Catholics Don't Exemplify Christianity...

[zaangalewa]

People say this is a Christian nation. How many Americans are real Christians? ...

Let me say it this way: After a Catholic was president of the USA the USA landed on the moon. Per aspera ad astra. The moon is a little more direction heaven than to duck and cover.

 

[Bonzi]

Bottom line: When you can pray to God directly, makes no sense to pray to others.

It is not done in the Bible and it is not mentioned in the Bible. End of debate.

No one is praying to others. They are simply asking others to pray for them. Even fundies do that.

Why can't they pray themselves? Why do they need any intermediary?

They want to speak to god, speak to god. Don't ask someone else to speak for you

why pray at all, god can know your thoughts already

I can't answer that question. Just pointing out that Bonzi is either deluded or a liar.

No need to pray to others, no matter the reason

No one is praying to others. They are asking others to pray. Why do you keep lying about this?

Please explain why you would ask someone else to pray when you can pray yourself directly to God.

 

[Bonzi]

People say this is a Christian nation. How many Americans are real Christians? ...

Let me say it this way: After a Catholic was president of the USA the USA landed on the moon. Per aspera ad astra. The moon is a little more direction heaven than to duck and cover.

I didn't say Catholic's were useless. I said some of their doctrine is not Biblical and is does not exemplify Christianity.

 

[Ravi]

No one is praying to others. They are simply asking others to pray for them. Even fundies do that.

Why can't they pray themselves? Why do they need any intermediary?

They want to speak to god, speak to god. Don't ask someone else to speak for you

why pray at all, god can know your thoughts already

I can't answer that question. Just pointing out that Bonzi is either deluded or a liar.

No need to pray to others, no matter the reason

No one is praying to others. They are asking others to pray. Why do you keep lying about this?

Please explain why you would ask someone else to pray when you can pray yourself directly to God.

Same reason a fundie would.

 

[Bonzi]

Why can't they pray themselves? Why do they need any intermediary?

They want to speak to god, speak to god. Don't ask someone else to speak for you

why pray at all, god can know your thoughts already

I can't answer that question. Just pointing out that Bonzi is either deluded or a liar.

No need to pray to others, no matter the reason

No one is praying to others. They are asking others to pray. Why do you keep lying about this?

Please explain why you would ask someone else to pray when you can pray yourself directly to God.

Same reason a fundie would.

I guess I should have clarified... The Bible says nothing about asking the dead to pray for you.
You can twist it all you want, but I know Catholics that DO pray to Mary. Ask for her protection.

 

[Ravi]

I can't answer that question. Just pointing out that Bonzi is either deluded or a liar.

No need to pray to others, no matter the reason

No one is praying to others. They are asking others to pray. Why do you keep lying about this?

Please explain why you would ask someone else to pray when you can pray yourself directly to God.

Same reason a fundie would.

I guess I should have clarified... The Bible says nothing about asking the dead to pray for you.
You can twist it all you want, but I know Catholics that DO pray to Mary. Ask for her protection.

I see lies pour right out of your mouth.

 

[Bonzi]

Calling Priests "Father" is unbiblical.

Catholics are taught to call their priest, "Father", as a religious title of respect. Christians in the first century never called their leaders, "father". This first happened hundreds of years later.

Does Jesus approve of calling the leaders of the church, "Father"? No!

(See Matthew 23:9 below)
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

 

[Bonzi]

No need to pray to others, no matter the reason

No one is praying to others. They are asking others to pray. Why do you keep lying about this?

Please explain why you would ask someone else to pray when you can pray yourself directly to God.

Same reason a fundie would.

I guess I should have clarified... The Bible says nothing about asking the dead to pray for you.
You can twist it all you want, but I know Catholics that DO pray to Mary. Ask for her protection.

I see lies pour right out of your mouth.

Catholics view Mary and the saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe (wrongly) that a saint, who in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do (again, wrong). Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly (totally wrong!)

 

[zaangalewa]

said that the Romans didn't invest in Hebrew culture....as in their social culture. I never said they didn't build shit. I should have been more clear. What I meant was that they didn't go out of their way to bring Judeo-Roman beliefs, education, etc to Palestine. Did they build what was necessary to support trade, to support the movements of armies, to support health and welfare? Well absolutely. That would have been one of the governors primary jobs. But they did not go in there and start trying to tell the Jews what to believe, what gods to pray to, and how to live their lives in general. They didn't care. (see how easy that was?)

Herod's Temple wasn't destroyed in 70 CE. Got it.

Ok hold on...I haven't even read the rest of your post yet, although I am looking forward to the entertainment value. The Temple was not destroyed in an effort to eradicate Judaism and establish paganism among the Jews. It was destroyed as a "**** you" to the Jews for rebelling. As I said...the Roman's didn't give a **** so long as the Jews paid their taxes and didn't start shit. Well guess what....they started shit, didn't they? And the Romans did what the Romans did best. They said "oh...you are going to get bitchy, well how do like THAT mother ******?"

Regardless that has nothing to do with your statement that Catholicism was the early form of Christianity.

How many times are you going to try and throw out distractions from your ridiculous statement?

The Romans had destroyed the temple under all circumstances. It was the biggest sanctuary of the world in those days. Everything what was greater than Rome caused fear in the Romans.

 

[zaangalewa]

People say this is a Christian nation. How many Americans are real Christians? ...

Let me say it this way: After a Catholic was president of the USA the USA landed on the moon. Per aspera ad astra. The moon is a little more direction heaven than to duck and cover.

I didn't say Catholic's were useless. I said some of their doctrine is not Biblical and is does not exemplify Christianity.

Why should Catholics be usefull?

 

[zaangalewa]

Calling Priests "Father" is unbiblical.

Catholics are taught to call their priest, "Father", as a religious title of respect. Christians in the first century never called their leaders, "father". This first happened hundreds of years later.

Does Jesus approve of calling the leaders of the church, "Father"? No!

(See Matthew 23:9 below)
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

Looks like when we wrote our part of the bible we forgot to read it. But on the other side: Do you like to say mother Mary is also not my mother? And what do you say to your father? Daddy? Biblically literally correct. You have my allowness to call your father "Daddy".

 

[Bonzi]

Calling Priests "Father" is unbiblical.

Catholics are taught to call their priest, "Father", as a religious title of respect. Christians in the first century never called their leaders, "father". This first happened hundreds of years later.

Does Jesus approve of calling the leaders of the church, "Father"? No!

(See Matthew 23:9 below)
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

Looks like when we wrote our part of the bible we forgot to read it. But on the other side: Do you like to say mother Mary is also not my mother? And what do you say to your father? Daddy? Biblically literally correct. You have my allowness to call your father "Daddy".

If you bother to read all of Matthew 23, taken in context, they are talking about Religious Leaders.

 

[Bonzi]

Also, turning arguments around (or twisting them) still doesn't defend the wrongness of your doctrine.

Defend your doctrine - if you have no defense, say nothing.

 

[zaangalewa]

Calling Priests "Father" is unbiblical.

Catholics are taught to call their priest, "Father", as a religious title of respect. Christians in the first century never called their leaders, "father". This first happened hundreds of years later.

Does Jesus approve of calling the leaders of the church, "Father"? No!

(See Matthew 23:9 below)
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

Looks like when we wrote our part of the bible we forgot to read it. But on the other side: Do you like to say mother Mary is also not my mother? And what do you say to your father? Daddy? Biblically literally correct. You have my allowness to call your father "Daddy".

If you bother to read all of Matthew 23, taken in context, they are talking about Religious Leaders.

In the moment I'm asking myselve why Emperor William Obama helps Sultan Osman Erdogan to fight against Kurds. In Germany the expression for such a behavior is: "Seid ihr von allen guten Geistern verlassen?" Short translation: "Are you crazy?"



Yesterday I was crying
as nobody saw me

I cried lonely
and I felt pain when I was
remembering my poor mother

Where is my heart?
where are my eyes?
They are already sad with me

Don't cry with me
my eyes cry
my heart suffers when I'm
remembering my parents

 

[zaangalewa]

Also, turning arguments around (or twisting them) still doesn't defend the wrongness of your doctrine.

Defend your doctrine - if you have no defense, say nothing.

Doctrine? What do you like to know, stranger?

 

[Ravi]

No one is praying to others. They are asking others to pray. Why do you keep lying about this?

Please explain why you would ask someone else to pray when you can pray yourself directly to God.

Same reason a fundie would.

I guess I should have clarified... The Bible says nothing about asking the dead to pray for you.
You can twist it all you want, but I know Catholics that DO pray to Mary. Ask for her protection.

I see lies pour right out of your mouth.

Catholics view Mary and the saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe (wrongly) that a saint, who in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do (again, wrong). Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly (totally wrong!)

That's not quite right, there is no guarantee that the prayer is more effective.

I don't particularly care if you think asking other to pray for you is stupid, but I do care when you lie and claim that Catholics are praying TO saints as if they were gods. That's an out and out lie that Catholics have had to deal with since your Protestant ancestors started lying about it centuries ago.

Have fun in hell.

 

[Meriweather]

Does Jesus approve of calling the leaders of the church, "Father"? No!

(See Matthew 23:9 below)
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven."

Read the entire passage. Jesus was pointing to some Scribes and Pharisees who were not looking to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood, but some were looking for followers of their own opinions (not God's teachings) and wished to be to be highly exalted by the people. Note that earlier in the passage Jesus is addressing those who sit in the Seat of Moses. Moses taught directly from God, as did Abraham, as did Jesus. Instead of doing this, these Pharisees, with their higher community status, and were making up their own interpretations/additions to the Law given to Moses, setting themselves (not God) as sole arbiters of the Law and calling themselves "Father" even when their teachings and commands were not God's.

Jesus, Peter, John, and Paul all referenced their followers as little children or sons. "Father" is a term of affection--but first it is the acknowledgement that this priest's teachings are not from himself, but from Christ. In 1 Corinthians 4:14-15 Paul defines that same, proper position: For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the Gospel.

Compare this to followers of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and others who gathered followers based on their own opinions instead of what Christ specifically taught. Quite rightfully so, they are not known as "father". You have been unsuccessful in arguing that Catholics should not call their clergy Father--but quite successful in your argument that non-Catholic Christian denominations should not be calling their own clergy "Father."

 

[Disir]

Ok hold on...I haven't even read the rest of your post yet, although I am looking forward to the entertainment value. The Temple was not destroyed in an effort to eradicate Judaism and establish paganism among the Jews. It was destroyed as a "**** you" to the Jews for rebelling. As I said...the Roman's didn't give a **** so long as the Jews paid their taxes and didn't start shit. Well guess what....they started shit, didn't they? And the Romans did what the Romans did best. They said "oh...you are going to get bitchy, well how do like THAT mother ******?"

I never claimed otherwise. You're making shit up. The point was: who had it built?

It's total revisionism and you are the one wearing rose (Catholic) colored glasses, not me. Constantine stripped some power from the pagans, but not all of it. He couldn't have. The western empire was still highly pagan. The empire was unstable. He had just gone through years of civil war and the years preceding that were also filled with civil war. There was a time shortly before that where there were like five civil wars in four years. The empire was on a tipping point. The western army was HIGHLY pagan. It was made up of pagan mercenaries from Gaul, Germiania, Britannica....you think Constantine could strip very much pagan power without inciting yet another civil war? You think he is going to be able to fill the west with Christian officials when it's under a pagan army? Hell, man read your history. When later emperors such as Theodosius tried that what happened? The pagan army killed them and revolted. You think Constantine could pull it off when the empire was even more unstable?

He dissolved the Praetorian Guard---they would just murder you. Of course it's unstable. Again. Coercion. The eastern empire is still highly pagan as well. These are political moves. No, it isn't revisionist. The man took out Maxentius and Licinius to become the sole emperor. This man removes threats (real and imaginary) to maintain his power. The man was paranoid and ruthless with good reason. He wasn't Christian and did not understand the beef.

Theodosius v Ambrose. Any time your ready.

Constantine issued coinage with pagan symbols (some Christian as well), he continued to worship Sol Invictus and Mars. He claimed to have had a vision of Apollo...all after legitimizing Christianity. (Harl, Kenneth [2011] The Fall of the Pagans: The Origins of Medieval Christianity, pg. 130-132). "A rampage" my ass. He played it cool and careful. He could not afford to piss off the pagans too much or he would be facing a nightmare of a war. Now if you want to talk about a guy who went on a rampage...talk about Justinian, not Constantine.

He didn't continue to worship anything. He was hotheaded and removed anything perceived as a threat. As I said before, eunuchs were very much trusted in the court by any given ruler due to the illegitimate child factor. Further, they were not bogged down with sexual thoughts and considered to be closer to the divine. Because they had the ears of rulers and their wives they were suspect. Some of them were very crafty. And why not? Rampage takes out target group.

If I want to discuss full blown rampage then I will discuss a woman and prior to Justinian.

Most scholars don't believe John wrote anything in the New Testament. Read up on what is known as "pseudepigraphy" and learn about how the later Church decided on what books were considered authoritative. One was that it had to be apostolic. The Gospel of John and Revelation were almost certainly not written by John, son of Zebedee and the epistles of John almost certainly were not either. But to get them accepted as scripture, the Church decided they were anyhow even though some of them don't even claim to be.

You know you tell people to read history books and not the Bible and once again you don't even know that? Jesus H. Christ!

It's pseudography when it serves your purpose. Newsflash: It's all pseudography and already pointed out in post 111 via the time line. All of the writings occur long after the fact. You don't have anything. No historical JC. None of this happened. It's even more funny to listen to people say anything that starts out with "Jesus said". You're caught between your beliefs and the actual history.This we saw from your attempts to disengage from Greek philosophical thought. From here on out we are going to dance between your attempting to hold on to this isolation and it really, really happened according to this (or that) pseudographical text and actual facts. We can watch you bounce between oral tradition (where you can run and hide) and actual fact.

Hell, I'll even try to pretend that you completely ignored Hezer stating that to make the categorical distinction between literate city dweller and illiterate villager is wrong. I completely understand that's your MO. Appeal to your own authority, twist shit and lie and act like an all around douche bag.

 

[Meriweather]

Well again, if we define the "earliest form of Christianity" as that which was taught by the first Christians (which seems reasonable) and we define a "Christian" as someone who believes that Jesus was the Messiah and believes in the physical resurrection of Jesus, then the first Christians were Mary Magdalene (in fact according to certain gospels she may have been the very first Christian), the disciples and their group of followers. Thus, what they taught would by definition be the earliest form of Christianity.

Who practices that today? Pfft...no one in its entirety. The Evangelicals certainly maintain the apocalyptic elements as do Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, etc. But what the disciples taught would have been really Jewish not the ultra-conservative Christian viewpoints of the Evangelicals. I don't think any religion today practices the earliest form of Christianity.

I do think Catholicism can be rightfully called first. Here is why.

Several universities, Harvard, among them, claim to the the first in the United States. Would you argue that none of them are first because higher learning today is not the same as higher learning back then? No one doubts that both Church and University evolved, but there was a first.

The foundation of Jesus' teachings, what the early Church spread, and what the Catholic Church still proclaims is, "Repentance for the forgiveness of sins", "Love one another," and "Life everlasting", not "End Times" was the basis of Christianity. Sure, many Christians believed they were living in end times, but that was merely the time period in which the new faith was being taught, not its central teachings.

All Christian Churches today have this in their history, their ancestry. But the Catholic Church stuck with the original teachings while others broke off to pursue what they considered (1500 years later) to be true Biblical teachings. Yes, I know my bias is showing , but some (certainly not all) non-Catholic denominations came up with some very odd interpretations of scripture. I do understand and respect those who sincerely believe they were returning to and are closer to Christian roots.

 

[Disir]

Worshipping idols, icons and images violates the 2nd commandment.
- Catholics regularly bow down to idols, icons and images of Jesus, Mary and the apostles, kissing the feet of the statues and praying to them. The Bible teaches that WE ONLY PRAY TO DEITY and Christians considers it paganism and polytheism to pray to anyone EXCEPT the Father, Son or Holy Spirit. So while Catholics pray to Mary, they fail to comprehend that only deity is to be prayed to. The Bible clearly teaches that all dead humans, though conscious in the spirit world, are unable to know anything, much less hear prayers addressed to them. Bowing down to icons and kissing them etc. so closely resembles idol worship it is actually shocking that any Roman Catholic would attempt to defend the practice.

Bonzi? Technically all Christians break the second commandment which is: You shall have no other gods before Me.

The triune god is one god - like three directions are one space. And mother Mary is mother Mary. We love Mother Mary - everyone loves mother Mary. Neverthelels Mohammed - who was himselve one of the greatest admirer of mother Mary - was right when he said something like "Who believes in the triune god - God father, Jesus Christ and mother Mary - is not a Christian", because indeed the holy family is Joseph, Mary and Jesus and the triune god is god father, god son and the holy spirit.

I understand the justification. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

You understood my explanation - maybe. And what you justify or not is for me personally completly unimportant.

I understood your explanation. Your response was entirely unimportant. It is fantastic that one person from one sect castigates another as breaking a commandment when in reality...........it's all breaking the second commandment.