Catholic accounting of its plunder...

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by jimraboin, Jan 1, 2004.

  1. jimraboin

    jimraboin
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    The Catholic institution is no more reliable than the Nazi's are. Look. If the Nazis accurately give an account of what they stole, how does that make them less of a thief? Catholic's need to deal with Catholic credibility here.

    Second, whether Catholicism adds its voice to echo Scriptures or not does not change the fact that it is a false teacher. Even the devil quotes Scriptures. Yet this activity cannot change the fact he is a liar and a cheat.
    My logic is both sound and reasonable. Either refute my error by showing Catholicism's credibility or accept the fact that you have called evil "good".

    Why must we accept everything Catholic institution says simply because it can read what it took by force? If a thief steals your wallet, are his motives honorable and true by virtue he can accurately read the driver's license he took?

    Telling it like it is.

    Jim

    Keep pushing...Don't stop thinking.
    May you be strengthened in your faith.
    May your hope in Him be rock solid.
    May your love for the brothers be unyielding.
     
  2. MikeS

    MikeS
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    0
    First day of the new year and already we have Catholics and Nazis in the same sentence. See how those Christians love one another!

    BTW, anybody have a count of how much Catholic church property was stolen from the Church? Gee, maybe I should call somebody a Nazi. Nah, I was raised better than that.

    Yeah, that's what they all say.
     
  3. GraceSaves

    GraceSaves
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2002
    Messages:
    2,631
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are convinced in your own mind that Catholocism is wrong, so much so that you compare it to both the Nazi party and the devil.

    You don't encourage thinking; you encourage thinking like you do. No thanks, I don't participate in uncivil discourse. Good day.
     
  4. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jimraboin is no more reliable than the Nazi's were. Look. If jimraboin accurately gives an account of what he stole, how does that make him less of a thief? Jim need to deal with jimraboin's credibility here.

    Second, whether jimraboin adds his voice to echo Scriptures or not does not change the fact that Jim is a false teacher. Even the devil quotes Scriptures. Yet this activity cannot change the fact he is a liar and a cheat.
    My logic is both sound and reasonable. Either refute my error by showing jimraboin's credibility or accept the fact that you have called evil "good".

    Why must we accept everything jimraboin says simply because he can read what he took by force? If a thief steals your wallet, are his motives honorable and true by virtue he can accurately read the driver's license he took?

    Pointing out the absurdity of the first post of this thread,

    Carson
     
  5. Lorelei

    Lorelei
    Expand Collapse
    <img src ="http://www.amacominc.com/~lorelei/mgsm.

    Joined:
    May 25, 2001
    Messages:
    2,045
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not that I am agreeing with the method for which this thread was started, but it's a denial of history to think the two have nothing in common.

    Since Hitler was catholic and many leaders in the catholic church supported and were members of the Nazi party it can't be said that using both terms in the same sentence is automatically un-christian.

    Catholics have a strong history of anti-semitism and the first Jewish ghettos were started by them, not Hitler. Long before we heard of this man Hitler, the Catholic church required that Jews live in ghettos, wear identifying marks, were forbidden to intermarry etc.

    Let's not also forget those who were murdered in their own holy land by the catholic church who tried to claim it for their own. These are only a few instances of the many crimes that were commited against the Jewish race by the catholic church.

    Don't be so convinced in your own mind that you are right that you excuse such behavior as "christian." Surely this was not Christ-like in any way shape or form.
    .

    ~Lorelei
     
  6. LaRae

    LaRae
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Not that I am agreeing with the method for which this thread was started, but it's a denial of history to think the two have nothing in common.

    Since Hitler was catholic and many leaders in the catholic church supported and were members of the Nazi party it can't be said that using both terms in the same sentence is automatically un-christian.

    Catholics have a strong history of anti-semitism and the first Jewish ghettos were started by them, not Hitler. Long before we heard of this man Hitler, the Catholic church required that Jews live in ghettos, wear identifying marks, were forbidden to intermarry etc.

    Let's not also forget those who were murdered in their own holy land by the catholic church who tried to claim it for their own. These are only a few instances of the many crimes that were commited against the Jewish race by the catholic church.

    Don't be so convinced in your own mind that you are right that you excuse such behavior as "christian." Surely this was not Christ-like in any way shape or form.
    .

    ~Lorelei
    </font>[/QUOTE]Please study better history. Hitler wasn't any more Catholic than Ghandi was. He was baptized Catholic as a child and spent his early years as a Catholic but past that....he left the Church.

    There weren't just Catholics supporting the Nazi party....you seem to overlook this.

    Perhaps we should now condem all Baptists because the guy who started the KKK was Baptist and so were many of his followers. Considering the stance that many Baptist Churches have taken about people of color....then I'd say you need to be telling the Baptists they better convert to something else.


    LaRae
     
  7. MikeS

    MikeS
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    873
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not that I am agreeing with the method for which this thread was started, but it's a denial of history to think the two have nothing in common.
    </font>[/QUOTE]What they have in common is the fallen nature of man. No more.

    Ask the hundreds of thousands of Jews saved from the Nazis by Catholics and the Catholic Church how much the Catholic Church and the Nazis had in common.
     
  8. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ask the hundreds of thousands of Jews saved from the Nazis by Catholics and the Catholic Church how much the Catholic Church and the Nazis had in common.

    Also ask the chief Rabbi of Rome (i.e., Rabbi Zolli) at the time who, after the War, converted to Catholicism and took - for his baptismal name - the baptismal name of Pope Pius XII: Eugenio:

    http://www.secondexodus.com/html/more/zolli.htm
     
  9. jimraboin

    jimraboin
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Why is Catholic institution legitimate? Surely not because you say so? Come on...throw me a bone. What makes Catholicism legitimate and why?

    Jim
     
  10. jimraboin

    jimraboin
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    1. Catholic claim that she was founded by Christ?

    Catholic support is:Mt. 16:18-19

    This verse reads:

    Without getting into the Petros/Petra discussion, Jesus doesn't say one thing about a succession via election to replace Peter having its headquaters at Rome. This cannot be your conclusive "proof"? It is far from that. In order for me to accept your position, you will need to show me where Jesus or Peter, in clear terms, ordered a succession built upon Peter especially where Peter himself transfers the capitol to Rome. Please supply this information and I will gladly concede.

    Further support to above claim- It was Irenaeus that first used the "catholic" in reference to Christ's Church

    Catholic Encyclopedia says:
    Problem. Eusebius is the "father" of all Catholic history. And he worked for Rome's Emeperor Constantine who can be shown very easily to have poor motives against the Way from Israel. We are forced to trust Constantine or his contemporaries. All roads for Catholicism lead to them. So if you choose to build upon Irenaeus, you need to then prove Eusebius and Constantine were above reproach and honorable men...instruments of God. When you do, I will concede.

    Further support to above claim- for further Biblical evidence see Acts 14:23 and 20:28; Ephesians 5.

    What is Catholicism advocating here? That any group who "appoints elders" is of God? Come now. Paul also said this:

    Is this the "order" Catholic institution follows? If not, then merely picking and choosing Scriptures is no viable support for you. But if you can show me how each Catholic gathering follows this order, then I will concede to Catholic view.

    Jim
     
  11. jimraboin

    jimraboin
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Catholic claim 2...Christ is the head of the Body

    Catholic Scriptural support:

    Stating Christ is the head of the Body in no way proves Catholic claims of itself. Catholicism is simply reading the driver's license that was stolen. In fact, Christ was head of Jerusalem's Council which allowed Jews to observe Jewish Sabbaths, feasts and festivals. Now Catholicism wants me to believe Christ changed his mind by correcting what that Council allowed by instituting Rome's Catholicism.

    Catholic position now grows harder to defend. It must now prove why Jesus would institute his Jewish Body only to reject it later? And do all this without compromising his unchanging nature. If you can do all this, I will concede.

    Jim
     
  12. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I am not supporting Catholicism or any other church, but everyone has egg on their face. Enough to go around for everyone.

    If one wants to see what a church looks like just read the book of James and the letters to the Corinthians. There are those who are a snake in the grass and those who are very godly people trying to live for all that God wants them to. Some of course are misguided and are doing what they believe is right even though it is wrong. George Barna reported just a few years ago that the divorce rate was higher among those who attend church than those in the world. If someone read that they would conclude that the chruch is counter productive.

    As a child I grew up in the Catholic Church and saw plenty wrong. But having been an SBC pastor I have I am still appalled at what I saw at times. I have seen men and women more controlled by the world than God.

    If you look up the stats of the Baptist and Catholic Churches. I know these are older stats but I have not looked up any new ones lately. But from 1980-88 the RCC and SBC grew exactly the same nine percent. While the population growth was eight per cent. (A History of Christianity in the US and Canada by Mark. Noll page 465). That's pretty close to paganism if you ask me. An increase of one percent. Who's doing evangelism to make only a one percent gain over the population growth? Sounds like just a handful. When I was in an SBC seminary they told us that only ten percent of the people in SBC churches even witness on a regular basis and only eleven percent. But most of the people never lead anyone to Christ. How's that for evangelicalism. How many of those who lead someone to Christ are troublemakers in our churches? I don't know of any. They are too busy and are concerned about the welfare of the non-believer to be concerned with the color of the social order or the color of the carpet at the church. They leave that up to the committee. A committee is a race horse led by a camel.
     
  13. jimraboin

    jimraboin
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Exactly my point! All denominations have as their foundation Catholicism. And all therefore do what it does...stray from the truth.

    Division comes from our loyalties to our religious groups. We were never commanded to have this. No. Rather, we were commanded to love one another no matter where we come from.

    Jim
     
  14. jimraboin

    jimraboin
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Catholic claim 3... that she is the pillar and foundation of truth?

    Catholic support to this claim is:

    2nd claim - 1 Tim 3:15

    Now this verse says:

    Again, what Catholicism has yet to establish is that Catholicism is God's household. At the time Paul wrote these words, God's household was primarily Jewish outwardly and inwardly. Catholicism rejects what they did and who they were. If Catholicism is identical to the Way Jesus founded in Israel, it would be doing what Jerusalem's Council did. Again, this fact is troublesome for Catholic case.

    Jim
     
  15. jimraboin

    jimraboin
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Catholic claim 4... that she has Authority?

    Catholic support of that claim is:
    3rd claim - Mt. 28:18-20; Mt 16:18-19; Mt 18:18-20; Jn 20:22-23

    These verses say:

    None of these verses tells me that Rome's ideas about itself are true. Again, Catholicism is reading the material that it stole but has not shown how Catholicism is what it claims to be. At least not with these Scriptures. Paul also warned that ravenous wolves would follow him and not spare the sheep. Guess what? That exactly describes how Rome perged all things Jewish from the faith.
    Show me why I must accept Catholic understanding of these verses.

    Jim
     
  16. jimraboin

    jimraboin
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Catholic claim 5...Peter is chief steward in David's house.

    Catholic scriptural support Isaiah 22.

    No mention of Jesus telling Peter to set up a succession via election. Just for Peter to feed. How do you see a succession? Ultimately your postion trusts what Eusebius and Constantine invented though you probably are not aware of this fact.

    In Revelations, Jesus claims to have the keys that open and close. A clear fulfillment to Isaiah 22.

    Third, Jesus is the faithful steward who is working for Israel's King...that would be HaShem...the L-rd Almighty.

    So again, why must I accept Catholic opinion of itself when Catholic interpretation is far less reasonable than the whole of Scriptures outlines? Simple. Catholicism doesn't trust Scriptures but the voice of Eusebius and Constantine. All roads lead to them.

    In fact, Isaiah 22 is a good Scripture to use that would destroy Catholic idea of succession through election. For it says only one man will be the new steward. Peter died. So it cannot be him. Therefore, Jesus has to be the only true reference this passage is talking about. Which proves my point. Catholicism does not build upon Jesus. No. It rejects him and replaces him with another. Which would explain a great many things.

    Jim
     
  17. Charles33

    Charles33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    0
    Alright Jim,

    All these things you are asking are threads in and of themselves, and ones that will get sidetracked with lot of bickering etc. In other words, they are never going to get coverd here is this one thread.

    You seem like you have been doing some reading. I have a real question to ask you about all this stuff you are throwing out for everybody here. How much of the early christian patristic texts have you actually read from? I am not talking history books, or Eusebius, or William Carrol or Justo Gonzalez. I am asking if you have read pre-Nicean workds by some fairly early christians say, 2nd century?

    These subjects would require fantasitc study to really get a grip on the situations and documents you are talking about. You would have to understand social and historical contexts of both political and philisophical understandings of each period you chose to study to do yourself scholarly justice.

    Other than that, we can all go out and grab some old document, accusations, whatever and iterpret them anyway we see that supports our positions. You should know that is easy enough to do. There are two sides to all of this. What the real issue at the end of the day is, after looking closely at these things in context, and listening to both sides rant, you have to come to grips with what you really believe about what you have seen.

    And like with a glass of muddy water, only time can produce clarity with all of these things in your inner concience. Ah, and your inner concience is the one thing you cannot appease by twisting some Scriptures or events to support your story. We can all do that quite well.

    2000 years of ANY history, not just Catholic, cannot be understood or explained with knee-jerk answers. Even when they are right on, they are not believeable to many people in a time and culture removed from the ancient timelines. I am just saying, a thread cannot possibly alleviate your concerns.

    I mean, look at these die hards on this forum. I think we chatter to represent our version of truth so those on the fences get the benefit of quitely observing the details, and doing their own study. You certainly cannot believe that we Catholics here are going to convince a DHK or BobRyan or Yelsew to the RCC do you? Or that they believe they will eventually come on over. Hey, who knows? But really, we all like representing our sides (the real truth), and we all feel better about it once it is off our chests.
     
  18. Charles33

    Charles33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2001
    Messages:
    437
    Likes Received:
    0
    See, here is an example. Simple question, but then you try to answer your own question with your bias. And then you insult your own answer presupossing we all would answer in your manner, which I wouldn't. Then, you insult us immediatly stating we would probably not know these never before mentioned things or accusations. Like, lets see, never heard of Eusebius or how Constantine invented the Catholic Church before. :rolleyes: See how some of these poor souls may smell a rat and not think you sincere?
    Hey, I was raised on Jack Chick and Alberto magazines.

    You say 'ultimately' - so that we get the impression that no matter what we beleive it is 'ultimately' attributed to Eusebius or Constantine. And whatever we may find, will have been 'invented'. So you see then how you are setting up a rather bad and negative tone to a possibly sincere inquiry.

    You get no good takers like this...
     
  19. JustAsIAm

    JustAsIAm
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Messages:
    203
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm new on this board and have spent most of my time reading rather than posting, but I need to put my 2 cents in here.

    It saddens me beyond words that "Christians" are attacking one another so frequently here. I don't think anyone who was unsaved would come into a discussion like this and want to be a Baptist or a Catholic.

    Isn't it the Great Commission to go out and make disciples of all nations? Maybe if we were more concerned about only that, rather than ripping apart one another's church, we'd create converts rather than create ridicule towards all Christians. Didn't Christ say that people would know we are Christians by our love of one another?
     
  20. jimraboin

    jimraboin
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Charlie,

    You sound like a reasonable man. But if you were a Sadducee in Jesus' day you would hear exactly this tone and intensity from him. Catholicism is not what it says it is. If you want me to move to the middle, push me over there with hard, sound and logical rebuttals to my position.

    As for my knowledge of the subject matter, well, give me a rebuttal and see how much more of my own personal study material I can bring to the table.

    Jim
     

Share This Page

Loading...