why would anybody want to be catholic?

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Seriously? How blatant can one be in being purely argumentative..

That's probably the most childish argument to come out of you yet.

He's correct, actually. It was the church who assembled the Bible and canonized it, not the other way around.

The church didn't just spring out of nowhere from a book that sprung out of nowhere.

I think that was his point.

 

[Where Is God]

Why would anyone want to be religious?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

He's correct, actually. It was the church who assembled the Bible and canonized it, not the other way around.

The church didn't just spring out of nowhere from a book that sprung out of nowhere.

I think that was his point.

His point was to be purely argumentative.
The Bible is the teaching, is it not? Therefore, they are one in the same.

 

[Kathryn]

The bible and the church are not one and the same. The early church rocked along without a canonized bible (at one point there were about 300 "gospels" floating about) for about 300 years. There was a lot of oral tradition and many different letters and gospels which were passed about, but the canon as we know it today (73 books, by the way, not 66) was not agreed upon till nearly four hundred years after Christ.
Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speaking of the early church, HAPPY EASTER to everyone - Catholic, Protestant, and everyone in between!

 

[Autodidact]

Seriously? How blatant can one be in being purely argumentative..

That's probably the most childish argument to come out of you yet.

Other than being factually correct.

 

[Autodidact]

His point was to be purely argumentative.
The Bible is the teaching, is it not? Therefore, they are one in the same.

What's one and the same? The Church and the Bible? Not really.

The Bible is a compendium of writings from many centuries, by many authors, written in several languages, and containing history, poetry, theology, commandments, barbarity, absurdity, and beautiful literature. If it is a teaching, it's very unclear what exactly it is supposed to teach.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

The bible and the church are not one and the same. The early church rocked along without a canonized bible (at one point there were about 300 "gospels" floating about) for about 300 years. There was a lot of oral tradition and many different letters and gospels which were passed about, but the canon as we know it today (73 books, by the way, not 66) was not agreed upon till nearly four hundred years after Christ.
Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speaking of the early church, HAPPY EASTER to everyone - Catholic, Protestant, and everyone in between!

Making a mountain out of a molehill.

So my Bibles are false. okay

I guess the only way to be accurate with God is to build a time machine and get a direct written account of their intrigues.

 

[sojourner]

Making a mountain out of a molehill.

So my Bibles are false. okay

I guess the only way to be accurate with God is to build a time machine and get a direct written account of their intrigues.

Accuracy isn't the goal. Building relationships is the goal.

 

[Kathryn]

Making a mountain out of a molehill.

So my Bibles are false. okay

I guess the only way to be accurate with God is to build a time machine and get a direct written account of their intrigues.

Why would you think that my implication is that your "bible is false?"

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I'm a Bible Christian, and I feel it's the purest way to go about Christianity.

Making a mountain out of a mole hill, talking about a concept that is dead except for it's echoing in religion. The fact that Xy has many religions and all of them except one thinks of Jesus as a mere prophet, or even less, a heretic, paints a picture. That means that maybe even the Xions got lost in the contexts.
Nobody really knows.

 

[Kathryn]

What do you mean by "bible Christian?"

 

[Sum1sGruj]

What do you mean by "bible Christian?"

What I mean by Bible Christian is that I do not follow suit with denominations of Christianity. I go by what I interpret in the Bible.

With Xion intrigue, people tend to get a little lost in an idea that they are the only one's that 'know'. But I can give an exaple of how this may not, and probably isn't the case.

Lets assume, for the sake of argument, the Mothman is real. The conclusions that even a witness would draw from it may be inaccurate. Is this a demon or an angel? What is it's true purpose?
Therefore, Xy may have not have interpreted these entities as they truly are.

You can see this taking effect between Christians and Jews. Jews, for the most part, believe that the Adversary is charged by God to be so. Christians believe that he is a renegade angel.
But you see it between Christians and Muslims as well.
Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, Christians believe he is the King of all but God Himself. (unless of course, you hold the Trinity concept absolute)
Jews believe Jesus was a heretic.
All of them have their share of evidences.

There's a lot of irony as well as diversity, unfortunately.

And so being a Bible Christian is the best way to go, in my opinion, as there are already enough splitting concepts as it is.

 

[ChristineES]

I still think we need to remember that even in the Catholic Church, people are individuals, and it wouldn't be right to condemn the whole Church just for what a few have done. And most of us, including Christians, know it shouldn't have been covered up, either.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Yey! I love Christ!

[youtube]Rju5GyVtfnQ[/youtube]
YouTube - Rejoice O Bethany - Byzantine Chant for St. Lazarus - Chanted in English


"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which is in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself up for me."

-- Galatians 2:20

 

[sojourner]

I'm a Bible Christian, and I feel it's the purest way to go about Christianity.

Making a mountain out of a mole hill, talking about a concept that is dead except for it's echoing in religion. The fact that Xy has many religions and all of them except one thinks of Jesus as a mere prophet, or even less, a heretic, paints a picture. That means that maybe even the Xions got lost in the contexts.
Nobody really knows.

What concept do you feel is "dead?" I don't understand your comment that there are many religions in Xy. Xy is, itself a religion. Which one(s) think of Jesus as a "mere prophet?" Can you clarify your position?

 

[sojourner]

What I mean by Bible Christian is that I do not follow suit with denominations of Christianity. I go by what I interpret in the Bible.

That's not what the first Xians did. Are you saying that your method is superior to theirs?

With Xion intrigue, people tend to get a little lost in an idea that they are the only one's that 'know'. But I can give an exaple of how this may not, and probably isn't the case.

"Knowing" isn't the issue (except, of course, for Gnostics). Expression of belief and faith is more the issue.

And so being a Bible Christian is the best way to go, in my opinion, as there are already enough splitting concepts as it is.

Most denominations were formed as a result of someone being a "Bible Christian." Sola scriptura came about roughly the same time as the Prtoestant Reformation, which began the spawning of denominationalism. So, Bible Xy may be said to be the root cause of "splitting concepts."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I still think we need to remember that even in the Catholic Church, people are individuals, and it wouldn't be right to condemn the whole Church just for what a few have done. And most of us, including Christians, know it shouldn't have been covered up, either.

Given the knowledge of what the Catholic Church has done, is it right to condemn people who continue to pledge allegiance to it and support it?

The Vatican and the various religious orders could never had organized a cover-up on the scale that they did without means... and those means were handed to the Church in collection baskets every Sunday. It's all those individuals, well-meaning for the most part, who enable the predators and those who abet them and cover up their crimes. Cardinal Law or Cardinal Brady, for instance, would never have been able to do what they did without being bishops, and they would never have been bishops without a laity to support the Church.

We're all responsible for our actions. The laity that enables the Church's actions shares responsibility for all of the Church's actions that they enabled... for good or bad.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

That's not what the first Xians did. Are you saying that your method is superior to theirs?

"Knowing" isn't the issue (except, of course, for Gnostics). Expression of belief and faith is more the issue.

Most denominations were formed as a result of someone being a "Bible Christian." Sola scriptura came about roughly the same time as the Prtoestant Reformation, which began the spawning of denominationalism. So, Bible Xy may be said to be the root cause of "splitting concepts."

You are splitting my statements where you see fit. You need to take it all in as whole. What I was trying to imply is that just because the Xions were before everything else, it doesn't mean they were right in their conception. Afterall, Judaism was before Christianity, and Islam was after both. Does that , by default, make Islam false? Or Judaism right? From a neutral point of view, it doesn't.

With Xion intrigue, people tend to get a little lost in an idea that they are the only one's that 'know'. But I can give an exaple of how this may not, and probably isn't the case.

Lets assume, for the sake of argument, the Mothman is real. The conclusions that even a witness would draw from it may be inaccurate. Is this a demon or an angel? What is it's true purpose?
Therefore, Xy may have not have interpreted these entities as they truly are.

You can see this taking effect between Christians and Jews. Jews, for the most part, believe that the Adversary is charged by God to be so. Christians believe that he is a renegade angel.
But you see it between Christians and Muslims as well.
Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, Christians believe he is the King of all but God Himself. (unless of course, you hold the Trinity concept absolute)
Jews believe Jesus was a heretic.
All of them have their share of evidences.

There's a lot of irony as well as diversity, unfortunately.

And so being a Bible Christian is the best way to go, in my opinion, as there are already enough splitting concepts as it is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are splitting my statements where you see fit. You need to take it all in as whole. What I was trying to imply is that just because the Xions were before everything else, it doesn't mean they were right in their conception.

If so, then what makes you assume that those same Christians were right when they wrote, compiled and canonized the Bible?

 

[sojourner]

You are splitting my statements where you see fit. You need to take it all in as whole. What I was trying to imply is that just because the Xions were before everything else, it doesn't mean they were right in their conception.

Where in the world do you think the tradition and the texts came from??? There is an historical continuity in the roots of Xy that you can't just throw out as "wrong."