Zone1 Are these two great contradictions of the Catholic Faith

[zaangalewa]

Satan controls govts, druid priests are demonized.

Do not play to be so extremely simple minded. The older Celts had large settlements without city walls. Looks like they trusted in each other.

 

[kjw47]

A prejudice which has nothing to do with reality. We are all sinners. Nevertheless god loves all of his children and the one or other way his children also love him - with or without to know this. You never will know whether your hypothetic construct is real. And a real person who you subsumize under your prejudice and seems to fulfill this prejudice loves god perhaps a million of tons more than you are able to do at all.



You lack the lightness of being that's why you have to ignore what others tell you. Satan and I have even a common element: We believe in god and not in Satan. Indeed Satana hates us because he loves god while we hurt him.

-----
A nun and a priest are playing tennis. Every time the priest misses, he shouts: ‘DAMN, MISSED!'

And they start playing... After a short time, the priest misses and shouts: ‘‘DAMN, MISSED!' The nun replies: ‘Dear Father, please watch your choice of words!’

And they continue to play and again the priest misses and shouts: ‘DAMN, MISSED!' And the nun says indignantly: ‘Father, stop swearing like that!’

And they continue to play and AGAIN the priest hits the ground and shouts: ‘DAMN, MISSED!' And the nun screams indignantly: ‘FATHER, IF YOU CURSE LIKE THAT ONE MORE TIME, THE LORD IN HEAVEN WILL HIT YOU WITH A LIGHTNING!!!’

And they continue to play and AGAIN the priest hits it and shouts: ‘DAMN IT!’ And the clouds gather, thunder rumbles, lightning strikes the nun and a deep voice says: ‘Damn, missed!’
-----

The darkness has you obviously. You sure don't know the bible. NONE who practice a sin belong to God.

 

[zaangalewa]

The darkness has you obviously. You sure don't know the bible. NONE who practice a sin belong to God.

Many of my ancestors you are able to remember because you can read the bible. Or with other words: I am the bible. Currently only less than a billionth of a part of the bible part "03/21/2025" - nevertheless I am here and with me a cheap and tattered bible. Since years I think about to buy a new one - but I'm still hanging on to the old, shabby and tattered part. Nevertheless I'm not able to take it with me when I will leave this planet more naked than only naked and more thoughtless than only thoughtless.

 

[kjw47]

Many of my ancestors you are able to remember because you can read the bible. Or with other words: I am the bible. Currently only less than a billionth of a part of the bible part "03/21/2025" - nevertheless I am here and with me a cheap and tattered bible. Since years I think about to buy a new one - but I'm still hanging on to the old, shabby and tattered part. Nevertheless I'm not able to take it with me when I will leave this planet more naked than only naked and more thoughtless than only thoughtless.

We all originate from the seed of Adam and Eve.= One human family.

 

[zaangalewa]

We all originate from the seed of Adam and Eve.= One human family.

What shows to me that you did not read the story of Adam and Eve in the bible. The children of Adam and Eve did not marry the children of Adam of Eve - they married others.

Nevertheless exists indeed this philosophical construct which is also a kind of prototype of the way to think in evolutionary contextes. Everything has a common origin - in god. And in case of human beings it got even some plausibility from real scientific "evolutionists" (biologists) because they found out all human beings today come from a population of less than 1000 individuals about 70,000 years ago in Africa. But the story itselve is told in another time of history - where the first times gardens had been made. The paradise was a garden, a godly living structure. And it was our home which we lost.

 

[kjw47]

What shows to me that you did not read the story of Adam and Eve in the bible. The children of Adam and Eve did not marry the children of Adam of Eve - they married others.

Nevertheless exists indeed this philosophical construct which is also a kind of prototype of the way to think in evolutionary contextes. Everything has a common origin - in god. And in case of human beings it got even some plausibility from real scientific "evolutionists" (biologists) because they found out all human beings today come from a population of less than 1000 individuals about 70,000 years ago in Africa. But the story itselve is told in another time of history - where the first times gardens had been made. The paradise was a garden, a godly living structure. And it was our home which we lost.

There were no others. Back then were super close to perfection.

 

[zaangalewa]

There were no others.

Says a superchristian who has rules for everyone else in the name of the bible and who calls others bible illiterates who do more sensefull things with a bible than to shred them into illegible pieces and beat them around the heads of others - as to put it under a wobbly table for example. The bible is an import summary of books reporting about some of our experiences with god - but the bible is not god on its own.

Back then were super close to perfection.

The first born son of the brother killer Cain was Enoch. His mother was a woman who Cain married in the land Nod. Hope the names are the same in English. Read the book Genesis. A wonderful piece of world literature and easily understandable. Other books from this early time of written history are nearly ununderstandable even in case good translations do exist.



Cain - in German "Kain" and ai=ei - is by the way a frequently occurring first name in German. And a frequently occurring compounded family name is "Werbungeinwerfen". So in nearly every second house lives a Mr. or Mrs. "Keine Werbung-Einwerfen". The archaeologists of the future will be able to tell you a lot about this strange factual phenomenon.

 

[hadit]

You seem to be misinformed.
.

She was born of her father and mother through normal conception, but God lifted the curse of Original Sin, she was conceived in a miraculous manner, she herself was free of Original Sin. She also lived her whole natural life free of any other sin

At least, that is what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. It's not Biblical, but that's what they believe and teach.

 

[theHawk]

At least, that is what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. It's not Biblical, but that's what they believe and teach.

The Church are the ones that gave us the Bible.

 

[hadit]

The Church are the ones that gave us the Bible.

That does not support some of the things they believe about Mary.

 

[Meriweather]

That does not support some of the things they believe about Mary.

What does support it?

 

[there4eyeM]

It could be argued that the major contradictions of the Church of Rome are that it teaches that Jesus didn't mean what he said in some instances and didn't say what he meant in others. It reserves for itself the "correct" version of Christ's thoughts.

 

[hadit]

What does support it?

You've told us that you believe in traditions, things people said or apparently believed that were not considered to have Scriptural authority by the early church. And we need to be careful about such traditions because when you stop and think about it, from where did the ornate robes come? From where did the pointy hats and conducting services in Latin come? You want to say your traditions are apostolic but none of the apostles dressed or talked that way. They were ordinary Jewish people, and you could not point one out in a crowd based on what he wore. They didn't light "sacred" candles, and they didn't conduct church services in Latin, at least the apostles didn't.

From where came the idea that if a priest (and only a priest. An ordinary Godly person could not do it, even though Communion is supposed to be a communal thing) waved bread and wine around in a prescribed pattern and chanted a prescribed Latin incantation that they would suddenly and miraculously transform into human flesh and blood but be totally indistinguishable from ordinary bread and wine? IOW, those taking Communion could not tell the difference if presented with both. How is that apostolic? They just had an actual meal together. We know this because Paul talks about some being greedy and filling up and getting drunk at the expense of others.

If the priests were going for authenticity, they should at least be saying it in Aramaic like Yeshua did. Why Latin and not English, is Latin somehow more sacred?

 

[Hellokitty]

Hello Friends

is there anyone who would be interested or knowledgeable or even someone such as myself seeking knowledge concerning the faith and claims of our Catholic friends.


Catechism Of The Catholic Church

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: ” Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its " procreative " and unitive purposes


The Catholic Church teaches that condoms - birth control, and any means of avoiding or deviating away from the fertizilating the egg with the sperm while having intercourse - is unholy, - sexual intercourse cannot be just for enjoyment with your wife or husband


Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its " procreation " fertilization , to furthering the DNA - GENETICS to be passed down through a conception ...

II. The Vocation to Chastity # 2351
Part Three Section Two The Ten Commandments Chapter Two You Shall Love Your Neighbor As Yourself Article 6 The Sixth Commandment II. The Vocation To Chastity


Furthermore

Roman Catholic Father - St. Augustine, demands that “ Sexual desire a significant role in original sin's transmission, - sexual intercourse is the daughter of sin, is also the mother of sin ... LUST - Lust becomes causally involved in the transmission of original sin ...

Sexual lust thereby becomes not merely a symbol of carnal concupiscence, but its cause.

this is basic foundation of all Catholic Teaching regarding sex and Original Sin


The Reality is that the Catholic Church demands that because Jesus was not born with sexual intercourse by an earthly Father, he was completely free from Original sin, the Roman Catholic believes that original sin is CAUSE AND EFFECT and by the literal sex act - by having a sexual interaction - a man and woman having romantic relations, this is what has literally CAUSED ALL to be born with original sin - the sex act itself causes the sin - sex is sinful but tolerated by God


THIS IS WHY MARY'S VIRGINITY IS SO IMPORTANT TO ROMAN CATHOLICS

BECAUSE - Mary was PURE - HOLY , SEXUALLY PERFECT - - - Mary was guarding her virginity - abstaining from having sex - Mary was righteous - Holy Virgin -

the Roman Catholic believes that Jesus is FREE of Original sin because he was not born from sperm and egg conception with an earthly father. But this is contradicted by the fact that both Adam and Eve were born without the sex act,


both Adam and Eve were born without a human father or an earthly mother - yet this Immaculate Creation of Adam and Eve - this did not help them or prevent them from committing sin, this did nothing for them even though they were not born nor created from a sexual act.


Adam and Eve even lived at a time where purity was at its most powerful and potent form and they both existed as the very best potential and perfect example possible, purity was at the strongest and most powerful and purest form that has ever existed for human kind


And still their decision and temptation and weakness to commit immoral acts, to sin, to defile their bodies and disobey God’ s commandment was not prevented - by the state and the situation , the status , and circumstance and condition “ Immaculately Created “ they were not even born from human mother nor father nor created by any sexual relations - __


Do Catholics deny that Jesus had “ FREE WILL “ ?

Was the Roman Catholic Jesus free from all temptation and someone who did not have “ FREE WILL “ ?

is this what Catholics seem to suggest. ?

In conclusion, another great contradiction is the following Roman Catholic Catechism teaching



Catechism of the Catholic Church - Second Edition - # 404
""_ The transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. _""

but is this not simply an untruthful contradiction, there are 66 total books of the bible that clearly explain what original sin means

these scriptures explain in complete detail the understanding of Original Sin. The Bible fully explains what caused Original SIn and the result and effect and the solution that God has provided to remedy the original sin.


How can Roman Catholics resolve and explain these 2 great contradictions ?

For Roman Catholics to demand that being created without the sex act prevents someone from committing sin - and removes the choice, and Free Will and also Temptation ........

Why do Catholics deny that Jesus was faced with the challenge of “ FREE WILL “ and temptation, and was tempted in all the ways that all humans are, just as Adam and Eve but Jesus overcame his own will , denied himself and submitted to the will of God. ?


For Roman Catholics to demand that -- The transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand

Why do Catholics deny that God has fully explained the cause and effect of the curse of Original Sin and has also provided the clear remedy. ?

The Catholic Church teaches Jesus having been born free of original sin is a mystery of the Incarnation.

If you have questions regarding Catholic teaching you should seek answers from Catholic sources.

 

[Meriweather]

If the priests were going for authenticity, they should at least be saying it in Aramaic like Yeshua did. Why Latin and not English, is Latin somehow more sacred?

Just a wild guess, but as the English language wouldn't even come into existence for another five hundred years, that left falling back on the most common language spoken at the time which was Latin. In Judea itself, Aramaic was the common language, but any business with Rome was conducted in Latin; Greek also widely spoken.

 

[Meriweather]

From where came the idea that if a priest (and only a priest. An ordinary Godly person could not do it, even though Communion is supposed to be a communal thing) waved bread and wine around in a prescribed pattern and chanted a prescribed Latin incantation that they would suddenly and miraculously transform into human flesh and blood but be totally indistinguishable from ordinary bread and wine? IOW, those taking Communion could not tell the difference if presented with both. How is that apostolic? They just had an actual meal together. We know this because Paul talks about some being greedy and filling up and getting drunk at the expense of others.

I didn't realize Protestant denominations wave their communal bread around with anyone able to do this waving (at God, I'm guessing?).

The Catholic and Orthodox faith follow Apostolic tradition where the Apostles and those anointed by an Apostle raised up the bread and wine in offering to God. Anyone who has read Apostolic and early Church Fathers understand the miracle taking place. Those who don't are comfortable with their own, more modern conclusions.

 

[Meriweather]

You've told us that you believe in traditions, things people said or apparently believed that were not considered to have Scriptural authority by the early church. And we need to be careful about such traditions because when you stop and think about it, from where did the ornate robes come? From where did the pointy hats and conducting services in Latin come? You want to say your traditions are apostolic but none of the apostles dressed or talked that way. They were ordinary Jewish people, and you could not point one out in a crowd based on what he wore. They didn't light "sacred" candles, and they didn't conduct church services in Latin, at least the apostles didn't.

Priestly robes are described in Exodus.

 

[hadit]

Priestly robes are described in Exodus.

That was a Jewish custom, not Christian. In fact, Jesus raised ALL of His followers to a royal priesthood. The apostles didn't wear the robes or the hats or burn candles or wave around incense burners. They were ordinary people who did not seek to set themselves apart from everyone else in their clothing or ceremonial actions.

 

[hadit]

Just a wild guess, but as the English language wouldn't even come into existence for another five hundred years, that left falling back on the most common language spoken at the time which was Latin. In Judea itself, Aramaic was the common language, but any business with Rome was conducted in Latin; Greek also widely spoken.

If the incantation is only valid in one language, it's not universal. Would it be valid for a priest to give it in English, or would the congregants reject it as false?

 

[theHawk]

That does not support some of the things they believe about Mary.

Where in the Bible does it say only the Bible can be used for religious knowledge?

Sola scriptura theology is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

Authority comes from the church first and foremost. Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter, not the scriptures.