A few religious question for catholics.

[Wotan]

Or he is just making it up like Nuke's 'Catholic Education'.

You can tell by the tone of his post that he thinks he's one of the 'smart ones' or at least smarter then those who would submit themselves to the sacred traditions. He is Luther incarnate...

He ain't gonna stand before no Church, he will get to heaven his own way...

His 'I heard some where that Catholics used to believe in reincarnation until some heretic Pope decided he didn't like that and changed it' proves it.

No man can tell him what the Bible says or means. He is his own 'mini-Pope' and knows as much if not more then any of those herd animals seeking strength in numbers.

Religion sure brings out the kooks...

The Holy Scriptures are perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church, but the greatness of the heights to which the Scriptures ascend is due to the great mountain upon which it rests. Taken from its context, within the Holy Tradition, the solid rock of Scripture becomes a mere ball of clay, to be molded into whatever shape its handlers wish to mold it. It is no honor to the Scriptures to misuse and twist them, even if this is done in the name of exalting their authority. We must read the Bible; it is God�s Holy Word. But to understand its message let us humbly sit at the feet of the saints who have shown themselves "doers of the Word and not hearers only" (James 1:22), and have been proven by their lives worthy interpreters of the Scriptures. Let us go to those who knew the Apostles, such as Saints Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, if we have a question about the writings of the Apostles. Let us inquire of the Church, and not fall into self-deluded arrogance.

By deciding to interpret scripture on your own make it not a rock but clay. You mold it to suit your own arrogance rather then conforming your self to its universal truth. There can be no universal truth since truth becomes as subjective as the individual.

That is the pinnacle of heresy.

If you say your truth is real 'truth' well so do the thousand other Protestant sects. If Luther was right then that should have been it.

I asked Nuke to name some of those 'cult' rituals the Catholic Church uses as a distraction from Christ but hasn't named one.

I know his answer to that question will be

'Toad is picking on me' so at this point I don't expect an answer.

[NUKE]

I asked Nuke to name some of those 'cult' rituals the Catholic Church uses as a distraction from Christ but hasn't named one.

I know his answer to that question will be

'Toad is picking on me' so at this point I don't expect an answer. [/B]

Well, for the most part I have been ignoring your posts.
You come across as attacking and you seem to have a "cut and paste" wall of text style, which I never usually respond to.

Also, your question. I already stated what I believed are some examples of rites and rituals that I believe are a distraction from the teachings of the bible.

I'll debate you about anything you would like, but I'm not going to respond unless you are civil.

[Wotan]

I am not going be 'civil with you' because I don't think you are intelligent enough to know the difference. That's not an attack it's the honest truth.

As for your 'wall of text' excuse all my post are spaced and broken up for easy reading. Your problem isn't with reading them, it's in comprehending what you read. You are just making excuses.

Also, your question. I already stated what I believed are some examples of rites and rituals that I believe are a distraction from the teachings of the bible.

You haven't answered that question at all. I re-read every reply you gave in this thread plus a few others. You just keep repeating the same nonsense about rites and rituals with out offering a single example.

I'll debate you about anything you would like, but I'm not going to respond unless you are civil.

This isn't debate. All your assumptions in the original questions you asked about Catholicism have been proven wrong.

If you are capable of naming a Catholic ritual that 'distracts from Christ' I will prove you wrong then as well. You being ignorant does not constitute a debate. If you feel the word 'ignorant' is an attack then look up the definition.

[NUKE]

Wotan, I'll give you your shot and then we can see how smart you are.

I'll ask you a few things Catholics do, and if you can't show me where in the bible it says to do those things or even give an example of anyone in the bible doing them, will you then be happy?

[Wotan]

You begin the premise in error. I would first quote this to you:

The Holy Scriptures are perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church, but the greatness of the heights to which the Scriptures ascend is due to the great mountain upon which it rests. Taken from its context, within the Holy Tradition, the solid rock of Scripture becomes a mere ball of clay, to be molded into whatever shape its handlers wish to mold it. It is no honor to the Scriptures to misuse and twist them, even if this is done in the name of exalting their authority. We must read the Bible; it is God�s Holy Word. But to understand its message let us humbly sit at the feet of the saints who have shown themselves "doers of the Word and not hearers only" (James 1:22), and have been proven by their lives worthy interpreters of the Scriptures. Let us go to those who knew the Apostles, such as Saints Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp, if we have a question about the writings of the Apostles. Let us inquire of the Church, and not fall into self-deluded arrogance.

I would then explain one more time to you about the origins of the 'Bible' and re-state that the the original Church members didn't have a 'Bible'; didn't preach from or worship a Bible etc...

Orthodox Churches believe not only in Sacred Scripture (Bible) but in Sacred Tradition (those traditions handed down from Christ through Peter). I would tell you that the key to understanding Orthodox is that the 2 go hand in hand.

As I have already stated...

I would also say that your statement that 'Catholic Rites and Rituals distract from Christ' has little to do with your new premise as worded in your last post.

I asked you for examples of Catholic Rites and Rituals that distract from Christ. I didn't ask you about the Bible.

You may not agree with the Orthodox view but its clear you have no concept of it. You can make up your own mind but it would make more sense if you had a basic understanding of what it is you disagree with. At least you would have a  logical place to argue from.

[NUKE]

That's what I thought, debate over and you lost before it even started.

And just like I figured, a cut and paste answer followed by a wall of text rather than a concise answer to my challenge.

Thanks anyway.

[paulieb]

(sigh) I figured that someone would flame me for what I said. I had hoped not, but oh, well....

I responded to this thread because I felt I had a reasonable, well thought out response.  

Yes, I was excommunicated, not because of my actions, but because after being married in the Church, my wife divorced me. I may attend Mass, but I may not take communion, nor give confession, or participate in any of the other sacraments. This is what led me to research. Of course, a few years later, the Vatican changed its stance on divorce, but did not reverse any rulings it had previously made regarding one's status within the Church. If you think that I'm looney, you should talk to my friend who believes that the modern Mass is really the Black Mass.

Wotan: Or he is just making it up like Nuke's 'Catholic Education'.

1. You can tell by the tone of his post that he thinks he's one of the 'smart ones' or at least smarter then those who would submit themselves to the sacred traditions. He is Luther incarnate...

2. He ain't gonna stand before no Church, he will get to heaven his own way...

3. His 'I heard some where that Catholics used to believe in reincarnation until some heretic Pope decided he didn't like that and changed it' proves it.

4. No man can tell him what the Bible says or means. He is his own 'mini-Pope' and knows as much if not more then any of those herd animals seeking strength in numbers.

I will address these points one at a time.

1. Do you prefer to believe yourself to be "one of the smart ones", or something else? Which in your mind is more important, the rituals or the faith that they instill and inspire? The process, or the end result? By your phrasing "submit themselves to the sacred traditions", you imply submission, or even capitulation is required in order to believe. Do you really believe that true faith should be defeatist, or did I misread you? If you really believe that, then you understand Catholicism much less than you know. If I misread you, then the fault is mine, and no further discussion is required. However, I do not believe that one should submit to tradition, but only to the will of God. How does anyone know that these are God's traditions? You demand proof of things discussed in these posts, and state clearly that I am Luther incarnate. Can you prove this?

2. When (or if, if you prefer) I get to Heaven, it will be because I have followed the teachings of our Lord and Saviour, and accept that he died for the sins of mankind, not because I put a wafer in my mouth every Sunday and cross myself with holy water. To believe otherwise is simply ludicrous. If I don't get to Heaven, sure, I'm going to feel pretty stupid about it. But if I do, won't you feel pretty silly? But I agree with one point, and then only partially. I will stand before no church or man that states that their way is the only way. God is love. Jesus Christ taught on the value of love and tolerance. Anyone who says "we're right and everyone else is wrong" is certainly not teaching tolerance. This belief of mine is not anti-(insert religion here). It IS, however, anti-intolerance. "he will get to heaven his own way"... isn't the way I talk about Christ's way? Can you prove I'm wrong?

3. At no time do I state that this is my belief. I simply say that there has been some considerable discussion of the topic in theological circles. Even if I had said that I believed this, I fail to see what it "proves".

4. In a way, you are correct. No one can tell me what the Bible says or means, nor should they tell you or anyone else. A person's relationship with Christ and with his Creator is a deeply personal and subjective thing. As far as being my own "mini-pope", I don't tell anyone what to believe. Not even you. "herd animals"... I'd like you to show me where I called anyone that. I did state my belief that organized religion began as a defense mechanism, and that I believe the concept is obsolete. More specifically, I believe that it has in many cases become an engine of intolerance, the precise thing that it was created to defend against.

I don't even usually speak on the subject of religion because of the animosity that usually follows. More blood has been shed allegedly in the name of God than for any other reason. In no translation of the Bible that I've ever read does it say Thou Shalt Be Catholic, or Protestant, or Seventh Day Adventist, or Baptist, or Snake Handler.

I have one final question to ask: do you suppose that God appreciates more a person who accepts on blind faith everything he has been told about Him from birth through repetition and ritual, or a person who lost his faith and found it again through study and introspection? There is, as far as I know, no way to answer this, for we are not meant to know the mind of God... it's meant to make you think. But if you like, ask Him when you see Him. I plan to.

[Wotan]

Originally posted by NUKE
That's what I thought, debate over and you lost before it even started.

And just like I figured, a cut and paste answer followed by a wall of text rather than a concise answer to my challenge.

Thanks anyway.

Challenge? You simply duck and weave when pressed. As has been pointed out.

You offer no challenge that survives the first glance. The question isn't about what you  read in or out of the Bible. I asked for a sinlge example of a Rtie or Ritual that distracts from Christ as you claimed.

You keep dodging an answer.

Wall of texts? I can give a word count if you like? I can even help with the big words if needed...

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by NUKE
That's what I thought, debate over and you lost before it even started.

You keep on telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.  

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Wotan
I asked for a sinlge example of a Rtie or Ritual that distracts from Christ as you claimed.

I'll make it simple.

1. I believe that the bible is the word of God
2. I believe that any rite or ritual which is not validated in the bible is a distraction from the word of God. I have said this same thing about 4 or five times in this thread.

Now, do you want me to list some things Catholics do and teach which I believe to be a distraction from the bible, the word of God?

[Wotan]

I figured that someone would flame me for what I said. I had hoped not, but oh, well....

I responded to this thread because I felt I had a reasonable, well thought out response.

You weren't flamed, lets not pretend you are made of glass.

IMHO, your reply was not that well thought out but full of anti-Catholic characterizations from an ex-pat Catholic.

How do you think your post would be read?

Yes, I was excommunicated, not because of my actions, but because after being married in the Church, my wife divorced me. I may attend Mass, but I may not take communion, nor give confession, or participate in any of the other sacraments. This is what led me to research. Of course, a few years later, the Vatican changed its stance on divorce, but did not reverse any rulings it had previously made regarding one's status within the Church. If you think that I'm looney, you should talk to my friend who believes that the modern Mass is really the Black Mass.

I am not going to get into your personal life but if your wife was granted a divorce then she had grounds (in court at least). But none of that is my concern.

1. Do you prefer to believe yourself to be "one of the smart ones", or something else? Which in your mind is more important, the rituals or the faith that they instill and inspire? The process, or the end result? By your phrasing "submit themselves to the sacred traditions", you imply submission, or even capitulation is required in order to believe. Do you really believe that true faith should be defeatist, or did I misread you? If you really believe that, then you understand Catholicism much less than you know. If I misread you, then the fault is mine, and no further discussion is required. However, I do not believe that one should submit to tradition, but only to the will of God. How does anyone know that these are God's traditions? You demand proof of things discussed in these posts, and state clearly that I am Luther incarnate. Can you prove this?

I am not a Christian as I have said. But if you know anything of the early Church you know that their was no Bible. That which we call the Bible came much later. The early practices of the Church were spread orally and through tradition.

As I quoted above:

The Holy Scriptures are perhaps the summit of the Holy Tradition of the Church, but the greatness of the heights to which the Scriptures ascend is due to the great mountain upon which it rests.

Would you  assume that you could pick a a tech manual and  build your own nuclear reactor? The manual would compliment and be put into context by your training.

If you claim that you can read the Bible and and become your own 'Church' then I would say nonsense.

Do you believe in universal truth? If there is a such thing then not every interpretation of the Bible can be correct. Why would you assume your interpretation would be the correct one? Are sure you are free of human arrogance? Are you sure the ideas you arrive at come from Divine revelation or from else where?

I do know that if I were to chose a Christian Theology it would be the one that goes right back to Christ. Protestantism goes no further then Luther.

If you think as Luther does, that you can read the Bible on its own then you are no different then Luther at all.

Christ submitted to the Cross, you submit to Christ. Faith requires submission. Having faith in Tradition as well as Scripture is a form of submission.

There's nothing defeatist about that.

When (or if, if you prefer) I get to Heaven, it will be because I have followed the teachings of our Lord and Saviour, and accept that he died for the sins of mankind, not because I put a wafer in my mouth every Sunday and cross myself with holy water. To believe otherwise is simply ludicrous. If I don't get to Heaven, sure, I'm going to feel pretty stupid about it. But if I do, won't you feel pretty silly? But I agree with one point, and then only partially. I will stand before no church or man that states that their way is the only way. God is love. Jesus Christ taught on the value of love and tolerance. Anyone who says "we're right and everyone else is wrong" is certainly not teaching tolerance. This belief of mine is not anti-(insert religion here). It IS, however, anti-intolerance. "he will get to heaven his own way"... isn't the way I talk about Christ's way? Can you prove I'm wrong?

Followed the teachings of the Lord according to whom? Your own flawed interpretation?

It's not a wafer you put in your mouth, its not symbolism either. If you believe then it's the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.

You claimed to be a Catholic at one time. Why do you mock them now?

I posted this to Nuke previously and I think it answers the rest of this point:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? ...as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:14, 26).

You don't get to heaven by simply going along to get along. You don't go through the motions to get to heaven, you still need faith. Faith requires submission.

You claim all you have it figured out. Many other sects do the same. Which one is right? You? Them? Catholics? Orthodox?

3. At no time do I state that this is my belief. I simply say that there has been some considerable discussion of the topic in theological circles. Even if I had said that I believed this, I fail to see what it "proves".

Well as I said there are a lot of kooks when it comes to religion. Want to go to  West Va. and handle snakes?

4. In a way, you are correct. No one can tell me what the Bible says or means, nor should they tell you or anyone else. A person's relationship with Christ and with his Creator is a deeply personal and subjective thing. As far as being my own "mini-pope", I don't tell anyone what to believe. Not even you. "herd animals"... I'd like you to show me where I called anyone that. I did state my belief that organized religion began as a defense mechanism, and that I believe the concept is obsolete. More specifically, I believe that it has in many cases become an engine of intolerance, the precise thing that it was created to defend against.

A personal relationship with Christ doesn't require an individual interpretation of the Bible. Catholics and Orthodox believers have very personal relationships with Christ.

Your whole idea on 'organized religion' is just a bunch of nonsense. Christ entrusted Peter to sit at the head of his Church. That implies a level of organization. Organization is also a product of human instinct. The 'organization' served a purpose by spreading the Gospels when there was no Bible. The main tool of the 'organization' was 'tradition' as passed down from Christ through Peter and the Apostles.

I believe that organized religion was intended as a means of protection (read as "Strength in numbers") from persecution

That statement above fulfills the definition of a herd animal.

I have one final question to ask: do you suppose that God appreciates more a person who accepts on blind faith everything he has been told about Him from birth through repetition and ritual, or a person who lost his faith and found it again through study and introspection? There is, as far as I know, no way to answer this, for we are not meant to know the mind of God... it's meant to make you think. But if you like, ask Him when you see Him. I plan to.

I refer you to Toad's replies to Nuke in this thread because he attempts to make sense of that.

I have to get some sleep.

[Wotan]

Now, do you want me to list some things Catholics do and teach which I believe to be a distraction from the bible, the word of God?

You keep repeating that over and over and I have yet to see a single example...

[paulieb]

Wotan, I do see your point. I'm not sure that you see mine, however. Nowhere in the Holy Bible does it say which religion is the correct one. All religions disagree with the others on some point or another. Wars have been fought over them. I don't know which one is right, I just know how I feel. A few points:

quote: Christ submitted to the Cross, you submit to Christ. Faith requires submission. Having faith in Tradition as well as Scripture is a form of submission.

Interesting line of thought, if somewhat ambiguous. Mine is probably no better... faith requires nothing more or less than itself. It has no prerequisite. How you GOT it is irrelevant. Yes, arguably, it's circular thinking, but to me it makes perfect sense.

quote: Followed the teachings of the Lord according to whom? Your own flawed interpretation?

Yes. Precisely. Is anyone's intepretation flawless? Universal Truth... now that's one that could take years to discuss fully. In a nutshell: Truth, as humans know it, is subject to perception and interpretation. Example: you are presented with an Absolute Truth, but your perception of it is flawed because you yourself are flawed, therefore for you, the truth is imperfect, and no longer absolute. However, at least for yourself, it is still true.

The Bible, the Scriptures themselves, are indeed the wisdom of God, handed down through the ages by FLAWED humans. I find it unlikely that any modern translation of the Bible is actually 100% accurate. A philosopher might say that the correct interpretation is the one that helps you at the moment you read it, which of course will vary from moment to moment.

quote: A personal relationship with Christ doesn't require an individual interpretation of the Bible.

Actually, you're right there. Don't know how I missed that.

quote: Which one is right? You? Them? Catholics? Orthodox?

My point exactly.

quote: Christ entrusted Peter to sit at the head of his Church.

Okay, fine, I agree. So which one was it that he sat at the head of? Don't they all make the same claim? (I'm actually asking, because I don't know about all of them, just a few.)

quote: The main tool of the 'organization' was 'tradition' as passed down from Christ through Peter and the Apostles.

Originally, yes, but some religions, or at least some people within them, appear to take the tradition as being more important than the lesson it's supposed to teach, and that's where I have a problem.

Slightly less on topic, but I also have a problem with the term "Christian", because it implies the worship of Christ above God. Mind you, what other word for it could we use?

Given that you are not Christian, Wotan, I have to assume that you're something of a student of philosophy. If so, you should understand this core belief of mine quite plainly: wisdom is most meaningfully born from the union of disparate ideas, but this can only occur when an effort is made to truly understand that with which you do not agree. Pretty wild, huh? Wotan!

[culero]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Yeah Nuke, and if Jesus was a Jew, why the Hispanic name?

They don't make Jews like Jesus anymore � Kinky

culero

[culero]

I've pretty much considered you worthless for some time now, but I was wrong. Looking at the size of this stringer, I gotta say it, you are truly a Master Baiter!

~S~

culero