Featured Does the RCC have An Inferior View On the Bible?

Moriah, stop posturing. I've not called anyone a name yet.

If you feel like having a name put to your behavior is name calling, then the answer is stop the behavior and the name will no longer apply.

A person who murders, is a murderer. That's not name calling.

 

You just cannot stop yourself.

Try not posting anything unless it is about the Bible and beliefs about God.

I am not the topic.

 

Moriah, you are being very dishonest. I've yet to get personal to you, but you have with me from the get go. By calling you on it, you then get mad and try to say I'm the one being personal. So back the heck off, and we can not address each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Catalyst
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catalyst
Really? you want the Bible to show egg and sperm uniting makes a baby or else it's off the table? FINE show me you exist in the bible or I'll stop talking to you.

MORIAH>>>
Are you trying to be deceitful? I said show me from the Bible where it says to stop sperm and egg from meeting is murder.You said it was murder. Prove it from the scriptures or stop saying it.
This is a debate group on doctrine, not on what you think of me.
__________

BTW, accusing me of making a personal comment here about what I think of you, was out of line and dishonest. If I can find a way to ignore your posts so I won't be tempted, I am going to do that. But you are a little high strung and presume omniscience too much to talk with. You have only shown me that you can talk TO.

MORIAH>>>>Just stop it with the personal attacks.

The Catholic religion is an apostate religion. I have proven it easily with by the Word of God.

As for birth control, Catholic DO believe that any form of birth control is wrong, so stop trying to act as if you do not know what I am talking about, stop trying to act innocent.
-------------------------------------
You asked me a question, I answered.
You accused me of being deceitful and ignored that I had answered.
I called you on it, you said stop with personal attacks.
That was after you personally attacked me and I tried to get you to back off.

now back off.

 

And just what is the source of that "article?"

WM

 

Hmmm... And where exactly does that come from?

WM

 

and you still have all your body parts? Your claim was that I stopped sin so that you didn't have to cut of body parts yet here we see that wait. You may still sin and still haven't cut of body parts involved in your sin. Therefore you don't take Jesus at his word or as I do understand it as hyperbole.

Thats great. Yet you still sin occasionally and have a whole body. So it seems you accept one teaching of the bible and disregard another.

 

Did you notice his link - http://www.jesus-is-lord.com? Those people hate just about everybody. They also posted a supposed recording of screams from hell that an oil drilling expedition recorded. Really reliable!

WM

 

ME>Ok, so God declared man and woman to procreate, right? That's the claim made in any gay discussion.
YOU>Your rationalizations here are not even making sense.
First, the Scripture you are referring to has nothing to do with this subject, though it is often wrongly referred to as such.
Second, bringing gays into this discussion is simply a red herring.
Third, you haven't established any context whatsoever.

ME>> it's called analogy. If water is wet in New Hampshire, it's still wet in Texas.
You said bring gays was a red herring. I didn't. I brought the fact that GAYS are declared wrong because sex is man and woman to procreate.
SO If a birth control effort, such as a condom, causes the procreation to stop, then to conclude that is a sin, isn't that far of a stretch. That was the issue with the man spilling seed on the ground. HE was told to go and procreate. Sex is for procreation. Condoms prevent procreation. If you find that a red herring, when it's a DIRECT answer to your questions, we really have nothing more to talk about, we think entirely differently.
--------------------
ME>>>And I'm not defending their position. I disagree on it. But the point is, they got there honestly.

YOU>>>If ignorance is bliss, then how is that called "honesty." If the repudiation of scientific advancements is honesty, what has happened to integrity? The "honest" conclusion is, that according to the RCC, we should still be living in the Dark Ages.

ME>>Ignorance may be bliss, I see a lot of blissful people on these boards, but you just challenged them all as dishonest, against scientific claims?

YOU>>And you think it is wrong for peoples' beliefs to be challenged?? This is a debate board.

NO, I think it's wrong to challenge them because they are RCC assuming they are wrong. More conservative/fundamental pastors are anti science than the RCC is. But you grouped it as the RCC's issue. Seems rather selective. You also called them ignorant. That wasn't very nice, but I understand, the word should be taken literally and I think you meant it that way. But, the point wasn't on who was right or wrong. The point was their belief had scriptural and logical support.

You evaded that by beating the strawman on challenging people on a debate board is a good thing. I'm all about the challenge. But I won't condemn someone because they are RCC or MORMON, or FUNDAMENTAL BAPTIST, or BLACK, BROWN, YELLER, PINK like me. I find that as something that is a line I shouldn't cross.

The point isn't not to challenge RCC the point is you ignored that they had reasoning for where they were. You then presumed them wrong because their reasoning isn't your reasoning. So I challenged you and you responded by your challenge to them, because I challenged you. It's duplicitous inside and out.
-------------------------------
YOU>>>What do you mean by "worse"? Please clarify.
Jesus said: "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees."
By that he meant "doctrine." The RCC has leaven, poisonous doctrine that direct people to Hell. (judgement is the province of God.)

ME>>>> explained above. As for the leaven of the pharisees. Scripture says Xian maturity comes through works. RCC is condemned for encouraging works. EPH 4 says the Church's purpose is to lead the people to works. PROTESTANT churches teach theology. Protestant churches usually put more credibility on what you know, rather than how you work for God. Scripture contradicts protestant and supports Catholic in each of those moves. The Catholic Church matches the description in Eph 4 and in the pastoral letters of a church MUCH closer than any protestant church does, well, I guess lutheran, anglican, e.o. etcc are protestant.... so that may not be real accurate, but you get the idea. Clement's letter to Corinth described the Church as it was supposed to run, it matches the Church of Rome's methodology to a T. So if you want early witness to how it was ran, there you have it. You have canonical and historical support that Protestants are worse off than RCC in many fronts.

Specifically we were discussing science and that is answered above. ICR.ORG a YOUNG EARTH creationist website has no RCC members that I'm aware of. All are from the bible belt. The Church of Rome wouldn't associate with them, because they do not agree with ICR's position.
Rome falls more in line with science than their contingent of people do.
-----
YOU>>Baptists believe in soul liberty--the right to believe what one believes the Scripture to teach as true.

And look at the fruit of that. You have more divisions and factions of Baptist denominations than you can find heresies in the RCC. Each faction and division occured as a work of the FLESH not the SPIRIT, before you respond read gal 5:19-21. It's pretty hard to claim to have the spiritual high ground on Church type, when you are against the Eph 4, and pastoral letter models, against the historical proof of the early church's establishment, founded on fleshly decisions, factions, dissensions. So I think the smug treatment RCC gets on the boards is not only non biblical, but all personal, and borderline bigoted. It's also not spiritual but fleshly by Paul's direct words.
Perhaps that plank in the eye verse should play a roll here.
Or that two men eating meat story, they weren't to challenge each other on their faith... for one it was a sin for the other it wasn't. How could they judge the other.
------

YOU>The RCC abhors that doctrine and killed those who believed in it. You either believe the RCC doctrine or were murdered.

ME>>>Sounds a lot like calvinism to me. :| While I don't support Rome's moves back there, I also did the research and found that all the numbers I was told growing up in my SBC youth were HIGHLY INFLATED and not based on sound researched. The very fact they are exaggerated so much to try to demonize the RCC says a lot of the heart behind the attacks. WHICH would not refer to you, but those that put those inflated numbers in people's heads to start with.
-----
YOU>>>Ask the Reformers; they will tell you. Read Baptist history. True Christians were burned at the stake for not believing RCC doctrine.

ME>> ask Paul, causing dissension and factions is of the flesh. That was a protestant result, not RCC. Luther probably should have died a martyr and kept the Church together causing change. That's such a bad idea, it built the church to start with.
-----

YOU>>Soul liberty was one doctrine that Baptists fought for more than any other religion--tolerance for others to believe what they thought to be true.
ME>>> and the result of it is more and more and more factions. MORE and MORE and MORE different man reasoned conclusions of what the Bible says. If the SPIRIT was involved in it at all, they would have UNITY, not more and more and more separation.

Man, the RCC friends I usually argue with, would be buying me lunch by now.... IF they weren't stunned too much to move.
-----
YOU>>>That is one reason why we don't go "shoving our beliefs down someone else's throat," so to speak. It is a private matter. To speak loudly and vocally against abortion and murder is one thing, but simple birth control; that is a private matter governed by Biblical principles.

ME>>> where the bible's position on abortion would be to respect the authorities and their laws, they are GOD appointed. Which seems pretty selective of scripture to me. It appears we all have a propensity to choose the scriptures that back up our thoughts, rather than digest it entirely to figure out HIS thoughts, eh? And most Baptists I know, granted I'm in TX, will be quiet on theology, until it's on the table, then they can't help themselves to tell everyone how wrong they are. And I've visited with some pretty well known, very conservative pastors.

But, I have to ask, in places like here, in my experience, the RCC will post something, and it's ok to call them names, denigrate them, etc... because they are assumed wrong before they open their mouth. Do you think here is any different than those places? I've not been here long enough to see, but I see a lot of the same behavior.

-----------------------
YOU>>>It is good that the RCC is vocal against abortion. Many evangelicals are with them on that, especially with a looming election. The Bible is silent on whether or not to use birth control. Here are some principles:

ME>>>The sabbath isn't silent about confessions, yet baptists generally hold that as a horrid thing. HOWEVER that is irrelevant, I really don't care to get into a tit for tat discussion, talley marks don't determine a relationship with Christ. So, why don't we re reference your response to what you posted it regarding, and try to give me a comment that dealt with my objection..../observation....
It was....
They certainly honor the two men vs meat scripture, about not giving the other one a hard time for their faith. The only RCC folks I EVER see raising issues do it for one of two reasons, they want you to understand their faith, they are tired of being, or hearing of their friends being attacked by evangelical fundamentalists. So, I find your response to be more justification for abuse, than substantial to the convo.<<<<<
Which dealt with how they much more rarely are talking about baptists, than baptists are about them. They are more in line biblically there in ALL of my experiences.
-------------------------

 

ME>>>Many have their beliefs and want to keep them private, but for that person to go to a public debate forum to keep them private, I must admit, confuses me to no end, and I write Fantasy stories for kicks.

YOU>>>It is my sincere belief that many of the RCC may give lip service to birth control, but they actually use it in spite of what their church teaches. That is my opinion, unproveable of course.

ME>>> Well, we can agree on that at least. But, your comment has abandoned the topic. I'm not sure if it's on purpose, instinctual, or pure accident, but you never addressed the original thoughts to this leg of the chat. I'm too lazy to go pull it all to post it like I did above.
-------------------------


ME>>Not adult fantasy, Lord of the Rings type fantasy. But Dark lords and magic rings make more sense than going to a public debate forum to keep your beliefs private...

YOU>>It does make more sense, but the RCC makes this a big issue.

And, at this point, my original objection has been totally abandoned. Same thought as above, too lazy to pull it up. IT's not the RCC in here making the noise, it's people making noise about the RCC.

MY comment you responded, "come to a public debate form for?" I challenged in a way that really made your answer look as evasive and subversive as it was. I tried to pull it back in line, I'm done with it.
-------------
ME>>>Quote:
What was avoided is, the challenging them on their faith is not justifiable for a Xian. The 2 men eating meat is one very clear verse on the topic. Another is Paul in Gal 5:6 saying theology isn't important but faith WORKING (yes, works) through love is.

YOU>>>Every aspect of one's faith is challenged here. That is the nature of this forum.

ME>>>> So, ummm, you are breaking scripture, to challenge them on keeping scripture? I get it. :/ There is a difference in challenging someone's faith, and condemning them because they are RCC. Attacking the arguments behind a person's beliefs is different than attacking them because they are RCC and grouping whatever you've been taught they believe together and hold every RCC member to it. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I see going on, and it's not right. HOWEVER, the original comment, as yet unrefuted is, they are more biblically in line than any of us protestants are.
-----------------

ME And Paul was referencing a much larger theological issue than what we are here. The circumcision/law group. But he said, that didn't matter, but accomplishments do.

YOU>>If Acts 15 is what you are referring to, or the Book of Galatians, then it was a very big issue. Those were Judaizers who believed that circumcision and the law were required for salvation. In the truest sense of the word they were legalists. It did matter.

Galatians. Where he wished they mangled their junk in a circumcision. He was somewhat voiciferous on the topic. YET HE SAID THEOLOGY isn't important, but faith working through love is. You avoided the point. So, with Paul in mind here, we should be arguing over who is doing the most Godly works of love through faith, and how to get them done, rather than theology. In Paul's theology, there were a small group appointed to teach, the rest were worker bees. The PROTESTANT/BAPTIST theology is each person is led by the Spirit and knows the truth. Which doesn't explain how there are 8.5 billion denominations and only 4.25 billion baptists/protestants. (Excuse my hyperbole)
Again, though, the RCC is closer to the Bible than we are.
-----------------------

YOU>>>"Love" means nothing without proper doctrine. Hindus can love. But their love for their gods; their literal sacrifice of their children to their idols is wrong. It is a misplaced love. If the doctrine is wrong the love is wrong. Mother Theresa, with all of her "love" probably wasn't saved, and directed more people to hell than to heaven.
Her quote:
"If you are a good Muslim, then be a good Muslim; if you are a good Hindu then be a good Hindu; if you are a good Catholic then be a good Catholic."
--That is a lie from hell, and it is not Christianity.
ME>>>> nice non sequitur. The point is, if you don't have the love right, you are hell bound, not heaven bound. That is the point you danced eloquently around. ***
The point is, we aren't supposed to be arguing theology for God, but agapao His people, in the church and even enemies outside of it. And if we don't have that agapao rught, we miss the cut to heaven, no matter how many altar calls we make, or baptisms we have. 1 j 4:16-18.
-----------------------
YOU>>>"Love" means nothing without proper doctrine.

ME>>> proper doctrine, matt 5:48 Christ commands you to love as completely as God the fathe does, not less, but as much. In John 17 he prays we will be in Him and the father, as JESUS was in the father. In Ephesians 4 it's written that we are to become as spiritually mature as CHRIST was on earth, while we live on earth. ALL OF THAT is listed here to support, Jesus didn't give red herrings, He gave a command.

Gal 5:6 theology .... but faith working through love.
The very word agapao, must have works with it, for it to even be agapao, thus you can't love your neighbor without the works.

Matt 25 last parable, the sheep doing the works, "acts of love through faith" were the ones that got the reward, not the goats, although both knew the Shepherd.

James, if you have faith, you have works.
If you don't have faith, you don't have works.
So if you don't have works, and no faith, then you can't have grace, because grace comes through faith.

1 john 4:16-18 says point blank, if you don't have the love, he's not in you and you aren't in him. So, with all of that being BIBLE, which we all purport to believe as written, with no editing, rather than arguing with catholics about their theological beliefs, as the men with meat were warned not to do, you should be getting WITH them on the works that they are doing, because they do much more than protestants, according to scripture they have a much better chance at spiritual maturity than protestants/baptists.
------------------------
ME>>>Lastly, I would prefer that the Church members that most closely represent my faith, not feel catholic bashing is a thing they do for God, and learn some things from them. They are much more biblical on things in some areas than we are. Not to say they are right, but they can make a strong biblical case for why they do what they do.

YOU>>>It was Jude who said "Contend for the faith."

ME>>> then do it within the confines of all the bible, don't just apply it when convenient. Two men eating meat. Your response is basically, JUDE SAID CONTEND FOR THE FAITH, so I don't have to pay heed to the two men eating meat. That's garbage.

Your reconciliation should be something in line with both.
----------------------
YOU>>>
Every NT writer warned of false teachers, false prophets, and false doctrine. We need to do that as well. <<<<
ME>>>> That's why I'm stepping into the unfair Cat'lik bashing. especially when they are more biblically in line than we are on many of these topics. You are to also look for false teachers within your social circle, not just isolate groups to attack.

YOU>>>This board is not an advertisement board for RCC doctrine. When it is posted it ought to be condemned as heresy, for it is.

ME>>> nope, it's not an advertisment for unbiblical bashing either, but if you want to talk about what is being advertised, it's a heresy to attack them in such ways. So, matt 18 says I should speak out. As does Jude in the verse you posted above.
------------------------

YOU>>>
If someone slandered my family then be sure I would stand up and condemn the one slandering me and my family. My family is the family of God. The RCC does not belong to that family.

ME>>>
If someone slandered my family then be sure I would stand up and condemn the one slandering me and my family. My family is the family of God. The RCC does not belong to that family.
<<<

aww hell, I thought GOD did all the judging. I didn't realize GOD was a sysop on this forum. The man who couldn't eat meat because it was a sin, couldn't judge the other man who could eat meat and NOT be in sin. WHY? The one had a different, MORE, faith. The one with more faith, had different standards for sin than the one with less faith. How would you know which one you are, and why would you judge RCC against scripture. WHY would you call them heretics? That's not a biblical concept. It's a man made word. It serves ONLY one purpose.

To avoid the arguments, and make them lower than you by using a name rather than discussion. That's called ad hominem. There are several points above that you just flat out danced around and avoided, so you could conclude as you did.

I'll call you on it. Right here, publically, you aren't scriptural on this. WHICH, there are things I'm shown I'm not scriptural on often enough. So, I'm not putting you down here, I'm making a point, and trusting we are all adult enough to face blunt comments.

Now, if the responses dance the issues like the last post, we need not go further. If you'd care to engage in the points themselves, I'd enjoy the discussion.

 

The meaning of the word catholic. Using the word as Catholic instead of catholic was not done for several hundred years after the death of the last apostle.

 

Clueless totally. The universal church never sent out a missionary, never helped the poor, never administered the Lord's Supper or baptised anyone. They never took up an offering, taught a Sunday School lesson, visited the sick, or ministered to those in need. The only comment I have for you is the same one as for WM, if you do not like core Baptist beliefs, then hit the road jack and find a group of Mary worshipping buddies. That is as deep as theology gets for a commentary that spells Christianity with an X.

 

OK you don't accept that BAPTISTS are protestants by definition. They are a result of the reformation, they come from ANAbaptists, which were back with Calvin era times folks.

Paul wa a missionary, commanded his churches to feed the poor, we have no record of him having communion, BUT he took up offerings. This was all before the baptists. To deny PAUL one of the founders of, the universal church, wasn't a member, you just went totally psycho crazy.

You went WAY out of your way to avoid any point I made, and attack me pesonally just because you don't agree with my theological comments, no matter how biblical they are.

What a good little baptist you are. God must be proud.

And this is why I won't associate with a church you would go to. I don't want to have to defend them for their beliefs to someone I am going to witness to.

Your post to me, just then, was about the most bigoted, arrogant, and snotty, rudeness I've ever received. I'm assuming that's ok, because I'm not YOUR kinda baptist.

Nice to know the rules now.:BangHead:

See, in MY church, when someone behaves like that, we'd call them out on it. It's the biblical thing to do.

 

It was initially called the "Church of Christ" as well as "The Way." I think the disagreement stems from the writings of Ignatius around 110 AD where he uses the word Catholic/catholic - meaning universal or everywhere. Since the RCC believes themselves to be the first church, they would support the position that Ignatius was referencing them. On the other hand, I know some CoCs who take the historical reference to the early church as "Church of Christ" as proof that their church started in 33 AD.

WM

 

Well, Walter, it was nice to have met you. The huddle is out.

 

Whoaaaaaahhh... That's what we call here in South Alabama a big 'ol smackdown! :thumbs:

 

WOW! I was about to give up on this place. ALL TRUE!

But where do you find the Church of Christ as a name for it? I'm not challenging, I'm trying to get on the same page.

Apostolic Authority is an easy biblical concept to defend. What I can't do is defend ROME for claiming to hold it. BUT, at least their beliefs fall in line with scripture, wrong or right on their conclusion, they don't have to rewrite the Bible to make their claims.

 

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. I grew up as a Presbyterian, and did not join a Baptist church until I was near 30. I do not call people out. I just want the infection you spread limited to your church.

 

SaturnNeptune,

If you don't want to fairly face adversity, why are you on a debate board? From your post, your idea of debate is you and your holy huddle of friends can gang up on anyone that doesn't think like you do.

Why not just make it a good ole boy club. That's what the KKK did, they were Southern Baptist I think, but I know they were Baptist, and they were founded on Biblical concepts. [edited]

 

Obviously, I must have read it somewhere and I'll try to find out the source. I'll bet TS would know.

WM

 

It comes from historical fact: (1) The original meaning of "catholic" was universal. (2) There was no "Roman Catholic Church" in 110 A.D.