 |
| Tuesday, 22.05.2012 - Welcome to web.com.na! |
|
![]() |
|
Online: 9 Members, 74 Guests
|
| You are not logged in! |
|
|
| Forum |
 |
Your last visit was: Tuesday, 22.05.2012, 10:37 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
 REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 07:07 |
 |
|
![]() |
Hi All,
We have seen a few posters here talking about the Roman Catholic Church and they seem to either disagree or oppose what the R.C. Church teaches. Here is an opportunity to make things clear and to state which R.C. doctrines, policies, practices and/or traditions you disagree with.
|
|
![]() |
 Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
bully
Number Posts: 267
Last Post: 02.05.2012, 09:10
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 08:52 |
|
|
![]() |
well... for me..its not the teachings..its more the way they tend to quickly turn against their teachings and pretend as if that is not what they are doing. take for example... they agree with with evolution theory and seems to think that religion and science can live together without contradicting each other, which of coarse doesn't make sense, since religion say one thing and science the complete opposite, it makes one wonders where does that leave the bible with them, did they decide to just ignore some of what the bible says or what is their possible reason for having decided to believe the evolution theory in spite of what the bible says.... and then you have the hypocrisy that runs in the organisation... like they are the first to condemn homosexuality yet they are the ones who are molesting small boys? then there is now the other thing there where i thing its the bishop or whoever you call those guys who are not suppose to get married..in which bible did they read that? oh yeah and whats up with baptizing babies.. whats the point? and ahhh to which god does the R. C members really pray to..is it the virgin Mary/ Jesus/ or god himself? and uhhm.. confession..? that is just wrong lol! there is a whole list of other things.. but really for me .. i believe that the R.C church today is more of a business entity than a church organisation, it completely ignores the bible and does things in its own way with its own rules?
bully >>OUT!
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Swanu
Number Posts: 485
Last Post: 15.05.2012, 13:39
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 09:10 |
|
|
![]() |
Hi Lenga,
Why do you pray to virgin Mary?
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
THE MIGHTY CARETA
Number Posts: 589
Last Post: 16.05.2012, 11:44
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 09:44 |
|
|
![]() |
|
Why do you MOLEST LITTLE BOYS !
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 09:45 |
|
|
![]() |
Hi Bully and Swanu,
Thank you for your responses. I am driving now from one town to another; I will be back here late in the afternoon.
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 09:47 |
|
|
![]() |
|
Thank you too Careta, I will respond later.
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 16:22 |
|
|
![]() |
BULLY: “well ... for me … its not the teachings ... its more the way they tend to quickly turn against their teachings and pretend as if that is not what they are doing.”
MY RESPONSE: Okay, that means you have nothing against the R.C. Church itself but rather against those who ignore what the Church teaches.
BULLY: “take for example ... they agree with with evolution theory and seems to think that religion and science can live together without contradicting each other, which of coarse doesn't make sense,”
MY RESPONSE: How does that not make sense?
BULLY: “ … religion say one thing and science the complete opposite,”
MY RESPONSE: For example?
BULLY: “it makes one wonders where does that leave the bible with them,”
MY RESPONSE: The R.C. teaching on the Bible is very clearly stated in Dei Verbum. You can read it here: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum
BULLY: “did they decide to just ignore some of what the bible says or what is their possible reason for having decided to believe the evolution theory in spite of what the bible says...”
MY RESPONSE: Where does the Bible disprove evolution?
BULLY: “and then you have the hypocrisy that runs in the organization ...”
MY RESPONSE: Like?
BULLY: “like they are the first to condemn homosexuality yet they are the ones who are molesting small boys?”
MY RESPONSE: The R.C. does not condemn homosexuality; it condemns all sinful acts. The molestation of small boys is condemned by the R.C. Church.
BULLY: “then there is now the other thing there where i thing its the bishop or whoever you call those guys who are not suppose to get married ... in which bible did they read that?
MY RESPONSE: Well, try Matthew 19:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:32-35 and then come back and tell me what you have seen there.
BULLY: “oh yeah and whats up with baptizing babies ...”
MY RESPONSE: The Bible does nowhere forbid the baptism of babies. In actual fact, if the New Covenant is more inclusive and better than the Old Covenant (and the Old Covenant included babies) then the New Covenant must include babies. Circumcision was the entrance sign of the Old Covenant … and what is the entrance sign of the New Covenant? Baptism of course!
You may disagree but at least try to understand the Catholic rationale behind the baptism of infants. By the way, do you know that Lutherans, Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Calvinists, etc also baptize babies?
BULLY: “whats the point?”
MY RESPONSE: Some people who ask “what is the point” of baptizing babies, suddenly forget to ask the same question when it comes to the dedication of babies. And that is a blatant lack of consistence.
BULLY: “and ahhh to which god does the R.C. members really pray to ... is it the virgin Mary/Jesus/or god himself?
MY RESPONSE: Catholics know the difference between worship and prayer. Worship is due to God alone, but prayer can be directed to fellow believers (and Mary is a believer too). To pray simply means to ask. So, a Catholic may ask Mary, the angels, the sanits and fellow believers to pray for (and with) him or her, just like a Baptist would ask his pastor to pray for him or her.
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 16:28 |
|
|
![]() |
BULLY: “and uhhm ... confession ...?
MY RESPONSE: Jesus was sent to forgive sins (Mark 2:5); just LIKE Jesus was sent, so did Jesus sent His disciples (John 20:21). If Jesus’ disciples have no power to forgive sins in Jesus’ name (John 20:23) then Jesus did not really send them LIKE He was sent; He just tricked them – and the R.C. Church refuses to believe in a Jesus who is actually a trickster. You may disagree, but at least try to see the rationale.
BULLY: “that is just wrong lol!”
MY RESPONSE: You are free to see it as wrong, but so are Catholics free to see it as correct.
BULLY: “there is a whole list of other things ...”
MY RESPONSE: And I am sure that list is full of caricatures, not what the R.C. really teaches.
BULLY: “but really for me ... i believe that the R.C church today is more of a business entity than a church organisation,”
MY RESPONSE: May I know the ground for your conclusion?
BULLY: “it completely ignores the bible and does things in its own way with its own rules?”
MY RESPONSE: That may come as a shock to some people, but the truth is that the Bible is a Catholic Book. The R.C. Church was there before there was a Bible. The Bible reflects what the R.C. Church believes not the other way round.
By the way, thanks for your gentle response so far.
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 16:38 |
|
|
![]() |
SWANU: “Hi Lenga, Why do you pray to virgin Mary?”
MY RESPONSE: Because the Bible commands that there should be prayers and supplications for all. You can ask me to pray for you; I can ask you to pray for me; we all can ask fellow believers (including Mary of course) to pray for us. Look, Catholics differentiate between
1. Worship (latria) that is due to God alone, and
2. Prayer (dulia) that can be directed at fellow human beings.
In other words, when Catholics say “holy Mary pray for us sinners” they know Mary is human, not a Goddess.
You may disagree, but at least try to understand what Catholics really believe and teach instead of believing in caricatures.
By the way, thanks for your response.
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 16:39 |
|
|
![]() |
CARETA: “Why do you MOLEST LITTLE BOYS!”
MY RESPONSE: The R.C. Church does not molest little boys.
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
bully
Number Posts: 267
Last Post: 02.05.2012, 09:10
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 16:56 |
|
|
![]() |
//How does that not make sense?//
well let me see:
evolution suggests -the world is billions of years old
-people have evolved from primate monkeys
-all living organisms are cousins and come from a common ancestor (every living thing)
on the other hand, you have the bible saying - the world is +- 6000 years old
-people where created by god from sand in his own image
-and all living things are created by god and everything else also
Now the position the R.C church took to say that religion and science are compatible is just wrong you can never merge this two ideas, its does not make sense to think the two can be used together to explain our world..its either you choose one and forget the other!
// For example? //
uhhmm. god creating adam and eve e.g!
//Where does the Bible disprove evolution//
while it does not disprove evolution, its suggest something incompatible with evolution, besides am not saying it disproves evolution, am asking why the R.C church decided to accept evolution, while the bible speak of a completely different concept, contrary to the creation myth!
//Like?//
the hypocrisy is the condemnation of homosexuality and yet they are the ones molesting the small boys.
// The R.C. does not condemn homosexuality; it condemns all sinful acts. The molestation of small boys is condemned by the R.C. Church.//
i know.. that's what all the churches do. but homosexuality right now is under the spotlight. there you go again confirming the hypocrisy am talking about.. its like Pohamba saying he'll fight corruption with his administration.. yet they are tho ones committing the corruption!//
//The Bible does nowhere forbid the baptism of babies. In actual fact, if the New Covenant is more inclusive and better than the Old Covenant (and the Old Covenant included babies) then the New Covenant must include babies. Circumcision was the entrance sign of the Old Covenant … and what is the entrance sign of the New Covenant//
do you actually know that answer for a fact or are you just merely suggesting things randomly, the same way the bible does not forbid baptism..its the very same way it does not mention it too.. where did they come up with this idea..what exactly are they practicing.
//Some people who ask “what is the point” of baptizing babies, suddenly forget to ask the same question when it comes to the dedication of babies. And that is a blatant lack of consistence.//
yeah you are right..now tell me what is the point of the dedicatio
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 19:08 |
|
|
![]() |
Hi Bully,
I carefully went through your response before responding. Wanted to make sure I understand correctly what you are saying. I hope I do.
BULLY: “//How does that not make sense?// well let me see: evolution suggests the world is billions of years old”
MY RESPONSE: How many “billions” exactly? Or is science unable to tell?
BULLY: “people have evolved from primate monkeys; all living organisms are cousins and come from a common ancestor (every living thing)”
MY RESPONSE: That is what science “suggests” today. And what science suggests as true today can be proven to be false tomorrow. How many planets did science say were there 30 years ago? How many planets are there now according to science? So, as you can see, what science declares as true today can be declared untrue tomorrow.
BULLY: “on the other hand, you have the bible saying - the world is +- 6000 years old”
MY RESPONSE: Where exactly does the Bible say the world is +- 6 000 years old?
BULLY: “people where created by god from sand in his own image.”
MY RESPONSE: And where does science contradict that?
BULLY: “and all living things are created by god and everything else also.”
MY RESPONSE: And science has no contrary explanation. The universe is so orderly, suggesting an intelligent designer. Or did the universe create itself out of nothing? How and why? How do you get orderliness out of chaos for no apparent reason? Can science give me an answer?
BULLY: “Now the position the R.C church took to say that religion and science are compatible is just wrong you can never merge this two ideas,”
MY RESPONSE: There is no need to merge the two: science has to do with the physical; theology has to do with the spiritual -- two clearly distinct disciplines. Trying to merge them would be like trying to merge astronomy with zoology.
BULLY: “its does not make sense to think the two can be used together to explain our world ...”
MY RESPONSE: Science explains the physical; theology explains the spiritual. And that is fine. The problem only arises when science crosses its limits and tries to answer theological questions, or when some misguided Christians try to use the Bible as a science text book.
BULLY: “its either you choose one and forget the other!”
MY RESPONSE: Why? Simply because astronomy can not answer zoological questions does not mean I have to choose one and forget the other. I can have both; each serving its intended purpose.
BULLY: “//For example?// uhhmm. god creating adam and eve e.g!”
MY RESPONSE: And?
BULLY: “//Where does the Bible disprove evolution// while it does not disprove evolution, its suggest something incompatible with evolution,”
MY RESPONSE: Who says so? Because Bully says so does not mean it is so.
BULLY: “besides am not saying it disproves evolution,”
MY RESPONSE: Fair enough!
BULLY: “am asking why the R.C church decided to accept evolution, while the bible speak of a completely different concept,”
MY RESPONSE: The Bible as interpreted by Bully speaks “of a completely different concept”, but the Bible as interpreted by the R.C. Church is entirely in harmony with science. Why is your interpretation of the Bible better and more correct than the interpretation of the R.C. Church? Can you explain that?
BULLY: “contrary to the creation myth!”
MY RESPONSE: And you can not see that that sounds arrogant? Because Bully says it is a myth, every one must believe that it is a myth – wow!
The myths, actually, are:
1. Bully’s belief that the universe created itself out of nothing and for no apparent reason, and
2. The so-called conflict between Christianity and science
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/sbarr_interview_sept06.asp
BULLY: “//Like?// the hypocrisy is the condemnation of homosexuality and yet they are the ones molesting the small boys.”
MY RESPONSE: The R.C. Church does not molest small boys.
[Post edited by: Lenga2030 on 15/2/12 7:55 PM]
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 19:52 |
|
|
![]() |
BULLY: “//The R.C. does not condemn homosexuality; it condemns all sinful acts. The molestation of small boys is condemned by the R.C. Church.// i know.”
MY RESPONSE: So you actually know that the R.C. Church does not condemn homosexuality and that it condemns the molestation of small boys, yet you came here saying the opposite. Are you honest yet?
BULLY: “that's what all the churches do.”
MY RESPONSE: You are confusing the R.C. Church and its individual members. Only a really foolish person or a political opportunist would, for instance, directly accuse the Namibian Prime Minister simply because an individual who happens to be a civil servant is accused of rape.
BULLY: “but homosexuality right now is under the spotlight.”
MY RESPONSE: So?
BULLY: “there you go again confirming the hypocrisy am talking about ... its like Pohamba saying he'll fight corruption with his administration ... yet they are tho ones committing the corruption!//”
MY RESPONSE: You have only yourself to blame if you do not actually know the difference between:
- Criminal acts committed by individuals because they IGNORED the rules of their organization, and
- Criminal acts committed by individuals because they FOLLOWED the rules of their organization.
Some Catholic priests have molested small boys because they IGNORED the rules of the R.C. Church. We have rapists who may be members of SWAPO, but we do not blame SWAPO. We have thieves who may be members of the RDP, but we do not blame the RDP. We have murderers who may be members of the NDF, but we do not blame the NDF. But when it comes to the R.C. Church, the rules of the game are suddenly changed. Why?
BULLY: “//The Bible does nowhere forbid the baptism of babies. In actual fact, if the New Covenant is more inclusive and better than the Old Covenant (and the Old Covenant included babies) then the New Covenant must include babies. Circumcision was the entrance sign of the Old Covenant … and what is the entrance sign of the New Covenant// do you actually know that answer for a fact or are you just merely suggesting things randomly,”
MY RESPONSE: I know for a fact.
BULLY: “the same way the bible does not forbid baptism … its the very same way it does not mention it too ...”
MY RESPONSE: First, the Bible does actually mention the baptism of babies. It says baptism is for all human beings. Babies are human beings, for sure!
Secondly, even if it was true that the Bible does not mention the baptism of babies, it does not matter. Jesus left us, not the Bible, but His Church and His Church has Christ-given powers to make decisions that are binding on earth and in heaven (Matthew 18:18, Matthew 16:19).
You may disagree, but at least acknowledge the rationale behind the R.C. Church’s doctrine.
BULLY: “where did they come up with this idea ... what exactly are they practicing.”
MY RESPONSE: That is the question I was supposed to ask you. If the baptism of babies is anti-Biblical, then you have to tell us exactly when this “error” was introduced and why the “true Christians” did not protest. If they did protest, where is the evidence? As far as I know the first protest against the baptism of babies was registered 1 600 years after Jesus Christ's earthily ministry. In other words, the anti-baptism-of-babies-crowd is preaching a new (and totally different) Gospel.
BULLY: “//Some people who ask “what is the point” of baptizing babies, suddenly forget to ask the same question when it comes to the dedication of babies. And that is a blatant lack of consistence.// yeah you are right ... now tell me what is the point of the dedication.”
MY RESPONSE: Let 2loxy come on board and explain. I know he is still around.
[Post edited by: Lenga2030 on 15/2/12 7:58 PM]
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
manuelbaptista
Number Posts: 99
Last Post: 21.05.2012, 17:25
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Wednesday, 15. February 2012 at 23:49 |
|
|
![]() |
Congratulations bro Lenga.
I'll support your forum.
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
bully
Number Posts: 267
Last Post: 02.05.2012, 09:10
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Thursday, 16. February 2012 at 10:27 |
|
|
![]() |
//How many “billions” exactly? Or is science unable to tell? //
* +-4.5billion
// And what science suggests as true today can be proven to be false tomorrow.//
*No you got it wrong, what science suggest as true today, does not get proven wrong tomorrow necessarily. its either an improvement on the already available information or a modification.. its never wrong. and in science when a certain claim is found to be wrong. usually the scientist who makes the claim usually comes forth and accepts his mistake and takes back his claims and declares it wrong!
//How many planets did science say were there 30 years ago? How many planets are there now according to science? So, as you can see, what science declares as true today can be declared untrue tomorrow. //
* this is a very good example of what i said above.. 30years ago scientist could only see 30 planets, with the equipment that time... 30 years later more advanced telescopes... now we have hundreds of planets... including the 30 planets discovered 30years ago (there an improvement to what was already known).
/
//
// Where exactly does the Bible say the world is +- 6 000 years old?//
*Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.
From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.
From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.
From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen 12:10/ Exodus 12:40/ Gal 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.
Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.
From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].
The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.
Therefore, the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years!
//And where does science contradict that? //
*the fact that science suggests that the every living thing comes from a common ancestor, a single cell ogansim, contradicts the story of god taking mud and forming Adam...
//The universe is so orderly, suggesting an intelligent designer. Or did the universe create itself out of nothing? How and why? How do you get orderliness out of chaos for no apparent reason? Can science give me an answer? //
*2000 years ago, when nobody knew about evolution,gravity,what the sun is and does, electricity,germs, watches, electrical appliances, and all this things the list goes on... the bible was the answer to all our questions.. it was only known that god was responsible about all this things that was so unknown to everybody god was the responsible party.... then scientist where born... now we know planets form because of gravity, in the past we never thought people could ever fly... now we are flying everyday, now we know people don't get sick from evil demons/spirits..but germs are responsible for diseases.. we used to thing the world was flat..but now we know its round thanks to science, we used to think the sun rotates around the earth. and now we know the earth rotates around the sun... all this and many other things scientist figured it out and trust me it was not over night it took years and years of research. Now science is unable to explain the order in the world... but now they are in the process they suspect evolution is responsible for the order in the world(biological world) but don't despair research is continuing and sooner than you think they will explain the order in the world! but its OK you can sit there, Claim the world is so orderly because of an intelligent designer, just because you fail to understand why the world is so orderly. scientist do not know, why there is so much order... but they are working on it and just because you dont understand something and fail to understand it.. does not mean god did it... Tell me your reason for thinking god is responsible for so much order and complexity in the world???
// Or did the universe create itself out of nothing? How and why?//
*Yes the world created itself, and no it is not out of nothing... the law of thermodynamics says.. energy cannot be created nor destroyed it is just changed from one form to another and as you know (maybe)f from einstein who successfully concluded that energy=matter and they are basically the same thing in different forms. and ofcoase the world was made from small matter. so basically there is the big bang.. which has been proven time and again that it happened and it is responsible for the existence of planet earth, the only thing we don't know is.. what caused the big bang.. they are speculating gravity..but they cannot figure out how gravity did it(they are workin on it) and yes this are random events.. they just take form depending on the environment they find themselves in so they do not have motive... they are just randomly happening.
// How do you get orderliness out of chaos for no apparent reason//
*which chaos?
//There is no need to merge the two: science has to do with the physical; theology has to do with the spiritual //
*there is nothing spiritual about, the creation myth, the story of the flood, the story of the man staying in the fish for 3days, about the crusifiction story.. all this are events that are said to have taken place and that is not spiritual its supposedly physical events that took place. so therefore you cannot believe that the world is 6000 years old and created in 7days and also believe in evolution. you either choose one and not the other... unless u are a hypocrite. and i hope you do realize that by admitting that theology has nothing to do with the physical.. proofs to you that the bible has no business trying to explain this world if its going to use a god!
//Who says so? Because Bully says so does not mean it is so. //
* uuhhhmm duh..not because bully says so..but because the bible says things are created and science says things are formed... do you even know that things can never be created, never! creation is impossible! unless you believe in miracles.
// The Bible as interpreted by Bully speaks “of a completely different concept”, but the Bible as interpreted by the R.C. Church is entirely in harmony with science. Why is your interpretation of the Bible better and more correct than the interpretation of the R.C. Church? Can you explain that? //
* was waiting for this.. its called bible apologetic, this is where you decide to interpret the bible to suite your view of the world so that it suites with the way you see the world today.. the only problem with this kind of thing is that you refuse to apply it to the rest of the bible... instead you pick and choose what should be taken literally and what should not be taken literally..which i don't see why.. since the bible is the word of the all knowing, all powerful god! am sure he must've written the bible in a very straight forward way...like it is today and thats why he didn't leave any instructions to not take parts of the bible literally...
// And you can not see that that sounds arrogant? Because Bully says it is a myth, every one must believe that it is a myth – wow! //
* am i hearing you correctly? do you dare to say that you believe the adam and eve story.. do you dare? lmao!
[TO BE CONTINUED]...
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Thursday, 16. February 2012 at 11:06 |
|
|
![]() |
PART 1
The Mass is the most important form of worship in Catholicism.
If one really wants to know whether Catholics worship God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Holy Trinity) alone, or they also worship Mary, it would help to look at the written order of the Mass: http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/annotated-mass.pdf
I took the chance and here is what I found:
- God the father/Lord God/Almighty God/Jesus Christ/the only Son/our Lord/Holy Spirit: mentioned 90 times;
- The phrase “brothers and sisters” appears three times;
- Angels and saints/communion of saints: two times;
- Blessed Mary/virgin Mary: appears two times, namely: a) “I ask blessed Mary, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God” and b) “I believe in Jesus Christ … conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary”.
Those are the only two instances Mary appears in the written order of the Mass. In the first instance she is grouped together with the angels, the saints and “you, my brothers and sisters”; in the second, she is mentioned in relation to the Incarnation. Nowhere is she worshiped.
Yet, anti-Catholics are not interested in facts; they have an agenda to be promoted without regard to the truth.
So, my brothers Swanu & Bully, Catholics do not worship Mary; they worship God alone.
Catholics ask God/Lord/Jesus to have mercy, to forgive their sins, but such a request IS NEVER directed at Mary. Mary is simply asked to “pray for us”, but such a request is also directed at the angels, the saints and to you, brothers and sisters. Yet we never hear anyone asking why Catholics worship their brothers and sisters.
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Thursday, 16. February 2012 at 11:40 |
|
|
![]() |
Bully,
What you are posting here was supposed to be posted at the Atheism thread. You are no longer addressing Catholicism; you are addressing Christianity in general and that was not the purpose of this thread. I am just reminding you so we can avoid future accusations of having “hijacking” a thread.
I am now waiting for your part 2 before responding.
I appreciate your kind and civilized response. That is how a discussion should be.
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
bully
Number Posts: 267
Last Post: 02.05.2012, 09:10
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Thursday, 16. February 2012 at 11:43 |
|
|
![]() |
|
know what you are saying i understand what you mean.. in a nutshell you are saying those child molester priests are one of the very view rotten potatoes or if you like the wolfs in sheep's clothing.. i know its nobodies fault if a specific priests decides to disobey the rules and teachings of the R.C! and decides to molest boys out of his own choice .. and its not like child molestation is what the R.C teaches... god forbid lol! but here is the thing, this kind of thing was first found out internally in the church time and time again but the church decided to cover it up.... i think it was going on for 50 years or so.. now what does that say about the Church and its position against molestation or homosexuality if it covers something like that for so long.. and that is the problem i have with it! they say action speaks louder than words... and the words they run condemning homosexuality and molestation in public does definitely not speak louder than the actions they take against this molesting priests. its very naive of you to seat there and pretend the leadership of R.C is all Innocent when it comes to the molestation thing!
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
THE MIGHTY CARETA
Number Posts: 589
Last Post: 16.05.2012, 11:44
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Thursday, 16. February 2012 at 12:04 |
|
|
![]() |
Thanks you Bully :)
You took the words right out of my mouth, the inaction and concealment of this practice in the R.C is the problem, even in all the articles SAND-VAG-MAN posted ACTION was taken to address the problem not coveups as was the case with the R.C
therefor silently they did not have a problem with the priests relieving themselves witht he alterboys and orphans one can take it a step further and make the bold statement that the ROT goes right through to the CORE and that this practice is very common within the R.C and maybe the cases that were revealed may be the tip of the iceberg and the leadership if the RC knows this hence their silence on the matter!
SAND-VAG-MAN
getting articles from a catholic & orthodocs group on a pro catholic website isnt the best place to get credible information that justifies your boy molestation organisations practices as child molestation in its own right is EVIL but to try and compare the boy scouts & the church is like comparing apples with oranges and I believe that the boy scouts are the lesser of 2 evils as they dont believe they are Gods ambassadors on earth!
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Thursday, 16. February 2012 at 12:37 |
|
|
![]() |
BULYY: “+-4.5 billion.”
MY RESPONSE: But we have other scientist who put the age at between 6 and 10 billion years. Meaning, scientists do not yet agree on the matter.
BULYY: “No you got it wrong, what science suggest as true today, does not get proven wrong tomorrow necessarily. its either an improvement on the already available information or a modification.”
MY RESPONSE: There can be an improved understanding of the already known truth, but the truth itself can not be modified.
BULYY: “its never wrong.”
MY RESPONSE: If that is what you believe then you still have a long way to go. Many things science once affirmed, science now denies.
BULLY: “and in science when a certain claim is found to be wrong. usually the scientist who makes the claim usually comes forth and accepts his mistake and takes back his claims and declares it wrong!”
MY RESPONSE: In other words, those scientists who today declare something as true may come forward tomorrow to admit they were wrong.
BULYY: “ … 30 years ago scientist could only see 30 planets, with the equipment that time ... 30 years later more advanced telescopes ... now we have hundreds of planets ... including the 30 planets discovered 30 years ago (there an improvement to what was already known). Beginning with the archeological landmark event of the fall of Jerusalem (which has now been corrected to 588 B.C., instead of 586-587 B.C.) and counting backwards the prophesied number of years between this event and the division of Solomon's kingdom (390 yrs. + 40 yrs., according to Ezekiel 4:4-7), brings us to 1018 B.C.
From the end of Solomon's 40-year reign to the start of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign takes us back another 37 years to 1055 B.C.
From the start of Solomon's Temple "in the 480th year" (1 Kings 6:1) back to the Exodus from Egypt (hence 479 years previous) brings us to near 1534 B.C.
From the Exodus out of Egypt to Abraham's entering Canaan from Haran was exactly 430 years to the day (Gen 12:10/ Exodus 12:40/ Gal 3:17), thus around 1964 B.C.
Since Abraham entered Canaan at age 75 (Gen 12:4), he was born approximately 2039 B.C.
From Abraham's birth to Noah's grandson (Shem's son), Arpachshad's birth, 2 years after the Flood started, was 290 years (Gen 11:11-26), this places the onset of the Flood at around 2331 B.C. [definitely 4,300-4,400 years ago].
The genealogy of Genesis 5:3-32 precludes any gaps due to its tight chronological structure and gives us 1,656 years between Creation and the Flood, thus bringing Creation Week back to near 3987 B.C. or approximately 4000 B.C.
Therefore, the biblical age of the Earth (using Scripture itself as a guide) is 6,000 years!”
MY RESPONSE: Firstly, an erroneous premise leads to an erroneous conclusion. That is the well known mistake committed again and again by Fundamentalists. There is no evidence that Genesis presents a chronological order. It rather presents a topical order. How can you, for instance, have evening & morning for two days even before the sun was created?
So, you arrived at a wrong conclusion simply because you based your calculations on a wrong premise. Genesis is not a history text book you present here.
Secondly, if you believe what the Bible says about years, why don’t you believe what it says about God?
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Thursday, 16. February 2012 at 12:40 |
|
|
![]() |
BULYY: “the fact that science suggests that the every living thing comes from a common ancestor, a single cell ogansim, contradicts the story of god taking mud and forming Adam ...”
MY RESPONSE: You missed the point altogether. The point is that man was not created out of nothing and that is exactly what science says.
The only difference is that science deals with the how and when, while the Bible is about Who.
Science properly understood does not contradict the Bible properly understood.
While unwary science amateurs fall squarely into the atheist trap, real scientists do believe in God (or they have no problem with religion). That is why the world’s most preeminent scientists are members of the Catholic Church’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/own/documents/pasacademicians.html
Catholics leave scientific questions to scientists and theological questions to theologians. Yet we have arrogant amateurs who try to provide scientific answers to theological questions. That simply shows they do not even know where the proper place for science is.
BULYY: “2000 years ago, when nobody knew about evolution, gravity, what the sun is and does, electricity, germs, watches, electrical appliances, and all this things the list goes on ... the bible was the answer to all our questions ...”
MY RESPONSE: That is false. Science was invented by Christian believers exactly because they know that the Bible does not offer answers to scientific questions. It will be to your advantage to at least recognize that most Catholic priests were the fathers of many science disciplines. If they remained believers, why can’t you?
BULYY: “it was only known that god was responsible about all this things that was so unknown to everybody god was the responsible party ... then scientist where born ...”
MY RESPONSE: And those scientists were Catholic.
BULYY: “… now we know planets form because of gravity,”
MY RESPONSE: And that was a Catholic who discovered that.
BULYY: “… in the past we never thought people could ever fly ...”
MY RESPONSE: True but irrelevant to this discussion.
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
Lenga2030
Number Posts: 1696
Last Post: 25.04.2012, 19:11
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Thursday, 16. February 2012 at 12:51 |
|
|
![]() |
BULYY: “now we are flying everyday, now we know people don't get sick from evil demons/spirits ...”
MY RESPONSE: But we also know that there are illnesses science can neither explain nor cure. And there were well-documented cures that science is unable to explain.
BULYY: “but germs are responsible for diseases ...”
MY RESPONSE: Some diseases yes, not all diseases.
BULYY: “we used to thing the world was flat ... but now we know its round thanks to science,”
MY RESPONSE: Yes, thanks to science, more specifically thanks to Catholics who made the discoveries.
BULYY: “we used to think the sun rotates around the earth. and now we know the earth rotates around the sun...”
MY RESPONSE: Once again thanks to Catholics like priest Copernicus.
BULYY: “all this and many other things scientist figured it out and trust me it was not over night.”
MY RESPONSE: True. Those were true scientists who knew exactly that science is there to answer scientific questions; not theological questions.
BULYY: “it took years and years of research. Now science is unable to explain the order in the world ...”
MY RESPONSE: Because that is what science is there for.
BULYY: “but now they are in the process they suspect evolution is responsible for the order in the world (biological world)but don't despair research is continuing and sooner than you think they will explain the order in the world!”
MY RESPONSE: I love it when scientists express hope of making new discoveries. However they never express hope to discover God. That is understandable because science has to do with the physical/material, while God is spirit, therefore outside the scope of science.
BULYY: “but its OK you can sit there, Claim the world is so orderly because of an intelligent designer, just because you fail to understand why the world is so orderly.”
MY RESPONSE: No, it is actually you who will never be able to explain why the universe is so orderly. I have the explanation. It was created by God who is the God of order. But you have a problem. Just walk outside your house, pick up a stone and think how possibly that stone popped up out of nothing; without a cause and without a reason. If there is something that caused the stone to exist, then that cause must have a cause as well and on and on.
BULYY: “scientist do not know, why there is so much order ... but they are working on it and just because you dont understand something and fail to understand it ... does not mean god did it ...”
MY RESPONSE: You do not yet have an answer, yet you have already excluded God who is actually the answer. So you will be without an answer for ever.
That is the problem we normally find when talking to some heavily indoctrinated people.
BULLY: “Tell me your reason for thinking god is responsible for so much order and complexity in the world???”
MY RESPONSE: I believe that created things have a creator and that physical objects do not pop up out of nothing.
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
bully
Number Posts: 267
Last Post: 02.05.2012, 09:10
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Thursday, 16. February 2012 at 13:16 |
|
|
![]() |
//But we have other scientist who put the age at between 6 and 10 billion years. Meaning, scientists do not yet agree on the matter. //
* who are the >other< scientist ..you are talking about... and what is their proof for suggesting that!
//Many things science once affirmed, science now denies.//
*for example...?
// Firstly, an erroneous premise leads to an erroneous conclusion. That is the well known mistake committed again and again by Fundamentalists. There is no evidence that Genesis presents a chronological order. It rather presents a topical order. How can you, for instance, have evening & morning for two days even before the sun was created?
So, you arrived at a wrong conclusion simply because you based your calculations on a wrong premise. Genesis is not a history text book you present here.
Secondly, if you believe what the Bible says about years, why don’t you believe what it says about God?//
*that argument does not really interest me.. i think it is of more interest to the religious folks... its a inhous issue.
|
|
![]() |
| Re: REASONS FOR OPPOSING CATHOLICISM |
bully
Number Posts: 267
Last Post: 02.05.2012, 09:10
[ View User's Posts ]
|
| Thursday, 16. February 2012 at 13:34 |
|
|
![]() |
// You missed the point altogether. The point is that man was not created out of nothing and that is exactly what science says. //
*does the creation story..not contradict the evolution theory! yes or no?
// real scientists do believe in God//
who are this real scientist... and who are the supposed fake ones? lolol
// Yet we have arrogant amateurs who try to provide scientific answers to theological questions//
*who are this people..and which theological questions are they trying to answer?
|
|
![]() |
| Continue to next page: >>> |
|
Displaying posts 1 - 25 of 221 total posts:
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -
>>>
|
|
|
Designed for Namibia