How do scumbags get into medical school?

[pseudoknot]

---

Members do not see this ad.

look at LA police officers...they're supposed to be upholding the law but yet they're just as corrupt as a politician....u know the Tupac Shakur case? Yeah I think some cops were involved in that coverup or shootout or something...

It doesn't sound like you yourself know that case very well, judging by the vagueness of your allegations. Don't you think it's appropriate to have a better grasp of the facts when accusing people of involvement in a murder?

 

[leechy]

ummm...what? 😕

Some modern day evangelical Christians do not believe Catholics are Christians. I was a bit surprised myself the first time I heard about it from a Christian acquiantance.

 

[jazger]

please point out how what i said is not on the same tones of what was said to me? i hate it when ppl pick on the christian talk, but let things like witchcraft, islam, buhdas, etc to continue.... ADDITIONALLY!!!

Since I was the one who responded to you, I guess that would be my tone you are referring to. I wasn't picking on Christian talk; I was trying to get a little clarification on your "Catholics aren't Christians" statement. I let witchcraft, islam, etc continue because it does not offend me. I believe in freedom of religion including those that I don't agree with (and don't understand well enough to make statements about). I responded to your post because I believe you are misinformed. If you don't agree with the Catholic doctrines, that's fine. But I think you should be more careful about your judgements. When you said Catholics were not Christians, that offended me as a Catholic AND a Christian. I HAVE READ the catechism in my thirteen years at Catholic school, and I do know that Catholics "Accept Jesus as your savior who died on the cross for you already!!"

 

[monopolova]

I do know that Catholics "Accept Jesus as your savior who died on the cross for you already!!"

Yeah, I agree with this. I don't know why non-Catholics are so hung up on picking on Catholics when we both agree with this fundamental point. It boggles my mind what with so many other issues going on. Some non-Catholics view the Catholic Church as the "Great *****". What the heck?

Irony hit home this year with the Passion of the Christ (awesome movie by the way) when a Catholic (Mel Gibson) made a movie so many non-Catholics wanted to see. What does that say? How hypocritical would it be if they left the movie theater and continued to call the Catholic Church the "Great *****" after they saw how Catholicism can shape a presumably profound and passionate belief in Christ as is held by Gibson? (I do realize that some non-Catholics refused to watch the movie. They sure missed out.)

By the way, my apologies to Cooldreams regarding my radical Islam question. I did not see your posts. Sorry.

 

[Phil Anthropist]

Some non-Catholics view the Catholic Church as the "Great *****". What the heck?

I'm guessing (keep in mind, I myself am a practicing Catholic) that the comment is made in reference to indulgences and the like in the pre-Reformation era.

 

[SexyLexie729]

Cooldreams,

Spread the love 😍
No need to preach hatred

 

[NYCDawg81]

da vinci code 👍

 

[45408]

I know a guy who spent ten years getting his undergrad at my school (a decent - but not top 50 - state school) who then went on to WashU in St. Louis (only the hardest one to get into!) and is now an anesthesiologist who makes $300K a year working less than 20-30 hours a week. To top it off, during his undergrad, he was having problems with drugs and restraining orders against stalking his ex-wife!

He told me that if he can do it, anybody can. Sure, anybody can go to WashU.

 

[wends]

I know a guy who spent ten years getting his undergrad at my school (a decent - but not top 50 - state school) who then went on to WashU in St. Louis (only the hardest one to get into!) and is now an anesthesiologist who makes $300K a year working less than 20-30 hours a week. To top it off, during his undergrad, he was having problems with drugs and restraining orders against stalking his ex-wife!

He told me that if he can do it, anybody can. Sure, anybody can go to WashU.

ROLF LMAO....i feel better now....wait...should I be relieved or scared?

 

[cooldreams]

Roman Catholicism, Russian Orthodox, Church of England, and certain forms of the Lutheran faith.

Phil

dood that is all catholic stuff, there are a large number of "christian" religions. but yea, i am now non-denominational, and as far as i can see, only baptist and methodist are not changeing what the bible says, all others do, so in my eyes, all others are wrong. and thusly we are going back to my original statement of catholics not being christians. 😛

That's not why I come to SDN! I reserve my debates for priests that don't know what they're doing. *cough* *cough* *Jesuits at my previous college* *cough* *cough*
Phil

that is really interesting you say that since they are the ones that are typically revered for their knowledge above most other priests...

I still don't *think* you understand it. You started out pretty good there and then, I'm not so sure... Tell me this, do you know how many times Papal infallibility been used? Furthermore, infallibility is used as a reaffirmation of OLDER core beliefs, not new ones. People seem to think that infallibility means, "The Pope can't ever say anything wrong." That's just not true.
Phil

this is an interesting quote "Fundamentalists must also acknowledge that Peter did have some kind of infallibility?they cannot deny that he wrote two infallible epistles of the New Testament. So, if his behavior at Antioch was not incompatible with this kind of infallibility, neither is bad behavior contrary to papal infallibility in general. "

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

in my shoes i would now like to point out the OTHER possibility, that there is no truth for the existance of a pope, and so peter was not "infallable". furthermore in writing those texts, he was commanded by God to do so. in the infallable dogma, it is not God directly doing anything, just the pope or college of bishops/etc..

then this interesting passage comes up

"Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.

Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. "

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

this is getting to the heart of the matter, the basis of the arguement is that the church can conviently decide what they think is infallible or not. if it is obviously shown to be wrong, they will say, nope this is not the use of papal infallibility. none of the apostles were ever acting with such an ability, or even suggested of it. i think i have shown it as such sufficiently.


this is fun too:

"

The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine

By Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R.B.
Herder Book Co.
Saint Louis, Mo. 1946

48

3. THE THIRD COMMANDMENT.

Q. What is the Third Commandment?
A. The Third Commandment is: Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.

Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.

Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.

Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday and the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.

Q. By what authority did the church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her.

Q. What does the Third Commandment command?
A. The Third Commandment commands, us to sanctify Sunday as the Lord's Day.

"

dont-cha love catholic doctrine? it took me a while but i finally saw it. its wrong. all of it.

-----ok, so that is my belief as a christian, and not that of SDN. if you do not agree with that then that is your problem. i am not forcing my beliefs on you, get a backbone and stop complaining about what i say, i dont complain about other ppl saying what they believe is right, i am merely voiceing mine. have a great day. -----

 

[monopolova]

I'm guessing (keep in mind, I myself am a practicing Catholic) that the comment is made in reference to indulgences and the like in the pre-Reformation era.

It's actually refers to the Book of Revelations. Jack Chick of Chick Tracts fame made this wonderful connection. I agree with him on many issues, but as far as Catholicism, we will never see eye to eye.

 

[cooldreams]

Yeah, I agree with this. I don't know why non-Catholics are so hung up on picking on Catholics when we both agree with this fundamental point. It boggles my mind what with so many other issues going on. Some non-Catholics view the Catholic Church as the "Great *****". What the heck?

Irony hit home this year with the Passion of the Christ (awesome movie by the way) when a Catholic (Mel Gibson) made a movie so many non-Catholics wanted to see. What does that say? How hypocritical would it be if they left the movie theater and continued to call the Catholic Church the "Great *****" after they saw how Catholicism can shape a presumably profound and passionate belief in Christ as is held by Gibson? (I do realize that some non-Catholics refused to watch the movie. They sure missed out.)

By the way, my apologies to Cooldreams regarding my radical Islam question. I did not see your posts. Sorry.

1) minor issue? i think to pass over a minor issue is just as wrong as passing over a large issue. additionally, these minor issues could be equated to bad habits, wrt if it is continually done, then you forget that it is wrong, or you get so deep into doing it that you dont want ot change anyways. which then is a major issue anyways.

2) the movie did not convey catholic doctrine, but rather what the bible said happend to Jesus in the last days. so i say to you, this is not a catholic only movie. and i do not hate catholics, so i am not going to boycott something just because a catholic made it.

3) if you look in revelations, the great ***** will be on seven hills, it is interesting that that is the description of the location of rome, and the home of the pope. that coupled with everything else i have stated is the reasoning behind ppl terming it what you have said.

here is more information on the "city of seven hills" - i STRONGLY suggest you read it...

http://users.htcomp.net/gatewaybc/on_line_articles/a_city_on_seven_hills.htm

interesting to note, that these are also no ordinary hills, very well defined, and named:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13164a.htm

http://ross.pvt.k12.ny.us/rome/hills/hills.html

http://www.roman-emperors.org/staticR.htm

 

[Phil Anthropist]

dood that is all catholic stuff, there are a large number of "christian" religions. but yea, i am now non-denominational, and as far as i can see, only baptist and methodist are not changeing what the bible says, all others do, so in my eyes, all others are wrong. and thusly we are going back to my original statement of catholics not being christians. 😛

Please refrain from your condescending attitude and often offensive comments. You are arguing hermeneutics. And to believe that one's worldview and interpretative framework is the end-all, be-all, is simply presumptuous. Your interpretative framework, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the bible is both literal and objective. I disagree with this notion. Although objectivity can be found in the bible, that doesn't mean it is presented as such. I give you two challenges:

(1) Have you been made aware of "biblical contradictions?" If not, I suggest you do so--if for nothing more than a chance to reaffirm and strengthen your faith. If you have not encountered them, I would be happy to offer you some challenges on the objectivity and accuracy of the bible.
(2) Jesus Christ often taught in PARABLES to teach OBJECTIVE truth. Parables are, by definition, figurative and allegorical. Thus Jesus taught objective truths in a subjective, non-literal medium. You imply that the bible should be taken in a literal, objective framework. It is my belief that such a framework is inconsistent with the manner in which Jesus taught. In fact, I personally feel that it would be a disservice to say, "This is the Bible. This is what it is, this is what it says and there's nothing more to it." If Jesus taught moral objectivity through subjective stories, would it be so odd to find figurative writing in the Bible to teach objective truth? Even the Methodists and Baptists you name have different interpretative frameworks of the same source. If the Bible is so cut and dry, then why would their faiths differ? Now, I'm not saying I'm right and that my interpretative framework is correct. What I AM saying is that it is presumptuous to assume that one's framework and belief system is unquestionably the "right" system.

One of the most interesting things in our time is the concept of myth. In all the major world religions, one can find mythical journeys. Myth has come to mean something that it was not intended to. Myths were told as figurative, allegorical stories, but myths are meant to impart truth. I give you another challenge:

Do you know what the meaning of the name Barabas is? Tell me when you ascertain the meaning, and I will show you why the story of Barabas and Jesus may in fact be more figurative than literal. I will not disprove that it is literal, but more than certainly, I think you will be challenged with the notion of symbol.

that is really interesting you say that since they are the ones that are typically revered for their knowledge above most other priests...

I went to a Jesuit University. Let me give you an example of my frustration with them. The entire Jesuit order in the university forgot that the day was a Holy Day of Obligation. I asked the dormitory priest three questions.

(1) What is the mass schedule for today? I had classes this morning so I couldn't make it to mass in the morning.
(2) Today is a holy day of obligation is it not?
(3) Why don't you (Jesuits) make an effort to inform the Catholic students that it's a Holy Day of Obligation?

The responses:

(1) There are no afternoon or evening masses on campus.
(2) According to (some Jesuit publication that they all get), it is not.
(3) We feel that it is the student's responsibility to know the Holy Days of Obligation.

The result:

(1) I was unable to attend mass as I had no car.
(2) Their Jesuit publication had a MISPRINT. The priests admitted this later.
(3) The Jesuit priest I talked to did not know what he was supposed to know. They expected the student's to have responsibility when they themselves didn't get it right. The Jesuits made no attempt to impress upon the body that it was a Holy Day.

Please note that the Jesuits I mentioned (see my previous post) were the Jesuits at my college. I will also admit that some of the Jesuits were indeed very knowledgeable. However, these Jesuits were not part of the higher administration.

Regarding the Infallibility Comments that you made

First of all, I don't like your sources. Get the official stuff. The stuff you're listing is not official. If you're gonna criticize it, criticize the actual source.

Alright, as far as this Catholic.com thing goes...It's ridiculously skewed. This site is doing the exact same thing that I am criticizing you of doing: being condescending and belittling another's faith. The comment that "Fundamentalists must also acknowledge..." is simply presumptuous. There are a variety of fundamentalists and they believe many different things from their different interpretations of the same, as they see it, literal document. The source you gave me is not good. Please find a more authentic source if you wish to discuss Catechism.

in my shoes i would now like to point out the OTHER possibility, that there is no truth for the existance of a pope, and so peter was not "infallable". furthermore in writing those texts, he was commanded by God to do so. in the infallable dogma, it is not God directly doing anything, just the pope or college of bishops/etc..

Okay, big problem. You can't just say, "There is no Pope!" and then work off that. Prove your point first.

"Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.

Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. "

Okay, so what's your question?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
this is getting to the heart of the matter, the basis of the arguement is that the church can conviently decide what they think is infallible or not. if it is obviously shown to be wrong, they will say, nope this is not the use of papal infallibility. none of the apostles were ever acting with such an ability, or even suggested of it. i think i have shown it as such sufficiently.

I regret to inform you that you haven't. You neglected my question in my earlier post:

Tell me this, do you know how many times Papal infallibility has been used? Furthermore, infallibility is used as a reaffirmation of OLDER core beliefs, not new ones.

You demonstrate in your paragraph above that you do not understand the notion of papal infallibility. Answer my question (this quote right above) and then I'll start listening to your criticisms of infallibility. You have misrepresented the concept of infallibility.

this is fun too:

The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine

...

dont-cha love catholic doctrine? it took me a while but i finally saw it. its wrong. all of it.

Again this comment is presumptuous and offensive. But I am sticking to my word...The fact that you have mentioned that "all of it" is wrong is entirely bogus. First of all, I HIGHLY DOUBT that you have a COMPLETE understanding of the Catholic faith. I think this is clearly evidenced by your misunderstanding of infallibility. (Again, please answer my question.) If you do not understand the belief system, then there is no way you can state that "all of it" is wrong. Secondly, all it takes is *one part* of the Catholic faith that is common with the other Christian religions to disprove your statement that "all of it" is wrong. All it takes is one such element to challenge your statement, and consequently, your own faith.

-----ok, so that is my belief as a christian, and not that of SDN. if you do not agree with that then that is your problem. i am not forcing my beliefs on you, get a backbone and stop complaining about what i say, i dont complain about other ppl saying what they believe is right, i am merely voiceing mine. have a great day. -----

(1) I disagree with your belief system. I don't see why that's a problem.
(2) Your comments are both imperative and didactic:

you do not earn/buy/whatever your way to heaven. it is FREELY given to you. Just ask God. Accept Jesus as your savior who died on the cross for you already!! Accept it! Grace of God is freely given.

(3) Your comment, "get a backbone," is derogatory and unkind. This comment is not in accordance with the behavior we are called to practice as Christians. Furthermore, if I didn't have the audacity, I would not have responded and I would have reported you. Please note that I have responded and have kept my word--I have made no complaint to the moderators.
(4) I have no trouble with you voicing your beliefs. But I do take offense to you insulting the religious faiths of others. If you want to have a discussion and challenge Catholic principles, fine. In fact, I think that's good. This is what I think is not good: When you say things like "all of [Catholicism]" is wrong and "Catholics are not Christians." I not only take offense to it, but I will question why you say so. I simply believe you have misrepresented my faith and I wish to set the story straight.

Phil

 

[cooldreams]

Secondly, all it takes is *one part* of the Catholic faith that is common with the other Christian religions to disprove your statement that "all of it" is wrong. All it takes is one such element to challenge your statement, and consequently, your own faith.Phil

dood... true or false:
the sun is larger than the earth, and its temperature is less than 10 kelvin.
obviously the answer is FALSE... next one.

true or false:
Jesus is God, and the pope legally represents him.
FALSE!!! that is MY interpretation of the Bible as a christian, your interpretation of the bible as a catholic is that the pope is Jesus representation on earth!

If you want to have a discussion and challenge Catholic principles, fine. In fact, I think that's good.
Phil

so you are up to discussing it? good.

lets start here...

Please explain/justify this:

http://members.aol.com/ChristBearer72/koran.html
(my point here is that the pope seems to enjoy all religions)

well ok i guess that is justified by: (i hope you like this reference since it does not seem to get much more official than this)

" 830 The word "catholic" means "universal," in the sense of "according to the totality" or "in keeping with the whole."

"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

"THOUGH HE WERE A SON, YET LEARNED HE OBEDIENCE BY THE THINGS WHICH HE SUFFERED;AND BEING MADE PERFECT, HE BECAME THE AUTHOR OF ETERNAL SALVATION UNTO ALL THEM THAT OBEY HIM

Heb 5:8,9."

hmm well, if all of the above is true, then why do the muslims say Jesus is NOT the son of God, did not Die and then be resurrected on the cross, etc etc etc??

""They declared 'We have put to death the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the apostle of God'. They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they had only his likeness." [An-Nissa 4:157]"

"Jesus the son of Mary was only a messenger of Allah and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not 'three.'" [Al-Nissa(4)]

my point in this is that it seems that the catholic (universal) church is just that, universal, it doesnt care what you believe, it thinks you are saved anyways.

then it goes on to say:

" 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation"

i am not sure how that fits in with this from the bible:

"NEITHER IS THERE SALVATION IN ANY OTHER: FOR THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN, WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED

Acts 4:12.

JESUS SAITH UNTO HIM, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE: NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER, BUT BY ME

Jn 14:6."

I guess given the universal status of the church and pope:

"VICAR OF CHRIST - A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of jurisdiction,"

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm

its a crazy thing, "vicar", what does that mean exactly? well when we look it up on dictionary.com, we find that it is obviously a "catholic speak" word since all of it definitions pertain to catholicism:

"4 entries found for vicar.
vic?ar Audio pronunciation of "vicar" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vkr)
n. Abbr. Vic.

1.
1. The priest of a parish in the Church of England who receives a stipend or salary but does not receive the tithes of a parish.
2. A cleric in charge of a chapel in the Episcopal Church of the United States.
3. A cleric acting in the place of a rector or bishop in the Anglican Communion generally.
2. Roman Catholic Church. A priest who acts for or represents another, often higher-ranking member of the clergy.
"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vicar

obviously, the most appropriate use of this word is the second main definition where the pope is acting in place of Jesus.

however, i am not sure how it fits in with this from the bible:

"FOR THERE IS ONE GOD, AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MEN, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS; WHO GAVE HIMSELF A RANSOM FOR ALL, TO BE TESTIFIED IN DUE TIME-1 Tim 2:5,6"

so if there is one mediator between God and man, why is the pope also trying to take that place??

ok so, if you would care to respond that is fine, if not, that is fine too.

btw, the bible is true, in saying it is wrong and contradicts itself is now you saying things against my religion, christianity, however i do have the "audacity" to reply and not report you. please dood, if you are gonna discuss this, quit saying this garbage. if it offends you, then quit responding and quit reading it. i am not trying to offend you or anyone, i am wanting to discuss this, but i do not think it can be properly discuss without "offending" someone, which is why i say get some thicker skin and quit being offended so easily.

furthermore, if i have misrepresented the official catholic doctrine in some way, point it out to me.

that is all. im out.

 

[cooldreams]

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Anthropist
Tell me this, do you know how many times Papal infallibility has been used? Furthermore, infallibility is used as a reaffirmation of OLDER core beliefs, not new ones.

You demonstrate in your paragraph above that you do not understand the notion of papal infallibility. Answer my question (this quote right above) and then I'll start listening to your criticisms of infallibility. You have misrepresented the concept of infallibility.
"

just saying you have the ability for something and you dont, i will argue you on it, you do not have to actually use that ability.

as far as i can tell, "infallability" has "officially" been used once since it became an "official" thing back in 1870? or so.. about 1400 years after the catholic church was founded by rome . it was used to make everyone believe that mary was and always was a virgin and was assumed into heaven.

wow, good job, there is no way to tell if she was "assumed" into heaven or not, so you jump on that issue... whatever... the bible tells us to justify it by fact... you cannot justify this... EXCEPT the other part of being a virgin and ALWAYS being a virgin, which is NOT the case, for Jesus had other siblings.

"Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?

Matthew 13:55"

this is interesting reading if you are up for it:

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160_17.asp

have a niffty noodle day 🙂

 

[cooldreams]

"

Quote:
Originally Posted by cooldreams

this is fun too:

The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine

...

dont-cha love catholic doctrine? it took me a while but i finally saw it. its wrong. all of it.

Again this comment is presumptuous and offensive.

"

WHOA!! you just missed it. its easy to miss unless you really understand what you are reading, which i didnt at first, and many ppl still dont. lets reexamine that...


"

The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine

By Rev. Peter Geiermann, C. SS. R.B.
Herder Book Co.
Saint Louis, Mo. 1946

48

3. THE THIRD COMMANDMENT.

1Q. What is the Third Commandment?
A. The Third Commandment is: Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.

2Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.

3Q. Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.

4Q. Why did the Catholic Church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday, because Christ rose from the dead on a Sunday and the Holy Ghost descended upon the Apostles on a Sunday.

5Q. By what authority did the church substitute Sunday for Saturday?
A. The Church substituted Sunday for Saturday by the plenitude of that divine power which Jesus Christ bestowed upon her.

6Q. What does the Third Commandment command?
A. The Third Commandment commands, us to sanctify Sunday as the Lord's Day.

"


i have gone back and numbered the questions for reference.

firstQ, "The Third Commandment is: Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day."

the sabbath!!!! remember that ok?

sixthQ, "The Third Commandment commands, us to sanctify Sunday as the Lord's Day."

hmmm odd... i thought i remembered something in the, what was that called, catechsim...

"Sunday - fulfillment of the sabbath

2175 Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ:107

Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.108

2176 The celebration of Sunday observes the moral commandment inscribed by nature in the human heart to render to God an outward, visible, public, and regular worship "as a sign of his universal beneficence to all."109 Sunday worship fulfills the moral command of the Old Covenant, taking up its rhythm and spirit in the weekly celebration of the Creator and Redeemer of his people.
"

following that in the catechism is the "eucharist" which ill happy debate as well...

back to topic... LOOK!!! THEY ADMIT CHANGING THE SABBATH!!! remember what Jesus said, He did not come to change the law.

but here, the catholic church has decided on its own accord to change the law, they even admit it!!!

"Remember the sabbath to keep it holy" .. well they remembered what it used to be sorta i guess....

point here...

1) Sabbath = Saturday, this is fact.
2) Catholic church changed sabbath to Sunday, this is ALSO fact.



😉

 

[monopolova]

"

"Remember the sabbath to keep it holy" .. well they remembered what it used to be sorta i guess....

point here...

1) Sabbath = Saturday, this is fact.
2) Catholic church changed sabbath to Sunday, this is ALSO fact.



😉

So? Mass is held on both Saturday and Sunday. Some non-denoms I know go to Church on Wednesday and Friday.
Be happy people are going to church and praising Jesus Christ!!!!

Oh, and by the by, for all the literal interpretation of the Bible, you sure choose to put words into the mouth of Revelations. Technically, unless it says Catholic Church and Pope explicitly, you shouldn't be making these stretches. You're interpreting as much as anyone else, and there is no proof to back it up -- only speculation.

From that website you linked:

"There is no way that a city could engage in literal, fleshly fornication. Thus we can only conclude that John, like the prophets in the Old Testament, is using the term in its spiritual sense. The city, therefore, must claim a spiritual relationship with God. Otherwise such an allegation would be meaningless."

Why because the author says so? Now you're picking and choosing why something was said the way it was, just as non-denoms criticize Catholics of doing. You're putting words into the Book's mouth.

Your ideas are based as much on speculation as anyone's elses you choose to criticize.

Grow up and be happy that in this day and age, people like me are going to bed and waking up praising Jesus Christ. Man, what a paranoid bunch. This is like "Christian X-Files". Yeah, right now, the Pope is sitting in his chair thinking, "yesss, I love satan. Mwuahahahaha I'm going to go now and praise the name of Jesus because it helps satan. I hope the poor the Catholic missions are helping in the name of Jesus goes a long way to help satan. I hate abortion and want to stop it because it will help satan."

 

[Long Dong]

Dude, this thread got all serious with the religion and stuff. 😕

 

[monopolova]

Dude, this thread got all serious with the religion and stuff. 😕

lol Well, it's more important and substantial than what I originally raised anyway. 😀

 

[cooldreams]

So? Mass is held on both Saturday and Sunday. Some non-denoms I know go to Church on Wednesday and Friday.
Be happy people are going to church and praising Jesus Christ!!!!

i would like to respond to this part...

i have two points i would like to make.

1) i think in this day and age, ppl are forced to work on the sabbath. i think ppl should try to get away from that when they can, but when they cannot, they should try to observe some day/time for it. so doing it at all is good.

2) if you have the freedom to observe the sabbath on any day, you should pick the true sabbath, for this is God's law. to chose to observe a different day for whatever reason, while you have the ability to do as He says, is wrong.

that is all 🙂

 

[cooldreams]

Oh, and by the by, for all the literal interpretation of the Bible, you sure choose to put words into the mouth of Revelations. Technically, unless it says Catholic Church and Pope explicitly, you shouldn't be making these stretches. You're interpreting as much as anyone else, and there is no proof to back it up -- only speculation.

From that website you linked:

"There is no way that a city could engage in literal, fleshly fornication. Thus we can only conclude that John, like the prophets in the Old Testament, is using the term in its spiritual sense. The city, therefore, must claim a spiritual relationship with God. Otherwise such an allegation would be meaningless."

Why because the author says so? Now you're picking and choosing why something was said the way it was, just as non-denoms criticize Catholics of doing. You're putting words into the Book's mouth.

Your ideas are based as much on speculation as anyone's elses you choose to criticize.

Grow up and be happy that in this day and age, people like me are going to bed and waking up praising Jesus Christ. Man, what a paranoid bunch. This is like "Christian X-Files". Yeah, right now, the Pope is sitting in his chair thinking, "yesss, I love satan. Mwuahahahaha I'm going to go now and praise the name of Jesus because it helps satan. I hope the poor the Catholic missions are helping in the name of Jesus goes a long way to help satan. I hate abortion and want to stop it because it will help satan."

ok and now for this part.

tell me, do you believe in Jesus Christ or not?

Do you think there is biblical basis for a pope or not?

What about a trinity?

ok... show me the explicit biblical proof with names for all of this stuff.

1) the proof explicitly saying Jesus Christ is in fact the messiah. (you cannot use the NT to do this except for fulfillment of OT)

2) where it says "pope" in the bible, and that Peter is supposed to be the first "pope"

3) where it says that God is of a "trinity"

good luck.

when you eventually get stumped and give up (these are impossible btw) go back over the revelations passage about the 7 mountains, and then the description of rome...

point here, is that sure, it does not explicitly say rome/vatican. there are very few names in the bible for such things as this. but it does describe what we are to watch for......

answers to the above:

1) there are hundreds of prophecies of a messiah to come, and in NT, we see fulfillment of all of them to the T in Jesus. Jesus is actually called out by hebrew name of Emmanuel, but not the EXACT NAME "Jesus".

2) Jesus references Peter as "pebble", and the church built on a "rock" ... the originally biblical text makes a difference here. there is never any mention of pope ever in the bible, never any mention of anyone assuming the role of Jesus. not even hinting at it, prophecy, nothing, except of course for false prophets... now i guess you see what i think of him...

3) trinity is never mentioned, but is a cornerstone of the faith you practice as a catholic.


Oops... forgot this part:
""There is no way that a city could engage in literal, fleshly fornication. Thus we can only conclude that John, like the prophets in the Old Testament, is using the term in its spiritual sense. The city, therefore, must claim a spiritual relationship with God. Otherwise such an allegation would be meaningless.""

the city termed as a collective of the ppl in it. Team USA has just beat so and so country at the olympics. how can a country that is just some dirt and is divided by imaginary borders do something to another country that is just dirt and divided by imaginary borders?? 🙄

additionally, all things are spiritually related, to say otherwise is nonesense.

 

[PRicanTex]

1) the proof explicitly saying Jesus Christ is in fact the messiah. (you cannot use the NT to do this except for fulfillment of OT)

2) where it says "pope" in the bible, and that Peter is supposed to be the first "pope"

3) where it says that God is of a "trinity"

good luck.

when you eventually get stumped and give up (these are impossible btw) go back over the revelations passage about the 7 mountains, and then the description of rome...

As far as someone answering your questions...I think that we don't really need to answer #1. All Christians by definition agree that Jesus Christ, is the son of God.

As for #2: In Matthew 16:17-18 "Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."

So Peter is a "rock" and not a "pebble". Couple that statement with the fact that he is generally regarded as the leader of the Apostles, with numerous examples of his leadership in Acts, it comes to light that Peter is the first leader of the Church. Now, later in his life, Peter was installed as Bishop of Rome. This is where we come into something called the apostollic succession. Any Apostle who concescrates someone to lead in the church at the time, was extending that Apostollic line. Afterall, the Apostles, and their official delegates, were the only ones with the spiritual authority to create church leaders. You didn't want just anyone going off and creating a church! So when new Bishops were created, they had hands layed on them either by one of the Apostles, or by other Bishops who had been concescrated by the Apostles. And so to this day, in the old western churches (specifically the Anglican/Episcopal and the Roman Catholic church; I don't know about the other ancient churches like the Greek Orthodox, Ethiopian or Coptics.) every Bishop can trace his spiritual and temporal authority back to one of the Apostles, somewhat like a geneaology if you will. The "Pope" (who is not the only official Pope by the way. There is also a Pope minor in Alexandria) is officially Bishop of Rome and can trace his "lineage" back to Peter, who again, was first Bishop of Rome. Now this makes a very appealling, and biblically backed case for a Pope.

As for #3; the holy trinity...well that is a theological issue that was reasoned out many years ago, and I still don't understand it. Just remember, the people who came up with the Trinity were just as educated and intelligent in matters of logic and philosophy as any ancient Greek philosopher such as Plato, or Aristotle, or even the great Socrates himself! These men took the bible, and then from its passages, extrapolated ideas like the Trinity that are all based on biblical text. So though I sadly cannot answer your last question, perhaps if you were willing to take a few years of college level philosophy courses and then studied some of the old theological writings, you might be able to agree or disagree with the concept of the Trinity.

Remember, the Roman Catholic Church is a great force for good in this world, and Pope John Paul II is a man of great faith, who, although with his ailments now might not be fit to run the church, has modernized the church in many ways, and apologized for many of its dark periods during the Medieval, and Renaissance, periods, as well as abolishing church doctrine and theology that does not have biblical origins. If you ever need to see what the Catholic Church really believes, just read the Apostles' Creed, or the Nicean Creed. It tells you everything you need to know and is recited at most masses.

"We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and hi kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Lets have enough hate-mongering on these boards. Roman Catholics are just as christian as any Baptist or Methodist and indeed are sometimes even more conservative (I believe the Church has an official stance against any form of birth control even for married couples. I doubt that the Baptists have that.) It is specifically these sort of attacks that turned my girlfriend away from Christianity when she was in high school. We are all supposed to be tolerant of one another, even if we have conflicting beliefs.

-PRicanTex 😎

P.S. Sorry to any Catholics if I misquoted the creed. I'm Episcopalian and was going out of my Book of Common Prayer.

 

[cooldreams]

1) to be turned from christianity is her choice. if you were to base a religion off of what someone does, then you would easily write off EVERYTHING in ALL EXISTANCE AS COMPLETE RUBBISH.

2) my questions were rhetorical. i was showing that just because revelations did not say that the seven mountains EXPLICITLY says rome/vatican, does not mean you get to rule it out. i am very disturbed by the fact you could not make that connection. try not to think too hard on the following points:

3) The Greek word for Peter is petros, meaning "a pebble." The Greek word for rock is petra, meaning "a massive rock" such as bedrock. Jesus is the Rock, petra. Everyone who receives this revelation from the Father like Peter received it?that Jesus is the Son of God (Lord and Savior)?becomes a part of His Church. so your quote of peter = rock is wrong. have a great day.

4) trinity issue - i want to express to you that i am disappointed in your logic and *blind* dependance on others. it is this that is the CLASSIC catholic church-goer, and INFACT is how the church originally acted/forced everyone to be. you say that since some random dood that supposedly knew everything decided on this to be fact, that it must therefore be fact. rubbish. What God says is Fact. not what i say, not what anyone else says, JUST GOD.


again i must state, these are my personal beliefs. you may or may not agree. i do not mean to force my beliefs on you or hurt your feelings or in any way make you feel uncomfortable. have a wonderful day. 👍

 

[vhawk]

Man do I love these religious arguments. Seriously, not being facetious, I really do. Its funny to me to see scientists arguing things, and using something like the "Bible" as a reliable source. First off, it was never peer reviewed, and is likely out of date at this point anyhow. While at some times it is acceptable to cite sources that were groundbreaking in a field, or which are standard-bearers, it is never acceptable to use as a primary influence a work that was never peer reviewed or held to any scientific standard.

P.S. Ummm...you guys? Its a book, seriously. I mean, it was written by guys, old guys, people, humans, etc... You can say it was the word of God, but why cant I say the lyrics to "Yellow Submarine" are the word of God?

That being said, I dont begrudge anyone their beliefs. I just find it comical that we have these intense, serious debates, with really no basis in...anything, other than some really wicked old hearsay and a lot of dogma. Its cool though, but you maybe ought not to be trying to rationally convince something of a view without much rational basis.

Getting ready for the attacks from ALL contributors.... 😱 😱 😱

 

[cooldreams]

Man do I love these religious arguments. Seriously, not being facetious, I really do. Its funny to me to see scientists arguing things, and using something like the "Bible" as a reliable source. First off, it was never peer reviewed, and is likely out of date at this point anyhow. While at some times it is acceptable to cite sources that were groundbreaking in a field, or which are standard-bearers, it is never acceptable to use as a primary influence a work that was never peer reviewed or held to any scientific standard.

P.S. Ummm...you guys? Its a book, seriously. I mean, it was written by guys, old guys, people, humans, etc... You can say it was the word of God, but why cant I say the lyrics to "Yellow Submarine" are the word of God?

That being said, I dont begrudge anyone their beliefs. I just find it comical that we have these intense, serious debates, with really no basis in...anything, other than some really wicked old hearsay and a lot of dogma. Its cool though, but you maybe ought not to be trying to rationally convince something of a view without much rational basis.

Getting ready for the attacks from ALL contributors.... 😱 😱 😱

hey that is your "choice" to believe that. 😉

 

[PRicanTex]

Funny, I notice that you never answer any points actually made by posters. And by the way, there is no point to asking rheatorical questions since you already know the answer. 😀

PRicanTex

P.S. As far as the whole petros, petra thing, I trust the translation of actual biblical scholars (if you don't believe the translation actually pick up a copy of the bible...novel idea there huh?), not a small agitator who probably doesn't even speak ancient greek. I also deplore your blind faith on others who are obviously as ignorant as you.

 

[Phil Anthropist]

Funny, I notice that you never answer any points actually made by posters.

Herein lies my frustration (with cooldreams)

 

[Phil Anthropist]

You said:

dont-cha love catholic doctrine??its wrong. all of it.

I said:

?all it takes is * one part * of the Catholic faith that is common with the other Christian religions to disprove your statement that ?all of it? is wrong. All it takes is one such element to challenge your statement, and consequently, your own faith.

An example of such a Catholic doctrine is that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the World. This is part of Catholic doctrine. And yet, you say all of Catholic doctrine is wrong. You have arrived at a logical fallacy.

(1) According to you, Catholic doctrine is all wrong.
(2) Catholic doctrine holds that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the World.
(3) Christians believe, by definition, that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the World. (Note that (2) incorporates this belief)
(4) Thus, if you wish to believe (1), then you must believe that Jesus Christ is NOT the Savior of the World because ?all of [Catholic doctrine]? is wrong and Catholic doctrine includes (3).
(5) Therefore, one of two things must be true.
a. Catholic doctrine can?t all be wrong.
b. You do not consider yourself a Christian.

Instead of addressing the challenge I set forth to you, you responded to me in this manner:

dood? true or false: the sun is larger than the earth, and its temperature is less than 10 kelvin. obviously the answer is FALSE? next one.

Please reread the challenge I wrote to you. Your statement here is a non-sequitur; it is in no way applicable to the challenge I have set forth.

You said:

so you are up to discussing it? Good. Let?s start here? Please explain/justify this: http://members.aol.com/ChristBearer72/koran.html
(my point here is that the pope seems to enjoy all religions)

(1) You tell me you are up for discussing things, but AGAIN, you rejected my challenge to you regarding infallibility.
(2) I can explain this picture. In fact, if you go to the JP II museum in Washington, D.C., it is no secret that the pope is tolerant of other religions.
(3) Explanation/Justification: Vatican II discusses this in considerable depth. Please research the concept of Divine Light. Unlike some other Christian religions, Catholicism is open to the notion that non-Christian believers could, in fact, have the possibility of going to heaven. As a preemptive response to your potential challenge to this Catholic concept, this is what I say: Any person who claims to be able to determine whether or not a person is going to heaven or hell is presumptuous. God is the only arbiter of who goes to heaven or hell. No human can do this. Any human who thinks he/she CAN place judgment on a person?s soul is committing the ultimate act of presumption: believing he/she is equal to God. It is God who decides who goes to heaven; neither you nor I can make this decision.

 

[Phil Anthropist]

You said:

"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

hmm well, if all of the above is true, then why do the muslims say Jesus is NOT the son of God, did not Die and then be resurrected on the cross, etc etc etc??

The major non-Christian monotheistic religions believe this--such a belief is not true only for Muslims. This is also true for those that practice Judaism. Abrahamic religions (i.e. Christian religions, Judaism, and Islam) all believe in the same God. Yahweh = God = Allah. God is God. A = A. And so for that reason, ?the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator.?

For Christians, God = A. Jesus = B. For Christians, God = Jesus. A = B.
For Jews, God = A, A =/= B
For Muslims, God = A, A =/= B

Even though Jews and Muslims do not believe that A = B, the fact remains that all three still believe in the same God (God/Yahweh/YHWH/Allah). The dispute over the divinity of Jesus is rooted in a difference in religions texts. Christians believe in the Old Testament (aka Hebrew Scriptures) as well as the New Testament. Catholics and some forms of Protestantism also incorporate the books of the Apocrypha; the Catholic bible is different than most Protestant bibles. Jews believe in the Hebrew Scriptures and Muslims follow the Quran. Because of the difference in texts, there will be a dispute over the divinity of Christ. That?s a given, but that doesn?t change the fact that all the Abrahamic religions believe, as I stated above, God = A.

 

[Phil Anthropist]

You said:

my point in this is that it seems that the catholic (universal) church is just that, universal, it doesn?t care what you believe, it thinks you are saved anyways.

That is simply incorrect. Please refer to the Divine Light that I mentioned and my comment on God as the Arbiter of our souls. The Catholic Church DOES care about beliefs, hence its dogmas and doctrines and its stance on an issue that you and I agree on (abortion). However, the members of the body of the Church do not presume to have the ability to judge a person?s soul. The Church believes that such matters are left in God?s hands. Certainly, as a Christian you can?t disagree that God is the arbiter of souls.

You said:

? 847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience ? those too may achieve eternal salvation?

i am not sure how that fits in with this from the bible:

?NEITHER IS THERE SALVATION IN ANY OTHER: FOR THERE IS NONE OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN GIVEN AMONG MEN, WHEREBY WE MUST BE SAVED

Acts 4:12

JESUS SAITH UNTO HIM, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE: NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER, BUT BY ME

Jn 14: 6.?

Again, there is the concept of the divine light. Again, it is presumptuous for any of us to believe who can and cannot go to heaven. The Church states that these persons ?may achieve eternal salvation.? I don?t think you can refute that. The keyword there is may. Certainly, God is the only one who can make the judgment, not you, not myself. Regarding your specific bible quotes:

Acts 4:12: This simply states that God is the only one who can save souls. This does not disprove the Catholic Church?s stance.
John 14:6: Again, Jesus IS God. I don?t think you?ll disagree with that. Therefore, John 14:6 does not disprove the Catholic Church?s stance either. Jesus = God. It is the same (and in our belief, only) God making the judgment. Once again, you may refer above to my discussion of the different religious texts, but the same God.

 

[Phil Anthropist]

Regarding your discussion of the Vicar. You claim that all the definitions pertain to Catholicism. You then go on by describing 2 sets of definitions. 1a-c are NOT the Roman Catholic Church.

Regarding your understanding of the Pope as Vicar. 1 Tim 2: 5-6. Again, you are interpreting the bible literally. You didn?t answer the question I asked you in an earlier post: are you familiar with biblical contradictions? It is my belief that the bible is a non-literal medium and it is dangerous to take it as such. Again, I would be happy to offer you a challenge of a biblical contradiction. If you read these verses literally, yes, a problem will exist. But I believe it can be shown that the bible is not a literal document. Furthermore, you didn?t answer my Barabas/Jesus challenge. But just so you think I?m not dodging your argument. Many believe that these verses are a Christian version of the Jewish shema. The Jewish shema states, ?Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord alone?? (Deuteronomy 6, 4-5). I can?t help but notice that you omitted the 7th verse, which happens to be highly significant in this context. The seventh verse states, ?For this I was appointed preacher and apostle, teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.? This is similar to other verses e.g. Romans 9:1, 2 Corinthians 11:31, and Galatians 1:20. It?s a hermeneutical crime to isolate a verse without putting it in context with the entire document, namely, the New Testament. Let?s discuss the context further. First of all, there?s the reconstruction of the Shema argument. Secondly, Jesus no longer has His physical presence on Earth. The purpose of the Pope is not to act AS Jesus, but to maintain the body of faith in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Your understanding of the pope?s role (?acting in place of Jesus?) is simply not true.

 

[Phil Anthropist]

You said:

the bible is true, in saying that it is wrong and contradicts itself is now you saying things against my religion, christianity.

(1) I did not say the Bible is wrong. I did not say that the Bible does not contain truth. I said that I do not believe that it is a literal medium. Objective truths can be found through non-literal media. Please see my earlier post on parables.
(2) You believe in a FORM of Christianity. There are many branches of Christianity. I believe that I am a Christian as well. I have made points to justify this statement. Please stop ignoring them. And I can guarantee you it is not my intent to argue against myself.
(3) I am merely stating that I think one can show objectively that contradictory phrases can be found in the bible. Again, I would be happy to pose a challenge to you if you wish.
(4) I don?t feel that I am bashing your religion. You have sometimes stated in a constructive manner what you find to be fallacious about Catholic teachings. And so, I have responded. You challenged the interpretative framework of Catholicism. As a rebuttal, I am simply working with the opposite. That is, the Catholic Church does not believe that the Bible is a literal medium and you argue that means that ?Catholics aren?t Christians.? Because you challenged the interpretative framework and attempted to debunk it, I took the opposite view (your view, i.e. the Bible must be approached in a literal framework) and offered a rebuttal against your challenge that ?Catholics aren?t Christians? because they don?t interpret the Bible as a literal medium. Your argument ?Catholics aren?t Christians? is a slap in the face to any Catholic. My comments are challenges to you stating, ?Catholics aren?t Christians.? An analogous saying to the way we Catholics read your statement, ?Catholics aren?t Christians,? would be ?cooldreams isn?t Christian.? Such a statement wouldn?t be fair to you. And I think that anyone who made such a statement would be maliciously offending you. I, however, am not stating that you aren?t Christian. Because you believe that ?Catholics aren?t Christians? since they don?t interpret the bible literally, the most logical refutation of your argument, in defense of Catholicism, is that perhaps the Bible really isn?t meant to be read in a literal interpretative framework. Again, this does not mean that the Bible isn?t true.

 

[Phil Anthropist]

In response to your comments, ?If it offends you, then quit responding and quit reading it? and ?I am wanting to discuss this??

I actually feel both frustrated and somewhat bad for responding to you. I am frustrated because you don?t seem to answer my questions or read the points I lay out. I have taken the time to read your posts and respond to them. And yet, you are not paying back the same courtesy. I have made my points as lucid as possible. You are dodging my challenges. I have tried my best to answer your questions. And yet, you ignore mine. Those reading this can decide for themselves. I feel somewhat bad because this is the pre-allopathic forum and this discussion has no relevance to pre-allopathic issues and it is a complete digression from the OP?s topic.

I will not lie. I was offended by many of your comments. But I feel that I am called to respond to your statements after reading them. Why? Because I feel that your statements are misleading and inaccurate. And as far as your assertion that you ?do not think it can be properly discuss without ?offending? someone,? I beg to differ. I have had many rational conversations with one of my best friends, an evangelical, non-denominational Christian while maintaining mutual respect for each other?s religious differences. I don?t tell her, ?Your religious beliefs aren?t Christian,? and she doesn?t say things to me such as, ?Catholics aren?t Christians.? It is possible to discuss and challenge beliefs without telling people that they aren?t who they say they are (e.g. Catholics believe they are Christians. The statement ?Catholics aren?t Christians? is one that denotes they aren?t who they say they are. If you want to continue talking about these types of issues, why not post them in the Everyone forum? I feel that the two of us have digressed far from the OP?s original topic.

In Christ,

Phil

 

[cooldreams]

guys, i did answer (SOME) questions not all, same as with you, some of my questions and points, and not all. dont get mad at me for that.

"(1) I did not say the Bible is wrong. I did not say that the Bible does not contain truth. I said that I do not believe that it is a literal medium. Objective truths can be found through non-literal media. Please see my earlier post on parables."

no actually you said the bible contains contradictions. lets see what the definition of contradictions is shall we?

"
con?tra?dic?tion Audio pronunciation of "contradictions" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntr-dkshn)
n.

1.
1. The act of contradicting.
2. The state of being contradicted.
2. A denial.
3. Inconsistency; discrepancy.
4. Something that contains contradictory elements.
"
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contradictions

hmmm so is that what you meant?? id say that compared to what you called contradictions before and what you just wrote now has contradictions.

"(3) I am merely stating that I think one can show objectively that contradictory phrases can be found in the bible. Again, I would be happy to pose a challenge to you if you wish."

please do. ill refute anything im sure. ive been through this exercise many times.

"Acts 4:12: This simply states that God is the only one who can save souls. "

well the church sure seems to know how it is done, and who is already there, and how to make ppl not go etc etc... they do/did it all the time.

"John 14:6: Again, Jesus IS God. I don?t think you?ll disagree with that. Therefore, John 14:6 does not disprove the Catholic Church?s stance either. Jesus = God. It is the same (and in our belief, only) God making the judgment. Once again, you may refer above to my discussion of the different religious texts, but the same God."

no. are you blind? this arguement is pointless... that passage DOES NOT say Jesus is God, but rather that Jesus is the pathway TO GOD. ---- IN OTHER WORDS NO MAN, SUCH AS THE POPE in his pope mobile.... hehe

"Even though Jews and Muslims do not believe that A = B, the fact remains that all three still believe in the same God (God/Yahweh/YHWH/Allah)."

all wrong again! read up on islam, PLEASE!!! they do NOT have the same God.

"this is what I say: Any person who claims to be able to determine whether or not a person is going to heaven or hell is presumptuous. God is the only arbiter of who goes to heaven or hell. No human can do this. Any human who thinks he/she CAN place judgment on a person?s soul is committing the ultimate act of presumption: believing he/she is equal to God. It is God who decides who goes to heaven; neither you nor I can make this decision."

oh... so i didnt really hear anything about saint this or saint that... and no one has ever been banished from the church and by catholic doctrine since you are banished and no longer taking part in the eucharist and you do have full knowledge of Jesus, you get to go to hell. that is the point. hmmm so you are denying any of that exists now?? good for you... blind as ever...

Pricantex =
"P.S. As far as the whole petros, petra thing, I trust the translation of actual biblical scholars (if you don't believe the translation actually pick up a copy of the bible...novel idea there huh?)"

ok dewd, easy thing to see... biblical translation by scholars... ok so, if peter and rock are the same translated... uhhh... hmmm... how come when translated, one is "peter" and the other is "rock" in our bibles?? oh maybe yours is different than mine and has the word peter instead of rock all throughout the bible... whatever... THE ORIGINAL TEXT DISTINGUISED FROM PETER AND ROCK. have a great day 🙂

 

[cooldreams]

Funny, I notice that you never answer any points actually made by posters. And by the way, there is no point to asking rheatorical questions since you already know the answer. 😀

PRicanTex

no point to rhetorical? dang it i did it again, didn't i? wow and again.. opps.. hehehehehehe

yea, anyways, there was a point to my r-q's, that is something you must figure out on your own though because i have already explained the reason.

 

[cooldreams]

You said:


Even though Jews and Muslims do not believe that A = B, the fact remains that all three still believe in the same God (God/Yahweh/YHWH/Allah).

i guess you would be interested to know that the muslim stuff was written after Jesus died. in fact it started AFTER the catholic church was formed. interested eh?

why would the same god tell them that jesus is not his son, but then tell another group of ppl that jesus is his son? either the god of everyone is a lieing bastard or someone isnt listening to the same "god"....

 

[cooldreams]

this is pretty cool, check it out:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...0&u=/ap/20040820/ap_on_re_us/communion_denied

see how strict the rcc is? that is why when i show you all of these law that are in the catechism, you have no right to interpret them, for they are as fact to you.

something should be noted here. the eucharist, believed by rcc ppl, is where you eat and drink of Jesus' LITERAL FLESH AND BLOOD. you are complianing to me about literal or not interpretations. check out the passage that you guys use to base the entire eucharist off of:

"
The dogma known as transubstantation, endemic to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions, teaches that the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearance of bread and wine. A strong argument for the Protestant point of view is given by Christ Himself at His institution of the Lord's Supper. The account recorded in Matthew 26:26-29 with parallel passages in the other two synopic gospels.Verse 26 reads as follows: "While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat, this is My body." He did the same thing with the cup, calling it His blood. The evidence is overwhelming that the disciples ate bread and drank the fruit of the vine. They did not physically partake of His body nor drink any of His blood.
"


Heb 10:17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS
I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE."

 

[cooldreams]

univeral church - i can accept religions for what they are. i try not to preach hatred, but i also do not see the point in "toleration" as many ppl see it/practice it. as i quoted from the bible, Jesus is the Only way. It seems to be pretty cut and dry to me. i believe the bible talks about ppl who have had no chance to learn/experience Jesus as we have and that is one case. the case i am trying to work here is quite different, in that the people who invited the pope to kiss the quran and ppl watching, etc, all knew who the pope is, or else the significance is not there for them. now since they knew, they had the choice to chose Jesus or not, and obviously have not. on top of that, they have the leader of the "other side" kissing their holy book, which is basically reinforcing their own beliefs. ----- tolerance is one thing, but when you go out to take part in wrong practices, or make extra room for wrong practices, it is no longer "just" tolerance.

VICAR OF CHRIST - i think we as christians are representative or a reflection of God/Jesus. i think this is shown in where the bible talks about the silver smith, who knows the silver is pure when he can see his reflection in the new silver, this is the case here i believe. i think that the point that the catholic church has taken the pope is too far "universal supremacy" ?? i cannot find any basis for any one individual to be in such a position as he.

SABBATH - not everyone methodist/baptist observes the sabbath on sunday. i for one do not. actually i observe it from friday afternoon to saturday afternoon, for this is how the Jews originally celebrated it. i guess i can see why you would celebrate Jesus' resurrection, but He does not tell everyone to go forth and celebrate it as the new sabbath, whereas God in the OT did infact tell ppl to celebrate the sabbath and keep holy.. i think this is where the line is drawn.

MARYS VIRGINTIY - please if you have sometime go back and read the bible passages carefully that i pointed out. the ppl that say that they are his broths/mother are saying that they are his flesh and blood. this should be clear if you continue reading, because jesus goes on to say that not just them, but everyone there who believes in Him are his brothers and sisters. that was the whole point to that passage. if you are seeing something else besides that there, please explain in detail. thanks.

 

[cooldreams]

Jesus or barabus?

this is actually recorded in SECULAR textbooks. to even hint at it never occuring is blasphemous, even for a rcc...

 

[DieselPetrolGrl]

they should give us moral tests..in white boxes..like saving puppies and making cookies from scratch in a burning house...while debating both sides of senstive ethical arguments...arguing with urself must also show good language use ..or your out..maybe they can do this instead of a interview?

 

[jhrugger]

You guys should get each other's phone numbers and discuss this in one conversation. It would be easier. 😀

 

[Radio Edit]

I know a guy who raped and beat his exgirlfriend, spent 45 days in jail, and is attending medical school this fall. I am dead serious.

 

[Innocent Girl]

I know a guy who raped and beat his exgirlfriend, spent 45 days in jail, and is attending medical school this fall. I am dead serious.

 

[Innocent Girl]

I have to ask...

Which school is it?

 

[Radio Edit]

Tufts.

Edit: The offense occurred after he had already been accepted. He had already made his deposit was set to go. This guy is seriously unstable too. But he puts on that good boy smile at his interviews...

I am actually scared for his patients.

 

[cooldreams]

I know a guy who raped and beat his exgirlfriend, spent 45 days in jail, and is attending medical school this fall. I am dead serious.

why did he only get 45 dayz? seems like sexual predators would have a hay day if that were the case for everyone... i thought those kinds of ppl get several yrs, and in his case would have ended his med school run. plus i thought this was also a FELONY... which would be enough by itself to be kicked out. actual rape must not have been raised in court... the sentenceing sounds like a domestic assault punishment, nothing major.

 

[Radio Edit]

technicalities and unconfirmed information must have led to an easier penalty, im sure...

 

[cooldreams]

well, i can only guess that this must have alienated him from most/all his friends and family, so he must move on to other ppl... which i imagine must not be too hard since he is just now going away and starting school... lucky bastard...


still.. if i were that girl, id write several letters to as many ppl as i could about the incident... including the med school... get the kicked out on his butt, and away from vulnerable patients, and drugs.

but im not her... that may expose her in some way she is not comfortable with, and she may like him being far away from her... im a guy and has beat up on bullies before for hurting other ppl... i dont know what it is like to be afraid of someone.... 🙁

 

[DieselPetrolGrl]

well, i can only guess that this must have alienated him from most/all his friends and family, so he must move on to other ppl... which i imagine must not be too hard since he is just now going away and starting school... lucky bastard...


still.. if i were that girl, id write several letters to as many ppl as i could about the incident... including the med school... get the kicked out on his butt, and away from vulnerable patients, and drugs.

but im not her... that may expose her in some way she is not comfortable with, and she may like him being far away from her... im a guy and has beat up on bullies before for hurting other ppl... i dont know what it is like to be afraid of someone.... 🙁

u know ur not the only bully-fighter
plus dont i remember being bullied by you and knocking u flat on your back before mrs.dookie's pre-k class?

 

[cooldreams]

kewl... glad to make your aquaintance then. 😉

thas something ive done my whole life... i havent made many friends doing it though... just a few really good ones.

take care. 👍