55 AM
I'm part of the Catholic church, as are you, but I'm not part of the catholic church.
you have that backwards.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Dewey
May 23 2011, 11:33 AM
KB: I just use the term "unorthodox (small "o") Christian" to describe them.
Tell me Dewey, do you do that before, or after coming out of a buddhist trance?
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Larry
May 23 2011, 12:16 PM
Dewey
May 23 2011, 11:33 AM
KB: I just use the term "unorthodox (small "o") Christian" to describe them.
Tell me Dewey, do you do that before, or after coming out of a buddhist trance?
Not sure what church you attend Larry, but I don't think I'll ever be darkening its doors, if it produces people who constantly make a mockery of others.

Since you are a scripture expert, please point me to the verses that talk about Jesus mocking others. Thanks.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
I'm not mocking anyone, Frank. I'm discussing theology. If that bothers you, stop reading the thread.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Frank - Larry - you're misunderstanding what Dewey's saying here.
He's informing me that he is using the correct, literary term (un-orthodox) to describe those people, as orthodox teaching (not Orthodox teaching) would include the virgin birth.
What he is saying isn't negative at all - it's accurate and more forgiving than me saying that they're not Christians. He's saying they still are Christians, and are un-orthodox ones, as they subscribe to a heterodox, rather than orthodox view of the virginal birth.

Jon: Yes - you're right - getting my cases mixed up today.
Larry, my apologies, you are part of the catholic church, not the Catholic church - I hope you know what I mean.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
You aren't, Larry. You may think you are, but you aren't. Your tone is one of mockery and scoffing, rather than having a respectful dialogue. No one has treated you this way. You came out swinging, and your tone has gotten worse, over the course of the thread. When the crap is hitting the fan and you're defending yourself, I'm right there cheering you on. This time, as your friend, I'm telling you that your tone and the way you characterize the beliefs of others, is pretty ugly. Do what you will.... Honestly, I'm not trying to tell you how to conduct yourself. But I would be remiss, as your friend, to not point it out to you.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
duplicate
Edited by KlavierBauer, May 23 2011, 12:30 PM.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry - you're misunderstanding what Dewey's saying here.
He's informing me that he is using the correct, literary term (un-orthodox) to describe those people, as orthodox teaching (not Orthodox teaching) would include the virgin birth.
What he is saying isn't negative at all - it's accurate and more forgiving than me saying that they're not Christians. He's saying they still are Christians, and are un-orthodox ones, as they subscribe to a heterodox, rather than orthodox view of the virginal birth.

Jon: Yes - you're right - getting my cases mixed up today.
Larry, my apologies, you are part of the catholic church, not the Catholic church - I hope you know what I mean.
Edited by KlavierBauer, May 23 2011, 12:29 PM.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
KlavierBauer
May 23 2011, 12:28 PM
Frank - Larry - you're misunderstanding what Dewey's saying here.
I'm not misunderstanding anything. Don't tell me what I do or do not understand. Are you now an authority on MY PERSONAL state of consciousness? Yeah... I doubt it. Leave me out of it.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
KlavierBauer
May 23 2011, 12:28 PM
Larry, my apologies, you are part of the catholic church, not the Catholic church - I hope you know what I mean.
I don't think he does, so he'll probably just repeat that he isn't.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Larry, my apologies, you are part of the catholic church, not the Catholic church - I hope you know what I mean.



I know exactly what you mean, and I reject it outright.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Frank: I was already editing what I wrote - no need to be defensive.
I mis-read what you wrote as being addressed to Dewey, not Larry - I apologize.
I edited it immediately to remove your name upon seeing my mistake.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
By that logic, was Martin Luther a Catholic, even after he walked out? That's really twisted logic, KB. I flat disagree with you.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
I know exactly what you mean, and I reject it outright.

Oh - well I guess that sums up this entire debate then.
Thanks for taking this definitive stand.
I no longer need to worry about debating theology with you I suppose, and apologize mischaracterizing your beliefs for so many years.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
Aw geez.
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 8
  • 36