PDA

View Full Version : The pope



ChristianKnight
Apr 21st 2008, 11:41 PM
I noticed this woman talking about seeing and praying with the pope, she said she couldn't believen she got to see the "represenative of god" I find that rather stupid, I do not see how any man could represent god, isn't that blasphemy or something? I mean Jesus was the only truly holy person that was on Earth if you ask me, of course I could be wrong as I am sure someone will prove.

threebigrocks
Apr 21st 2008, 11:53 PM
this is a topic for the World Religions forum, moving it there for continued discussion.

Athanasius
Apr 22nd 2008, 12:06 AM
I noticed this woman talking about seeing and praying with the pope, she said she couldn't believen she got to see the "represenative of god" I find that rather stupid, I do not see how any man could represent god, isn't that blasphemy or something? I mean Jesus was the only truly holy person that was on Earth if you ask me, of course I could be wrong as I am sure someone will prove.

Just wondering . . . Where do you base this view outside of opinion:hmm:

ChristianKnight
Apr 22nd 2008, 12:09 AM
Just wondering . . . Where do you base this view outside of opinion:hmm:

um, where did I get my opinoin? I do not see a man worthy of representing God.

Athanasius
Apr 22nd 2008, 12:10 AM
um, where did I get my opinoin? I do not see a man worthy of representing God.

That's you opinion. Can you back up this opinion with scripture? Why shouldn't the Pope be worthy of representing God? Aren't we all representatives of God?

ChristianKnight
Apr 22nd 2008, 12:18 AM
That's you opinion. Can you back up this opinion with scripture? Why shouldn't the Pope be worthy of representing God? Aren't we all representatives of God?

We are all meant to try to spread the word, but if you are put higher than others cause of that, is that right? I mean really, aren't people expected to kiss his ring/hand if they meet him? I read that somewhere.

I think I said this earlier, I am not gonna try to argue with scripture, call it debate, but debate is arguing.

cheech
Apr 22nd 2008, 12:26 AM
2 Cor 5:20
20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.


All Christians are ambassadors...Here is an example from a bible study site (crosswalk.com) that pretty much all the explanations are the same:

20. Then we are ambassadors. We have God's message, are his authorized messengers, and speak for God, beseeching you for Christ, and in his name, to be reconciled to God by repentance and the obedience of faith.

An ambassador is an authorized messenger or representative. As christians we are authorized to bring the word of God to all people, that's why we must always watch what we say and do because we represent Christ. It's just like a job...you represent that company, that employer. If your actions and words are disrespectful to others, you make the company look bad. However, if your actions and words are admirable, people notice this and see that you are a good representative of that company. The same goes for Christ...Christians represent him here on earth...in many ways he is like an employer...we are his servants...his workers.

torazon
Apr 22nd 2008, 12:33 AM
I think the issue is how people put the Pope or any other "religious" leader up on a pedestal as if to worship them. They are men and women just like you and I. They sin and struggle just like the rest of us. I have plenty of issue with the Pope but that's for another discussion ;)

Athanasius
Apr 22nd 2008, 12:34 AM
We are all meant to try to spread the word, but if you are put higher than others cause of that, is that right? I mean really, aren't people expected to kiss his ring/hand if they meet him? I read that somewhere.

I think I said this earlier, I am not gonna try to argue with scripture, call it debate, but debate is arguing.

Debate is only arguing if you make it arguing. I agree that we are all meant to spread the word, we are all to be ambassadors for Christ, but that's not what you were originally saying. You said you could not see how any man could represent God.

You need to know your scripture so then you can give answers for those who ask questions of you. So you can retort those 'devil' theologians. Well we're (or at least, myself) trying to do is get you to think about why you believe what you do. If I come off as brash then I apologize, but this is important.

cheech
Apr 22nd 2008, 01:01 AM
I think the issue is how people put the Pope or any other "religious" leader up on a pedestal as if to worship them. They are men and women just like you and I. They sin and struggle just like the rest of us. I have plenty of issue with the Pope but that's for another discussion ;)

This is very true.

Acts 10:25-26
25As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself."

Even Christ's disciples did not want anyone to bow before them...this was only to be done before the Lord.

ChristianKnight
Apr 22nd 2008, 01:14 AM
Debate is only arguing if you make it arguing. I agree that we are all meant to spread the word, we are all to be ambassadors for Christ, but that's not what you were originally saying. You said you could not see how any man could represent God.

You need to know your scripture so then you can give answers for those who ask questions of you. So you can retort those 'devil' theologians. Well we're (or at least, myself) trying to do is get you to think about why you believe what you do. If I come off as brash then I apologize, but this is important.

Well, I am not gonna try to learn it to just "debate" with people on here, if I want to learn it I will cause I want to.

Athanasius
Apr 22nd 2008, 01:23 AM
Well, I am not gonna try to learn it to just "debate" with people on here, if I want to learn it I will cause I want to.

No where did I restrict my words to this forum.

RevLogos
Apr 22nd 2008, 05:32 AM
For what it's worth in the news reports of the Pope's visit to the US I have read him described as either "the Vicar of Christ" or "God's (or Christ's) representative on earth".

Here is a link to this title in the Catholic Encyclopedia, with some scripture to rationalize the title.

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

As I understand it, Catholics get to Jesus via priests, bishops, and ultimately the Pope. Whereas we Christians have a direct relationship with Christ vis a vis the Holy Spirit.

Roelof
Apr 22nd 2008, 08:36 AM
I noticed this woman talking about seeing and praying with the pope, she said she couldn't believen she got to see the "represenative of god" I find that rather stupid, I do not see how any man could represent god, isn't that blasphemy or something? I mean Jesus was the only truly holy person that was on Earth if you ask me, of course I could be wrong as I am sure someone will prove.

An interesting article on the "power" of the Pope:

From The Times (UK)
September 25, 2007

Pope's robe cut up for 100,000 'holy relics': “obtain graces through the intercession of John Paul II”.

Richard Owen in Rome

Fragments of a cassock worn by Pope John Paul II are being offered for sale to the faithful, causing concern in the Vatican over the resurgence in the veneration of relics.

Devotees of John Paul can apply via e-mail, fax or post for fragments of a white cassock to augment their prayers. A cassock worn by John Paul has reportedly been cut into 100,000 pieces to satisfy demand.

The scheme is run by the Vicariate of Rome, which is promoting sainthood for John Paul. The faithful also receive a “holy card” with a prayer to “obtain graces through the intercession of John Paul II”.

The Vicariate said that it has been overwhelmed by requests for the relics, with priority now being given to those who were praying for the sick or were themselves seriously ill.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2525151.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2525151.ece)

daughter
Apr 22nd 2008, 08:42 AM
We are all meant to try to spread the word, but if you are put higher than others cause of that, is that right? I mean really, aren't people expected to kiss his ring/hand if they meet him? I read that somewhere.

I think I said this earlier, I am not gonna try to argue with scripture, call it debate, but debate is arguing.
Actually, I agree with you, based entirely on scripture. I must have missed something... why won't you use scripture?

Revinius
Apr 22nd 2008, 03:40 PM
CK, try using sites like www.biblegateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com) if you have trouble finding the right passages, just make sure the passage you use to back up your claim is in context of who and how it was written. You are slowly growing in the Lord and i hope he continues to change you from within.

ChristianKnight
Apr 22nd 2008, 11:10 PM
Actually, I agree with you, based entirely on scripture. I must have missed something... why won't you use scripture?

Cause it seems like people use it as a way to argue, although people call it debate.

Revinius
Apr 23rd 2008, 02:45 AM
Cause it seems like people use it as a way to argue, although people call it debate.

Its all in our quest to know God better. People who dont use scripture to back up their claims are in the deep end without floaties because they show they have no true basis for what they are saying. As Christians we live by the Word and his commands and not by our own so what he has to say on the subject is of vital importance. Dont let people using the Word out of context push you away from Him.

ChristianKnight
Apr 23rd 2008, 03:15 AM
Its all in our quest to know God better. People who dont use scripture to back up their claims are in the deep end without floaties because they show they have no true basis for what they are saying. As Christians we live by the Word and his commands and not by our own so what he has to say on the subject is of vital importance. Dont let people using the Word out of context push you away from Him.

Well, my problem is people on here argue with scripture, and it seems like they can never prove who is actually right cause the scriptures kinda say backwards things.

diffangle
Apr 23rd 2008, 03:30 AM
Well, my problem is people on here argue with scripture, and it seems like they can never prove who is actually right cause the scriptures kinda say backwards things.
We don't argue with Scripture and the Scriptures don't say backwards things... that's just a lame excuse to not know/learn/use Scripture.:rolleyes:

ChristianKnight
Apr 23rd 2008, 03:45 AM
We don't argue with Scripture and the Scriptures don't say backwards things... that's just a lame excuse to not know/learn/use Scripture.:rolleyes:

lol? I was gonna say some bad words, but I won't, but how about this, I'll learn what I want on my own time, and I won't use it to debate here?

Athanasius
Apr 23rd 2008, 05:29 AM
lol? I was gonna say some bad words, but I won't, but how about this, I'll learn what I want on my own time, and I won't use it to debate here?

Why always so confrontational?

daughter
Apr 23rd 2008, 09:42 AM
Cause it seems like people use it as a way to argue, although people call it debate.
But surely that's not a reason to deprive yourself of scripture?

For example, if I was defending your position regarding the Pope from scripture, I would say that nobody is any holier or better than anyone else, that there is no-one righteous, not one, and that Jesus Christ is our High Priest and intercessor to the Father. That He is the way, truth and life, and nobody comes to the Father but by Him.

I'd say that's pretty solid - so your instinct about the Pope is absolutely in line with what scripture teaches.

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Obviously we shouldn't peck through the bible like a gang of old crows looking for scraps to prove our pet theories. But we should still use scripture to ground us in what Jesus teaches.

It seems that in reacting against a genuine problem you have gone too far the other way. You know the devil wants you to believe that Scripture is divisive and useless... why give him the victory?

Revinius
Apr 23rd 2008, 10:56 AM
It all comes down to following the Bible and not using it to justfiy what we want to do in our sinful hearts. Thats pretty much a summation of how to live the Christian life. Thats why we use the Bible to base our claims and not to self-justify them.

HisLeast
Apr 23rd 2008, 12:11 PM
Cause it seems like people use it as a way to argue, although people call it debate.

Hey CK,

Discussions happen all the time. The difference is in how prepared you are. You seem to think there's a positive correlation to being armed with scriptures and making things difficult here with arguments. Not so.

Another way to look at it: What would you say if I (having little knowledge and zero experience in farming) told you "orange juice makes a better fertilzer than manure" or "the best crop for a dry arid climate is rice". You could probably correct me (or at least challenge my ideas) quite easily. This is because you have experience in farming, and you can draw from the SOURCE of farming knowledge: experience, tradition, & almanacs.

Just like your experience and tradition are the source of farming knowledge, so too is the Bible (and various traditions) the source of theological knowledge. So try not to give people a hard time for going to the source.

Hope there was at least a little bit of wisdom in there for ya.

diffangle
Apr 23rd 2008, 01:40 PM
lol? I was gonna say some bad words, but I won't, but how about this, I'll learn what I want on my own time, and I won't use it to debate here?
This is a Christian message board, it's encouraged to use Scripture to back up claims that you make. I can understand you not knowing the Scriptures, I didn't at your age, but I also didn't care or participate in conversations on Christian message boards either. If you don't have the desire to read/learn the Scriptures then I would highly suggest praying to our Heavenly Father for the desire to do so. Here's a really good Bible search website, all you have to do is put in a word and it will pull up all the Scriptures with that word in it, it's a great tool for Bible study...

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

ChristianKnight
Apr 24th 2008, 01:57 AM
It seems that in reacting against a genuine problem you have gone too far the other way. You know the devil wants you to believe that Scripture is divisive and useless... why give him the victory?

problem? you talking about people fighting with scripture?

daughter
Apr 24th 2008, 10:48 AM
Yes, that is what I mean, people do twist Scripture. But that doesn't mean that you necessarily will, you are at least aware of the problem. And God wants you to read and rely on His word. The devil wants to undermine your confidence in the word, and if he can stop you using it in your normal life he's won a little victory, which he doesn't deserve. He HATES scripture, that's why Jesus used it when He was tempted in the desert.

I can see that you are trying to avoid "bible bashing battles," and that is commendable. But I would suggest that you pray before you research a topic in the Bible, pray afterwards, and if you feel you're about to get into a "bbb" (bible bashing battle!) ask God to guide your speech. I've done this myself, and literally not been able to speak when the conversation was going nowhere, and wasn't honouring to God. Just ask God to guide you in your everything, and He will. :D

ChristianKnight
Apr 25th 2008, 04:49 AM
Thanks for understanding, really. I am wanting to not start on a chapter like I did, I want to make a list of topics and list links to the bible, cause atheists and others usually want to ask you questions to prove your faith.

daughter
Apr 25th 2008, 01:17 PM
All you can do is pray for them... and pray for God to open up His word to you. Jesus says to the apostles that we shouldn't worry about what we say, but that in the hour we need to speak the Holy Spirit will give us what to say. That's a firm promise, and I've found it to be true in my own life so far as a Christian. When I try to argue from my own understanding of the Bible, it doesn't go so well. When I pray and let God guide my understanding, light does seem to shine.

What you can do is study the scripture, make sure the information is available to people, but pray hard that God guides you when you speak, and when to stay silent... and that He protects you when you're being battered by people who want to make a fight of it.

You're doing good CK - I'm glad that you're plugging away there.

Revinius
Apr 26th 2008, 06:09 AM
Thanks for understanding, really. I am wanting to not start on a chapter like I did, I want to make a list of topics and list links to the bible, cause atheists and others usually want to ask you questions to prove your faith.

The best thing to start off with is not to just jump into apologetics to atheists etc when you are a new Christian. Atheists are professionals at making you doubt yourself and when your a new Christian your not as built up in the Word to go toe to toe with them on an academic platform. So i would urge caution in this area at least until you are solid in your own understanding of what the fundamentals of knowing God are about.

Please dont take this lightly, i have been there to the brink of self-doubt and would never recommend you overstretch yourself until the foundations of your faith are solid. When they are the sky will be your limit.

ChristianKnight
Apr 26th 2008, 06:45 AM
don't you mean spiritual platform?

Revinius
Apr 26th 2008, 01:37 PM
No, atheists try to argue intellectually. Although you may be solid on the spiritiual side of things, if your intellectual knowledge is not up to scratch they will make you look like a fool. Before you go to war, prepare for war. Over time as a Christian you will develop a gift for certain parts of ministry, we all have our gifts and its up to us to use to use them for the glory of God. If you are keen on apologetics then immerse yourself in theology and ask as many questions as you can of God and older Christians. Prepare for battle, otherwise your just jumping in and getting yourself nailed by guys on the other team who are prepared.

servantsheart
Apr 26th 2008, 02:10 PM
ChristianKnight, your original question was answered by revolver and another person when they told you the Pope is thought of by Catholics to be God's representative here on earth by being 'infaliable" ...never being wrong... people are expected to kiss the ring he wears ..it shows his position as Pope and leader of the Roman Catholic Church...he and the priest can make new laws and traditions for the church...this goes against what God tells us---God says in Deuternomy 4:2, "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you." After the religious wars the Catholic Church officials met in the Council of Trent and said they did not care what the Bible said...they were going to add their own laws and traditions,& dogmas and do what they want to....not what God wants us to do. Plus they think Peter is the one that God built his church upon and that Peter was the first pope. God would not build his church upon a mortal man. Jesus is the church. But the Catholic world changes scripture to conform to what they want it to say so they look good, correct and right. BUT they are not! See: Matt. 16:18-19.
They even insist that a priest can hear your sins and forgive your sins Luke 5:21. They believe that Mary interceeds in prayer for us...we know that Jesus is the only one who interceeds for us..Romans 8:34..."It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." Romans 8:26 " So too the [Holy ] Spirit comes to our aid and bears us up in our weakness; for we do no know what prayer to offer nor how to offer it worthily as we ought, but the Spirit himself goes to meet our supplication and pleads in our behalf with unspeakable yearnings and groansings too for utterance." So you can see how the Catholic church does thier own thing.
You were correct in seeing that the Pope is not the type of represenative of God that the church and/or saints, are called to be as representatives of God. This is a good reason 'why' Christians need to understand their religion and not get lead into anything that is not of God and God alone.
I hope you will not be afraid of using the concordance in the back of your Bible to locate topics so you can find the scripture. You can go on line and find scripture in Blue Letter Bible and such. And don't let satan convince you not to read God's word. If you look in the concordance and see something interesting then turn to it and read it. Maybe you will enjoy reading the whole chapter related to it.
Romans is a good book to start with and Hebrews. May Father God bless you with his wisdom inside of you. May he open doors for you and open your eyes to see what He wants you to see. Amen
Pat

Jerome1
Apr 26th 2008, 03:27 PM
ChristianKnight, your original question was answered by revolver and another person when they told you the Pope is thought of by Catholics to be God's representative here on earth by being 'infaliable" ...never being wrong


Catholics don't believe that the pope, "can never be wrong," they believe that his pronounements are infallible only when he meets certain conditions.



After the religious wars the Catholic Church officials met in the Council of Trent and said they did not care what the Bible said...they were going to add their own laws and traditions,& dogmas and do what they want to....not what God wants us to do.


Could you give me a source from the Council of Trent were the Catholic Church said it did not care what the bible said? The canon of scripture was formally defined at the Council of Trent including the New Testament which you use.



Jesus is the church


You said it perfectly here, if Jesus is the Church why are there so many denominations teaching a contradictory message?

Revinius
Apr 26th 2008, 04:44 PM
You said it perfectly here, if Jesus is the Church why are there so many denominations teaching a contradictory message?

Some are obviously false teachers, others merely worship God in different styles. ;)

ChristianKnight
Apr 26th 2008, 06:16 PM
ChristianKnight, your original question was answered by revolver and another person when they told you the Pope is thought of by Catholics to be God's representative here on earth by being 'infaliable" ...never being wrong... people are expected to kiss the ring he wears ..it shows his position as Pope and leader of the Roman Catholic Church...he and the priest can make new laws and traditions for the church...this goes against what God tells us---God says in Deuternomy 4:2, "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you." After the religious wars the Catholic Church officials met in the Council of Trent and said they did not care what the Bible said...they were going to add their own laws and traditions,& dogmas and do what they want to....not what God wants us to do. Plus they think Peter is the one that God built his church upon and that Peter was the first pope. God would not build his church upon a mortal man. Jesus is the church. But the Catholic world changes scripture to conform to what they want it to say so they look good, correct and right. BUT they are not! See: Matt. 16:18-19.
They even insist that a priest can hear your sins and forgive your sins Luke 5:21. They believe that Mary interceeds in prayer for us...we know that Jesus is the only one who interceeds for us..Romans 8:34..."It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." Romans 8:26 " So too the [Holy ] Spirit comes to our aid and bears us up in our weakness; for we do no know what prayer to offer nor how to offer it worthily as we ought, but the Spirit himself goes to meet our supplication and pleads in our behalf with unspeakable yearnings and groansings too for utterance." So you can see how the Catholic church does thier own thing.
You were correct in seeing that the Pope is not the type of represenative of God that the church and/or saints, are called to be as representatives of God. This is a good reason 'why' Christians need to understand their religion and not get lead into anything that is not of God and God alone.
I hope you will not be afraid of using the concordance in the back of your Bible to locate topics so you can find the scripture. You can go on line and find scripture in Blue Letter Bible and such. And don't let satan convince you not to read God's word. If you look in the concordance and see something interesting then turn to it and read it. Maybe you will enjoy reading the whole chapter related to it.
Romans is a good book to start with and Hebrews. May Father God bless you with his wisdom inside of you. May he open doors for you and open your eyes to see what He wants you to see. Amen
Pat

I would love to see them tell me to kiss his ring lol. He is a man, nothing more, nothing less. He is no better than a small church minister.

daughter
Apr 26th 2008, 07:49 PM
He's considerably worse than some.

Jerome1
Apr 26th 2008, 08:29 PM
Some are obviously false teachers, others merely worship God in different styles. ;)

How do you know that some are obviously false teachers?

daughter
Apr 26th 2008, 08:55 PM
Because what they teach contradicts what Christ said.

Jerome1
Apr 26th 2008, 09:20 PM
Because what they teach contradicts what Christ said.

Yes, but doesn't that depend on how you interpret what Christ said?

daughter
Apr 26th 2008, 09:23 PM
Why don't you ask Him?

Athanasius
Apr 26th 2008, 09:31 PM
Yes, but doesn't that depend on how you interpret what Christ said?

Isn't playing the interpretation game a little more than sketchy?

Revinius
Apr 27th 2008, 04:01 AM
Yeah this 'interpretation game' is stupid. We all know there is an accurate way as God is unchangeable. Therefore if two people make a contradictory statement regarding the Bible then only one or neither can be correct.

Scruffy Kid
Apr 28th 2008, 01:29 AM
Our limited and cloudy understanding is helped
in reading God's Holy Word,
by the fellowship of our brothers and sisters also reading it

The human mind is pretty limited. But even apart from that, we are quite often mistaken because our hearts and minds are clouded by our wrong-hearted ways. Jesus told even the 12 that they didn't understand because of their hardness of heart!

But God's mind is very great: As the heavens are high above the earth, so much higher (and more) are His thoughts than our thoughts.

Unfortunately, often we quickly assume that I myself understand God's truth, and that all who see it differently represent "man's thought" while I myself am championing God's thought, the absolute truth.

But the Bible teaches us to be humble, and thus also to be respectful of the thinking of others, slow to criticize or to find fault with others, and to listen carefully and respect others. In doing that, IMO, we're also more likely to open our minds to what God is trying to say to us, which is often something we resist hearing.

God uses the different understandings of various members of the body of Christ to help us understand His thoughts -- which are higher than our thoughts -- and to learn to work together, and to keep us realistic and humble concerning our limited insight into His ways!


Differences in interpretation may be something that God uses,
To give us a more accurate understanding of His truth,
which is often deeper than our attempts to understand it

Revinius has an important point in what he just stated:
... [T]here is an accurate way as God is unchangeable.
Therefore if two people make a contradictory statement regarding the Bible then only one or neither can be correct. but perhaps there is another way to look at it too. Certainly I agree that God's truth is unchanging; but our understanding is never complete; and God's truth is often balanced and multifaceted.

Is it true that "if two people make a contradictory statement regarding the Bible then both cannot be correct?" I'm not so sure.

For the Bible itself -- very intentionally and deliberately and blatantly -- makes contradictory statements at various points. The most obvious example is Proverbs 26:4-5
Answer not a fool according to his folly,
..... lest you also be like unto him.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
..... lest he be wise in his own conceit. Of course the contradiction in the text is deliberate, and (IMO) doubtless meant to illuminate more than just this one issue. The text, by emphasizing so plainly that it gives opposite pieces of advice -- because of opposite concerns and situations it may be addressing -- is alerting us to the fact that we cannot be mechanical in understanding or applying its advice. Rather, it seems to indicate that it is here setting out broad principles, whose applicability may vary from situation to situation, and that we are supposed to treat it not like some oracle, but rather ponder it to grow in wisdom.

If that is so, then perhaps differing interpretations of Scripture may, also, be faithfully bringing out important differing implications of the text which have to be understood together for us to start to get the often subtle and balanced perspective that God has written the whole counsel of scripture in order to teach us.


That's just one reason we should avoid bashing other Christians
Rather than seeking to see what we might learn from them

One consequence is that I'm very skeptical about the propriety, or wisdom, of Catholic-bashing threads.

Joseph Ratzinger, the current Pope, as it happens, is an articulate scholarly champion of Biblical orthodoxy, defending Scripture against liberal detractors and redefiners of Bible's message. He does this, for instance, in his (2007) book Jesus of Nazareth; and he says in the preface that he claims no authority for his book, and that anyone is free to disagree with him. He speaks in a humble, godly, faithful way. It seems to me that before making negative generalizations about people, one should know what they actually say!

The Bible tells us to talk and act graciously; not us to go about tearing down others. It tells us to speak that way even toward pagans, even those who act harshly towards us; let alone toward fellow Christians. IMO, we need to be slow to speak, and quick to listen, before we speak ill of other parts of the body of Christ.
Finally, you should all be of one mind, having compassion one of another, and loving as brethren: be kindly, be courteous: Not returning evil for evil, or cursing for cursing: but instead blessing; knowing that you are called to that, so you may inherit a blessing. ...

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with gentleness and respect: Having a good conscience; so that those who speak evil of you, calling you evildoers, may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

ChristianKnight
Apr 28th 2008, 04:33 AM
Our limited and cloudy understanding is helped

in reading God's Holy Word,
by the fellowship of our brothers and sisters also reading it

The human mind is pretty limited. But even apart from that, we are quite often mistaken because our hearts and minds are clouded by our wrong-hearted ways. Jesus told even the 12 that they didn't understand because of their hardness of heart!

But God's mind is very great: As the heavens are high above the earth, so much higher (and more) are His thoughts than our thoughts.

Unfortunately, often we quickly assume that I myself understand God's truth, and that all who see it differently represent "man's thought" while I myself am championing God's thought, the absolute truth.

But the Bible teaches us to be humble, and thus also to be respectful of the thinking of others, slow to criticize or to find fault with others, and to listen carefully and respect others. In doing that, IMO, we're also more likely to open our minds to what God is trying to say to us, which is often something we resist hearing.

God uses the different understandings of various members of the body of Christ to help us understand His thoughts -- which are higher than our thoughts -- and to learn to work together, and to keep us realistic and humble concerning our limited insight into His ways!


Differences in interpretation may be something that God uses,
To give us a more accurate understanding of His truth,
which is often deeper than our attempts to understand it

Revinius has an important point in what he just stated: but perhaps there is another way to look at it too. Certainly I agree that God's truth is unchanging; but our understanding is never complete; and God's truth is often balanced and multifaceted.

Is it true that "if two people make a contradictory statement regarding the Bible then both cannot be correct?" I'm not so sure.


For the Bible itself -- very intentionally and deliberately and blatantly -- makes contradictory statements at various points. The most obvious example is Proverbs 26:4-5
Answer not a fool according to his folly,


..... lest you also be like unto him.


Answer a fool according to his folly,


..... lest he be wise in his own conceit. Of course the contradiction in the text is deliberate, and (IMO) doubtless meant to illuminate more than just this one issue. The text, by emphasizing so plainly that it gives opposite pieces of advice -- because of opposite concerns and situations it may be addressing -- is alerting us to the fact that we cannot be mechanical in understanding or applying its advice. Rather, it seems to indicate that it is here setting out broad principles, whose applicability may vary from situation to situation, and that we are supposed to treat it not like some oracle, but rather ponder it to grow in wisdom.

If that is so, then perhaps differing interpretations of Scripture may, also, be faithfully bringing out important differing implications of the text which have to be understood together for us to start to get the often subtle and balanced perspective that God has written the whole counsel of scripture in order to teach us.


That's one reason why I'm not very wildly happy about
Threads and posts bashing other Christians
Rather than seeking to see what we may learn from them

One consequence is that I'm very skeptical about the propriety, or wisdom, of Catholic-bashing threads.

Lots of talk here about what an arrogant dolt, and anti-biblical fool, and depraved false teacher, and pompous and pretentious lout the Pope is.
No one says it so bluntly, but that's a lot of what's being said.

Is this just general palaver, uninformed by fact, or do people actually read what the man has to say? He's a major, articulate champion of Biblical orthodoxy as against liberal detractors and redefiners of the message of Scripture, and an incredible faithful interpreter of the Scriptures in his life of Jesus, for instance. There's nothing particularly "Catholic" about his reading of the gospels. And he says in the preface that he's not claiming any authority for his book, just writing as Joe Ratzinger, and that anyone is free to disagree with him. He's humble, godly, faithful. I actually think you'd have to search long and hard to find a better and more Bible teacher from an orthodox Protestant point of view than Joe R in that book. Thus I find it rather churlish, to say no more, when I hear all this talk on the thread which seems to make him pompous and proud, apparantly by people with no actual knowledge of Ratzinger.

No doubt it'll irritate the heck out of some who like to tear Catholics down that I argue that we might get further -- both with bringing Catholics to a solid knowledge of Christ and of the Bible, and further with our own walk with Christ -- to stike a more openminded, humble, and courteous attitude instead of keeping on with stereotyped slams against the Pope.

Truth is truth, though, and how the Bible tells us to talk and act is what it is. It doesn't tell us to go about tearing down others: it says that such an approach is devilish, and not from God. I think people need to think the thing through from a perspective which listens to what the Pope says, carefully, before making hasty characterizations. And we need to -- we always are in need of, as Christians and as members of this board, IMO -- learning to talk more politely and respectfully receptively to others, just as Peter advises us (in I Peter 3), and as Paul demonstrates in his (Acts 17) dialogue with Pagans on the Aeropagus! IMO, we need to be a little slower to speak, and quicker to listen, before we go tearing down other parts of the body of Christ.

Well, what about what happened during the Crusades, and when Protestants where splitting? I mean, was it very Christ-Like to kill off thousands of innocent Jews/Muslims/? Was it very Christ-Like for Catholics to kill hundreds of protestants/jews in the Inqusitions? I am just wondering, why the Catholics are the "true" church, yet they commit atrocities that are of the devil's way.

Athanasius
Apr 28th 2008, 04:48 AM
Well, what about what happened during the Crusades, and when Protestants where splitting? I mean, was it very Christ-Like to kill off thousands of innocent Jews/Muslims/? Was it very Christ-Like for Catholics to kill hundreds of protestants/jews in the Inqusitions? I am just wondering, why the Catholics are the "true" church, yet they commit atrocities that are of the devil's way.

The term 'Crusades' is anachronistic, it's a modern designation for the wars between 'Christian' Europe and the expanding Islamic empires of the Middle East in the Middle Ages. It is a wholly unfair thing to point at the Crusades and decry the death of Muslims and Jews. With any were there was senseless killing, whatever rape/murder of Jews that occurred is tragic, but deviance is no measure. The Crusades were wars which sought to fight off the Islamic conquest of the world. Had they not happened you might be looking at a very Islamic Europe. . Possibly world--you interested in that at all? Me neither. The Crusades were very delayed, I might add. They sought to reclaim land that was conquered by Muslims. There's nothing particularly brutal about that. Most of what you've heard of the Crusades is false exaggeration.

The inquisitions also took place over a period of 350 years. Any deaths that occurred were tragic, however the trials weren't as barbaric as you've probably been told. In fact they were on the whole probably more fair than their secular equivalent. To be kind I won't bring up the history of 'inter-Protestant' fighting; it's just as brutal.

Now that's in lieu of the fact that Scruffy never said the Catholic church was the one true church. He was simply saying that bashing the Pope is generally (and it is), not well thought out.

ChristianKnight
Apr 28th 2008, 05:03 AM
The term 'Crusades' is anachronistic, it's a modern designation for the wars between 'Christian' Europe and the expanding Islamic empires of the Middle East in the Middle Ages. It is a wholly unfair thing to point at the Crusades and decry the death of Muslims and Jews. With any were there was senseless killing, whatever rape/murder of Jews that occurred is tragic, but deviance is no measure. The Crusades were wars which sought to fight off the Islamic conquest of the world. Had they not happened you might be looking at a very Islamic Europe. . Possibly world--you interested in that at all? Me neither. The Crusades were very delayed, I might add. They sought to reclaim land that was conquered by Muslims. There's nothing particularly brutal about that. Most of what you've heard of the Crusades is false exaggeration.

The inquisitions also took place over a period of 350 years. Any deaths that occurred were tragic, however the trials weren't as barbaric as you've probably been told. In fact they were on the whole probably more fair than their secular equivalent. To be kind I won't bring up the history of 'inter-Protestant' fighting; it's just as brutal.

Now that's in lieu of the fact that Scruffy never said the Catholic church was the one true church. He was simply saying that bashing the Pope is generally (and it is), not well thought out.


For one, you don't know what I've "heard" and yes I am being confrontational cause I see as what your saying to me is that I have heard lies my whole life. I'll tell you I do not believe everything what I hear in history class, matter of fact, I have had to correct my teachers on what the meaning of the Civil War was, and have had to take criticism from dim-witts who know as much about the Civil War as htey do about how the Earth was created (they didn't know anything) who think slavery was all The South's faults, and that the North were good people.

The Crusades were Christians from Europe, attacking Muslims/Jews in the Middle-East and parts of Europe/Asia. They did not defend as much as they attacked, but they did defend parts where they had conquered. I will say I would side with Christians, but that doesn't mean what they did was "right" and just because a "few" died, doesn't mean you dismiss the matter.

The Inqusition was not fair, their mission was to spread Catholocism, and if you didn't turn, you were tortured and if not then killed. really fair...

They might not have all been that bad, but that doesn't change the fact that the Inqusition was not right...

Athanasius
Apr 28th 2008, 05:49 AM
For one, you don't know what I've "heard" and yes I am being confrontational cause I see as what your saying to me is that I have heard lies my whole life. I'll tell you I do not believe everything what I hear in history class, matter of fact, I have had to correct my teachers on what the meaning of the Civil War was, and have had to take criticism from dim-witts who know as much about the Civil War as htey do about how the Earth was created (they didn't know anything) who think slavery was all The South's faults, and that the North were good people.

I stated no such absolute proposition that all you've heard are lies your entire life. Rather, you've derived independently of what I've intended, your own meaning. . .Which is quite far off what I supposed. That is to say that what I said is that what you've heard of the Crusades is obscene exaggeration. There is no reason to then take that and apply it, uniformly, across the entire spectrum of your 'knowledge'. It means exactly what it said--most of what you've heard of the crusades is exaggeration.



The Crusades were Christians from Europe, attacking Muslims/Jews in the Middle-East and parts of Europe/Asia. They did not defend as much as they attacked, but they did defend parts where they had conquered. I will say I would side with Christians, but that doesn't mean what they did was "right" and just because a "few" died, doesn't mean you dismiss the matter.

I've dismissed the matter? Hardly. But superfluously glossing over the Crusades as 'Christians attacking Jews and Muslims' is far from a fair diagnosis of what the Crusades were. I'm not saying that's an inaccurate description in and of itself. . . But it is quite simplistic. It's like saying that the World Wars were 'people fighting people'--it's not wrong, but it's abhorrently ignorant of details.



The Inqusition was not fair, their mission was to spread Catholocism, and if you didn't turn, you were tortured and if not then killed. really fair...

They might not have all been that bad, but that doesn't change the fact that the Inqusition was not right...[

There were 49,000 trials held in Europe; between 3,000-5,000 people were 'killed' as a result, over a period of 350 years. The mission was not to 'spread' Catholicism but to purge Christendom of 'heretics'. Initially to expel Jews and Muslims who had 'converted' to Christianity but 'secretly' practiced their own religion. Neither was the inquisition a purely religious action.

Now I never said the Inquisition was fair, I said the trials were more fair than their secular equivalents.

**Sorry, wanted to fool around with words :P

ChristianKnight
Apr 28th 2008, 05:59 AM
most of what you've heard of the crusades is exaggeration.

There were 49,000 trials held in Europe; between 3,000-5,000 people were 'killed' as a result, over a period of 350 years. The mission was not to 'spread' Catholicism but to purge Christendom of 'heretics'. Initially to expel Jews and Muslims who had 'converted' to Christianity but 'secretly' practiced their own religion. Neither was the inquisition a purely religious action.

Now I never said the Inquisition was fair, I said the trials were more fair than their secular equivalents.

**Sorry, wanted to fool around with words :P

That still doesn't change the fact, that you don't know how much I have heard, or what I have heard...

3,000-5,000 is like 15 of my schools...thats a lot of people, no matter how you put it. They killed people, thats wrong no matter what the number.

Their mission was in turn to make Catholocism stronger by getting rid of heretics...by getting rid of a heretic they kept the rest of the pop loyal to them..

Athanasius
Apr 28th 2008, 06:09 AM
That still doesn't change the fact, that you don't know how much I have heard, or what I have heard...

You're right, it doesn't. You were however the one to come in here yelling Crusade and Inquisition against the Catholic church.



3,000-5,000 is like 15 of my schools...thats a lot of people, no matter how you put it. They killed people, thats wrong no matter what the number.

Absolutely, killing people is wrong. Using it as a proof against the Catholic church is also wrong; it proves nothing. Peter cut off the ear of a soldier, this must mean he wasn't a true Apostle. Martin Luther hated Jews to the point of condoning violence against them--he also must not have been following the Bible. You can't point at the Catholic church and yell 'Crusades!' 'Inquisition!' And expect that to be a refutation of a statement no one in this thread made.



Their mission was in turn to make Catholocism stronger by getting rid of heretics...by getting rid of a heretic they kept the rest of the pop loyal to them..

No, that wasn't their mission, which was largely motivated by material gain. They wanted the wealth of the Jews. It had nothing to do with making Catholicism stronger. It did have everything to do with making the monarchy (specifically of Spain) stronger.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't worry about replying, I won't be. This has gone far off topic and for the simple reason that you jumped on a post in which you assumed something was said that actually wasn't.

Revinius
Apr 28th 2008, 07:18 AM
Well, what about what happened during the Crusades, and when Protestants where splitting? I mean, was it very Christ-Like to kill off thousands of innocent Jews/Muslims/? Was it very Christ-Like for Catholics to kill hundreds of protestants/jews in the Inqusitions? I am just wondering, why the Catholics are the "true" church, yet they commit atrocities that are of the devil's way.

Why do you keep calling people innocent, all have fallen short and all do evil!

Scruffy Kid
Apr 28th 2008, 09:55 AM
Dear ChristianKnight,
Thanks for you sincere questions. :hug:

You are very young, yet you are asking many tough questions. I really value and appreciate that. It's good to take life seriously, and to wrestle with difficult issues in the light of faith. That is how you will come to learn, both about these issues and about yourself. I really applaud your efforts to understand, on this thread, and on other threads!! :pp :pp :pp


Perspective on the wrongs of the past

I think, though, we need to get things in some perspective.
Well, what about what happened during the Crusades, and when Protestants where splitting? I mean, was it very Christ-Like to kill off thousands of innocent Jews/Muslims/? Was it very Christ-Like for Catholics to kill hundreds of protestants/jews in the Inqusitions? I am just wondering, why the Catholics are the "true" church, yet they commit atrocities that are of the devil's way. Recently Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor, caused a scandal by saying very negative things about the US. Do I think it was right for him to talk the way he did? No, perhaps we could understand why he was so upset, however.

The United States killed many many thousands of Indians, and stole their land. We enslaved many tens of thousands of Africans, killed many, tortured many, and then kept their descendants as slaves for hundreds of years? We systematically discriminated against African Americans in this country as late as the early 1970s. Why then do I think we should not go around damning the US for all the evil it has done?

Do you understand why I ask this question -- why it is a relevant response to your question?

I can understand why people are upset about bad things that have happened in history that the Catholic Church has had a hand in, but that's something very different from some sort of wholesale condemnation of that Church, or dismissing it, and ignoring its faith.

People, peoples, countries, and institutions that have been around for a long time make a lot of serious mistakes, and the light of history, in Christian perspective, shows them to be mistakes.

Thus, we can find many evil deeds that have been done by Americans, and by the United States government, or lesser governments in the US. But that is a bit different from saying we condemn the US, as a whole, as evil. In a similar way, any institution that has been around, and has been in charge of a lot for many hundreds of years, like the Catholic Church, has made some bad mistakes. But for us to see that is different from condemning it as a whole, or seeing it now only in terms of its mistakes and wrongdoing.

Actually many devout protestants were involved in taking Indian land, in killing off indians, and -- especially -- in slavery, the slave trade, and later in defense of segregation and racism. But I think it is not sensible to blame "protestantism" or "Christianity" for everything that was done, over centuries, by protestant people, churches, or ministers. The same principle applies to Catholicism and the Catholic Church. (Althought the point is, I admit, slightly different one might also not that most, though not all, of the evil deeds you (rightly) complain of was actually done by the kings and governments of Spain and France. Yet we don't discredit the things that those countries do now, because of what they did at that time.)



The pervasiveness of human sinfulness

The fact is that I, Scruffy Kid, have done many wrong things in my life. I am a sinner, needing God's grace. That is why Jesus died for us, and for me. And it's why, part of why, Jesus taught us to forgive others.

And sinfulness is not just a matter of personal wrong thoughts or weakness. It includes the fact that we as a society permit all kinds of injustice, and don't care about those who suffer, or that we permit the deterioration of families and public morals, in a way that injures many. And every society has these problems, our own included. In varying degree, many of us are complicit because our lives are not ones which are mainly oriented toward living and proclaiming the truth, which is often difficult and costly, and burdensome, for us to do.

Therefore, we need to be cautious in wholesale judgments
about others who have, indeed, made terrible mistakes

When I was a teenager, I had many friends who were very critical of their parents, and the mistakes they had made in their lives. The mistakes were there, no doubt, in many cases. Yet what my friends didn't see -- and some decades later, as it now is this is very clear -- was that they themselves would make similar, and often worse, mistakes!!

Getting stuck in condemning others for the wrongs of the past, let alone viewing others in terms of serious wrongs that were done in centuries past by their ancestors or predecessors, is the path to continual warfare and hatred; and that is a natural path for us as human beings to take, because we are very wrongheaded -- just like those who came before us.

Nobody here is arguing that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.

I am arguing that to speak ill of Catholics, or of the Pope, because of things that happened a few centuries ago, somewhat misses the point. What points do I think that misses? The point that we are all sinners, and that God uses us anyhow, and forgives us our sins. And also the point that any country, or institution, with a history of hundreds of years has bad incidents in their past.


Thinking about the wrongs of the United States
As an example of trying to think about the past
And about present choices in a balanced way

Perhaps it isn't as easy (especially for a country, or an institution) to lead a perfect life as people sometimes seem to suppose. Let's take a contemporary example as an illustration: the war in Iraq.

(I am not taking any position of my own, here, on what the US did: just trying to illustrate that it is often hard for historical actors to know, in advance, whether in larger perspective their actions or inactions will prove to be good or bad! I'm also not trying to argue that we can't make judgments on the rightness or wrongness of the Iraq war: I'm simply not addressing that topic.)

The US invaded Iraq. (We did so claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but we didn't find any there.) Now we continue to occupy that country, concerned, among other things, that if we pull out what will happen is a massive civil war. In the ongoing US presence, many Iraqis are killed by US soldiers, and a fair number of these are innocent people who just got in the way. So should we be in Iraq? What will this look like in historical perspective?
(1) Some people think that if we had not invaded Iraq Saddam Hussein would have started to cause trouble throughout the whole region (as he did in 1990), and that our security would have been at risk from terrorists. There's no doubt he was a terrible dictator who oppressed his people and tortured his opponents. There's little doubt that if the US had not stayed in Iraq until now, there would have been a real bloodbath among the factions that remained after we deposed Saddam Hussein. And it's possible that if we had not intervened there would have been much more terrible wars. After all, Saddam Hussein was largely responsible for the long, bloody, devastating Iran-Iraq war, not long before. So perhaps people will look back and (rightly) say that what we did saved many lives and made the lives of others better; that it was necessary, justified, wise, and compassionate, and for the good of the world, and of Iraq, as well as of the US.

(2) Others think that our invasion has turned many in the Middle East and around the world against us; that it has put us in the position of killing civilians and meddling in other peoples quarrels, and that we lied to justify an attack on a country that in fact had not attacked us, nor prepared to do so. It's entirely possible that we have made the terrorist threat worse. It's entirely possible that what we did makes overall peace in the region harder. The long-term consequences could be much greater human suffering and death -- much of which we ourselves may end up being directly responsible for. So perhaps people will look back and (rightly) say that what we did was brutal, destroyed and injured many innocent lives, and was unnecessary, unwise, selfish, harmful to Iraq, the region, and even to ourselves. Which is correct?

I don't know the full answer with certainty, and perhaps no one can know; but we have to make choices now in our ignorance -- an ignorance which is always (but culpably) laced with our own selfishness, bias, anger, impatience, unnecessary ignorance and carelessness, small-perspective, lack of love, and so on.

Hindsight is a lot easier than foresight! It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback a game; not so easy to make the right moves at the time. So, IMO, lots of the time when people make harsh historical judgments it reflects an unconscious view that we, of course, would not have made such mistakes if we had been there. This very attitude is, IMO, part of the thing that got people making serious mistakes in times past.

Perhaps that's what Jesus meant when (Matt 23:29-31) he said "Woe unto you ... because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and put flowers on the tombs of the righteous, and say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' But really you are in this way witnessing against yourselves, that you are the children of those who killed the prophets!"


Conclusion

Dear ChristianKnight, :hug:

I know that you very much want to be a person who stands for what is right. :pp

Also, you are earnestly inquiring about serious matters, and trying to understand! :hmm:

I am so happy that you are putting your heart into these things! :saint:

While we rely not on our own efforts, or virtue, but on Jesus Christ, to forgive us our many sins, and to strengthen us in the right way, it is also very important to be giving our best effort, and aspiring to the right way with great longing and hope.

Therefore I hope you will take my replies here as appreciation and affirmation of your efforts, even when I may disagree, or even be critical on some particular points.

Your friend and brother in Christ,
Scruffy Kid

Jerome1
Apr 28th 2008, 01:09 PM
Excellent posts Scruffy Kid and Xel'Naga.

There are many different interpretations of scripture, but there is only one absolute truth.

How do you judge which interpretation is right or wrong?

If you don't believe that Christ instituted an infallible interpretor of devine revelation then you have to accept the fact that anyone including yourself could be wrong regarding what you believe.

Revinius
Apr 28th 2008, 02:27 PM
If you don't believe that Christ instituted an infallible interpretor of devine revelation then you have to accept the fact that anyone including yourself could be wrong regarding what you believe.

And that interpreter is Him as He is the Word. :D

HisLeast
Apr 28th 2008, 02:28 PM
And that interpreter is Him as He is the Word. :D

But of course, everyone thinks they've heard him correctly... especially those with widely varying doctrinal beliefs.

Revinius
Apr 28th 2008, 03:34 PM
But of course, everyone thinks they've heard him correctly... especially those with widely varying doctrinal beliefs.

ofcourse. But there is a truth there.

David Taylor
Apr 28th 2008, 10:37 PM
How do you judge which interpretation is right or wrong?

If you don't believe that Christ instituted an infallible interpretor of devine revelation then you have to accept the fact that anyone including yourself could be wrong regarding what you believe.


Christ did institute an infallible interpretor....(it just wasn't the pope, nor Joseph Smith, nor Ghandi, nor Charles Taze Russell, nor Ellen G White, nor Benny Hinn, nor Mohammed.)

Isaiah 48:17 "Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go."

Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."

John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

Luke 21:15 "For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor resist."

I John 5:20 "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding"

II Timothy 2:7 "Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things. "

Ephesians 1:17 "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened"

ChristianKnight
Apr 29th 2008, 02:17 AM
Dear ChristianKnight,
Thanks for you sincere questions. :hug:

You are very young, yet you are asking many tough questions. I really value and appreciate that. It's good to take life seriously, and to wrestle with difficult issues in the light of faith. That is how you will come to learn, both about these issues and about yourself. I really applaud your efforts to understand, on this thread, and on other threads!! :pp :pp :pp


Perspective on the wrongs of the past

I think, though, we need to get things in some perspective. Recently Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor, caused a scandal by saying very negative things about the US. Do I think it was right for him to talk the way he did? No, perhaps we could understand why he was so upset, however.

The United States killed many many thousands of Indians, and stole their land. We enslaved many tens of thousands of Africans, killed many, tortured many, and then kept their descendants as slaves for hundreds of years? We systematically discriminated against African Americans in this country as late as the early 1970s. Why then do I think we should not go around damning the US for all the evil it has done?

Do you understand why I ask this question -- why it is a relevant response to your question?

I can understand why people are upset about bad things that have happened in history that the Catholic Church has had a hand in, but that's something very different from some sort of wholesale condemnation of that Church, or dismissing it, and ignoring its faith.

People, peoples, countries, and institutions that have been around for a long time make a lot of serious mistakes, and the light of history, in Christian perspective, shows them to be mistakes.

Thus, we can find many evil deeds that have been done by Americans, and by the United States government, or lesser governments in the US. But that is a bit different from saying we condemn the US, as a whole, as evil. In a similar way, any institution that has been around, and has been in charge of a lot for many hundreds of years, like the Catholic Church, has made some bad mistakes. But for us to see that is different from condemning it as a whole, or seeing it now only in terms of its mistakes and wrongdoing.

Actually many devout protestants were involved in taking Indian land, in killing off indians, and -- especially -- in slavery, the slave trade, and later in defense of segregation and racism. But I think it is not sensible to blame "protestantism" or "Christianity" for everything that was done, over centuries, by protestant people, churches, or ministers. The same principle applies to Catholicism and the Catholic Church. (Althought the point is, I admit, slightly different one might also not that most, though not all, of the evil deeds you (rightly) complain of was actually done by the kings and governments of Spain and France. Yet we don't discredit the things that those countries do now, because of what they did at that time.)



The pervasiveness of human sinfulness


The fact is that I, Scruffy Kid, have done many wrong things in my life. I am a sinner, needing God's grace. That is why Jesus died for us, and for me. And it's why, part of why, Jesus taught us to forgive others.

And sinfulness is not just a matter of personal wrong thoughts or weakness. It includes the fact that we as a society permit all kinds of injustice, and don't care about those who suffer, or that we permit the deterioration of families and public morals, in a way that injures many. And every society has these problems, our own included. In varying degree, many of us are complicit because our lives are not ones which are mainly oriented toward living and proclaiming the truth, which is often difficult and costly, and burdensome, for us to do.

Therefore, we need to be cautious in wholesale judgments
about others who have, indeed, made terrible mistakes

When I was a teenager, I had many friends who were very critical of their parents, and the mistakes they had made in their lives. The mistakes were there, no doubt, in many cases. Yet what my friends didn't see -- and some decades later, as it now is this is very clear -- was that they themselves would make similar, and often worse, mistakes!!

Getting stuck in condemning others for the wrongs of the past, let alone viewing others in terms of serious wrongs that were done in centuries past by their ancestors or predecessors, is the path to continual warfare and hatred; and that is a natural path for us as human beings to take, because we are very wrongheaded -- just like those who came before us.

Nobody here is arguing that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.

I am arguing that to speak ill of Catholics, or of the Pope, because of things that happened a few centuries ago, somewhat misses the point. What points do I think that misses? The point that we are all sinners, and that God uses us anyhow, and forgives us our sins. And also the point that any country, or institution, with a history of hundreds of years has bad incidents in their past.


Thinking about the wrongs of the United States
As an example of trying to think about the past
And about present choices in a balanced way

Perhaps it isn't as easy (especially for a country, or an institution) to lead a perfect life as people sometimes seem to suppose. Let's take a contemporary example as an illustration: the war in Iraq.

(I am not taking any position of my own, here, on what the US did: just trying to illustrate that it is often hard for historical actors to know, in advance, whether in larger perspective their actions or inactions will prove to be good or bad! I'm also not trying to argue that we can't make judgments on the rightness or wrongness of the Iraq war: I'm simply not addressing that topic.)


The US invaded Iraq. (We did so claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but we didn't find any there.) Now we continue to occupy that country, concerned, among other things, that if we pull out what will happen is a massive civil war. In the ongoing US presence, many Iraqis are killed by US soldiers, and a fair number of these are innocent people who just got in the way. So should we be in Iraq? What will this look like in historical perspective?
(1) Some people think that if we had not invaded Iraq Saddam Hussein would have started to cause trouble throughout the whole region (as he did in 1990), and that our security would have been at risk from terrorists. There's no doubt he was a terrible dictator who oppressed his people and tortured his opponents. There's little doubt that if the US had not stayed in Iraq until now, there would have been a real bloodbath among the factions that remained after we deposed Saddam Hussein. And it's possible that if we had not intervened there would have been much more terrible wars. After all, Saddam Hussein was largely responsible for the long, bloody, devastating Iran-Iraq war, not long before. So perhaps people will look back and (rightly) say that what we did saved many lives and made the lives of others better; that it was necessary, justified, wise, and compassionate, and for the good of the world, and of Iraq, as well as of the US.



(2) Others think that our invasion has turned many in the Middle East and around the world against us; that it has put us in the position of killing civilians and meddling in other peoples quarrels, and that we lied to justify an attack on a country that in fact had not attacked us, nor prepared to do so. It's entirely possible that we have made the terrorist threat worse. It's entirely possible that what we did makes overall peace in the region harder. The long-term consequences could be much greater human suffering and death -- much of which we ourselves may end up being directly responsible for. So perhaps people will look back and (rightly) say that what we did was brutal, destroyed and injured many innocent lives, and was unnecessary, unwise, selfish, harmful to Iraq, the region, and even to ourselves. Which is correct?

I don't know the full answer with certainty, and perhaps no one can know; but we have to make choices now in our ignorance -- an ignorance which is always (but culpably) laced with our own selfishness, bias, anger, impatience, unnecessary ignorance and carelessness, small-perspective, lack of love, and so on.

Hindsight is a lot easier than foresight! It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback a game; not so easy to make the right moves at the time. So, IMO, lots of the time when people make harsh historical judgments it reflects an unconscious view that we, of course, would not have made such mistakes if we had been there. This very attitude is, IMO, part of the thing that got people making serious mistakes in times past.

Perhaps that's what Jesus meant when (Matt 23:29-31) he said "Woe unto you ... because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and put flowers on the tombs of the righteous, and say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' But really you are in this way witnessing against yourselves, that you are the children of those who killed the prophets!"


Conclusion

Dear ChristianKnight, :hug:

I know that you very much want to be a person who stands for what is right. :pp

Also, you are earnestly inquiring about serious matters, and trying to understand! :hmm:

I am so happy that you are putting your heart into these things! :saint:

While we rely not on our own efforts, or virtue, but on Jesus Christ, to forgive us our many sins, and to strengthen us in the right way, it is also very important to be giving our best effort, and aspiring to the right way with great longing and hope.

Therefore I hope you will take my replies here as appreciation and affirmation of your efforts, even when I may disagree, or even be critical on some particular points.

Your friend and brother in Christ,
Scruffy Kid

Nicely put. Thanks for info, btw interesting facts: My family lived in Virginia during the Civil War, adn owned a slave plantation, and part of our ancestry is from Cherokee descent. (great-grandmother was half cherokee)

servantsheart
Apr 29th 2008, 02:58 AM
Catholics don't believe that the pope, "can never be wrong," they believe that his pronounements are infallible only when he meets certain conditions.

Are you Catholic? Catholic religion does teach infalliability...period. And if what you are saying is true it still does not matter...It firmly implies that the pope is 'perfect', has 'perfect' thinking and interpretation of scripture" and the people themselves are not equipped to study scripture and understand it without the church telling them what to think. The pope is placed on a pedistal...he is just a man and he is not perfect...he is not God and shoud not be treated like he is. The Holy Spirit helps you discern the Word of God ...every person is capable of discerning God's Word...you don't have to take it to the pope ...if he is so infalliable then why does the church mis-use scripture and twist it to suit their needs for traditions, and dogmas and rituals, etc.? If he was so infalliable he would understand the teaching by God in Deut. 4 concerning not adding to or taking away from God's holy Word. He would fear God enough not to take liberties with Scripture to such an extent as the Catholic Church does.

Could you give me a source from the Council of Trent were the Catholic Church said it did not care what the bible said? The canon of scripture was formally defined at the Council of Trent including the New Testament which you use.

Just look up Council of Trent and you can read it there in plain view.

You said it perfectly here, if Jesus is the Church why are there so many denominations teaching a contradictory message?
Frankly I do not have an answer for you as to why so many churches teach contradictory messages. Other than man himself wants to mold the scripture to suit his needs. He does not want to conform to what God's Holy Word tells us to do or not to do.

aurora77
Apr 29th 2008, 03:18 AM
Here's a great explanation of infallibility. http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

I, too, would love to see your source on the Council of Trent.

servantsheart
Apr 29th 2008, 03:55 AM
[quote=Scruffy Kid;1619738]Dear ChristianKnight,
Thanks for you sincere questions. :hug:

You are very young, yet you are asking many tough questions. I really value and appreciate that. It's good to take life seriously, and to wrestle with difficult issues in the light of faith. That is how you will come to learn, both about these issues and about yourself. I really applaud your efforts to understand, on this thread, and on other threads!! :pp :pp :pp


Perspective on the wrongs of the past

I think, though, we need to get things in some perspective. Recently Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor, caused a scandal by saying very negative things about the US. Do I think it was right for him to talk the way he did? No, perhaps we could understand why he was so upset, however.

The United States killed many many thousands of Indians, and stole their land. We enslaved many tens of thousands of Africans, killed many, tortured many, and then kept their descendants as slaves for hundreds of years? We systematically discriminated against African Americans in this country as late as the early 1970s. Why then do I think we should not go around damning the US for all the evil it has done?

Do you understand why I ask this question -- why it is a relevant response to your question.

Sorry, I don't see how this arugement compares to disregarding God's Holy Word and doing what you want to do just because your elected Pope of what is called the One True Church. Political wars and injustices are in an arena of their own. Discernment of God's Word and how it is presented to millions of people where it is changed to suit the church's needs/ traditions, dogmas, etic., and is teaching the people the wrong interpretation of Scripture is totally separate....it is above all these others things as far worse. I beleive it is the worst thing mankind will stand before God at judgement and have to confess that they took His Word and did with it as they pleased.[

I can understand why people are upset about bad things that have happened in history that the Catholic Church has had a hand in, but that's something very different from some sort of wholesale condemnation of that Church, or dismissing it, and ignoring its faith.

[Since God gave us discernment through the Holy Spirit indwelling inside of us, then we as Christians have the God given authority to discern if a religion is ture or false...if those in leadership are wolves in sheep clothing... The church is doing today what it did from its beginning. That is teaching infalliabality of the pope, idol worship, praying to Mary, praying to dead people for help with prayers, twisting scripture to suit its own purposes, and much more.... and just take a look back in history to the land on which the Vatican was built and how it was obtained and at the expense of those killed in order to clear the land for the Chruch to have the land it wanted. Tje wrongs the church as committed and continues to committ can not brushed under the rug. Not in today's times when we have so many lost and hurting people. People who desperately want and need to know the truth about the different church demoninations and which are treaching God's word truthfully and which distort it for their own needs and purposes.]

People, peoples, countries, and institutions that have been around for a long time make a lot of serious mistakes, and the light of history, in Christian perspective, shows them to be mistakes.

Thus, we can find many evil deeds that have been done by Americans, and by the United States government, or lesser governments in the US. But that is a bit different from saying we condemn the US, as a whole, as evil. In a similar way, any institution that has been around, and has been in charge of a lot for many hundreds of years, like the Catholic Church, has made some bad mistakes. But for us to see that is different from condemning it as a whole, or seeing it now only in terms of its mistakes and wrongdoing.

Actually many devout protestants were involved in taking Indian land, in killing off indians, and -- especially -- in slavery, the slave trade, and later in defense of segregation and racism. But I think it is not sensible to blame "protestantism" or "Christianity" for everything that was done, over centuries, by protestant people, churches, or ministers. The same principle applies to Catholicism and the Catholic Church. (Althought the point is, I admit, slightly different one might also not that most, though not all, of the evil deeds you (rightly) complain of was actually done by the kings and governments of Spain and France. Yet we don't discredit the things that those countries do now, because of what they did at that time.)



The pervasiveness of human sinfulness


The fact is that I, Scruffy Kid, have done many wrong things in my life. I am a sinner, needing God's grace. That is why Jesus died for us, and for me. And it's why, part of why, Jesus taught us to forgive others.

And sinfulness is not just a matter of personal wrong thoughts or weakness. It includes the fact that we as a society permit all kinds of injustice, and don't care about those who suffer, or that we permit the deterioration of families and public morals, in a way that injures many. And every society has these problems, our own included. In varying degree, many of us are complicit because our lives are not ones which are mainly oriented toward living and proclaiming the truth, which is often difficult and costly, and burdensome, for us to do.

Therefore, we need to be cautious in wholesale judgments
about others who have, indeed, made terrible mistakes

When I was a teenager, I had many friends who were very critical of their parents, and the mistakes they had made in their lives. The mistakes were there, no doubt, in many cases. Yet what my friends didn't see -- and some decades later, as it now is this is very clear -- was that they themselves would make similar, and often worse, mistakes!!

Getting stuck in condemning others for the wrongs of the past, let alone viewing others in terms of serious wrongs that were done in centuries past by their ancestors or predecessors, is the path to continual warfare and hatred; and that is a natural path for us as human beings to take, because we are very wrongheaded -- just like those who came before us.

Nobody here is arguing that the Catholic Church is the one true Church.
[This is bound to surface since we are taling about a man who calls himself infalliable. ]

I am arguing that to speak ill of Catholics, or of the Pope, because of things that happened a few centuries ago, [ Kissing the Pope's ring is present time happenings... And what they did then is what the church stills believes in now!Nothing has changed about the church or it's teachings on dogmas, laws, traditions, etc.,.. ]somewhat misses the point. What points do I think that misses? The point that we are all sinners, and that God uses us anyhow, and forgives us our sins.

[ How would you judge how God is going to forgive or not forgive the Pope and the Priest their wrong doings if they have never come to know Jesus and been born again and accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior? Been baptised in full immersoion...Stop twisting scripture and confess it to the Lord....Since God is a God of second chances in the here and now but there are no second chances after death...no turning back. ]
And also the point that any country, or institution, with a history of hundreds of years has bad incidents in their past.


Thinking about the wrongs of the United States
As an example of trying to think about the past
And about present choices in a balanced way

Perhaps it isn't as easy (especially for a country, or an institution) to lead a perfect life as people sometimes seem to suppose. Let's take a contemporary example as an illustration: the war in Iraq.

(I am not taking any position of my own, here, on what the US did: just trying to illustrate that it is often hard for historical actors to know, in advance, whether in larger perspective their actions or inactions will prove to be good or bad! I'm also not trying to argue that we can't make judgments on the rightness or wrongness of the Iraq war: I'm simply not addressing that topic.)


The US invaded Iraq. (We did so claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, but we didn't find any there.) Now we continue to occupy that country, concerned, among other things, that if we pull out what will happen is a massive civil war. In the ongoing US presence, many Iraqis are killed by US soldiers, and a fair number of these are innocent people who just got in the way. So should we be in Iraq? What will this look like in historical perspective?
(1) Some people think that if we had not invaded Iraq Saddam Hussein would have started to cause trouble throughout the whole region (as he did in 1990), and that our security would have been at risk from terrorists. There's no doubt he was a terrible dictator who oppressed his people and tortured his opponents. There's little doubt that if the US had not stayed in Iraq until now, there would have been a real bloodbath among the factions that remained after we deposed Saddam Hussein. And it's possible that if we had not intervened there would have been much more terrible wars. After all, Saddam Hussein was largely responsible for the long, bloody, devastating Iran-Iraq war, not long before. So perhaps people will look back and (rightly) say that what we did saved many lives and made the lives of others better; that it was necessary, justified, wise, and compassionate, and for the good of the world, and of Iraq, as well as of the US.



(2) Others think that our invasion has turned many in the Middle East and around the world against us; that it has put us in the position of killing civilians and meddling in other peoples quarrels, and that we lied to justify an attack on a country that in fact had not attacked us, nor prepared to do so. It's entirely possible that we have made the terrorist threat worse. It's entirely possible that what we did makes overall peace in the region harder. The long-term consequences could be much greater human suffering and death -- much of which we ourselves may end up being directly responsible for. So perhaps people will look back and (rightly) say that what we did was brutal, destroyed and injured many innocent lives, and was unnecessary, unwise, selfish, harmful to Iraq, the region, and even to ourselves. Which is correct?

I don't know the full answer with certainty, and perhaps no one can know; but we have to make choices now in our ignorance -- an ignorance which is always (but culpably) laced with our own selfishness, bias, anger, impatience, unnecessary ignorance and carelessness, small-perspective, lack of love, and so on.

[When we come to know Jesus as our Lord and Savior we have a renewed mind, we have a Christ like mind. A new character, new thinking, forgiving hearts and minds, new perspective, forgiveness in our hearts. We do not have to make choices in ignorance. We should no longer feel selfishness, or have a small perspective, etc., all of these things can be seen and felt through God in prayer.]

Hindsight is a lot easier than foresight! It's easy to Monday-morning quarterback a game; not so easy to make the right moves at the time. So, IMO, lots of the time when people make harsh historical judgments it reflects an unconscious view that we, of course, would not have made such mistakes if we had been there. This very attitude is, IMO, part of the thing that got people making serious mistakes in times past.

Perhaps that's what Jesus meant when (Matt 23:29-31) he said "Woe unto you ... because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and put flowers on the tombs of the righteous, and say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' But really you are in this way witnessing against yourselves, that you are the children of those who killed the prophets!"


Conclusion

Dear ChristianKnight, :hug:

I know that you very much want to be a person who stands for what is right. :pp

Also, you are earnestly inquiring about serious matters, and trying to understand! :hmm:

I am so happy that you are putting your heart into these things! :saint:


Question: why is it ok to kiss the ring an ordinary man wears and treat him likened unto God and give him a royal place to live with a basement filled with treasure taken from the Jews they helped to exterminate?

aurora77
Apr 29th 2008, 04:04 AM
You've made a lot of accusations, servantsheart, care to back them up with sources?

servantsheart
Apr 29th 2008, 04:29 AM
Here's a great explanation of infallibility. http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

I, too, would love to see your source on the Council of Trent.
This as everything else is 'twisted' to suit what the church wants the pope to be and do with the idea of infailibility...just read it with an open mind and you can plainly see how they state one things but turn around and make excuses for it in the next statement....Papal Infailibilty: Bishops also have infailibily....Pope: A Chrism enjoyed in virtue of his office!(Then they say this is separted from sin...a pope can be sinful >>dah! but infailible on doctrine...this means the church and its man made laws and traditions and dogmas that are combined with certain scripture and the scripture has been 'twicked' just enough...maybe by only one word ...to read the way they want it too to support their traditions, etc.
This even claims that the Holy Spirit leads them...how could the Holy Spirit lead them to go against God and his Holy Word??? This is blasphemas!!!!!
IF IT IS NOT FULLY OF GOD AND HIS HOLY WORD THEN IT IS NOT WORTH BELIEVING IN AND ADHERING TO.
THE EYE GATE AND EAR GATE OF THOSE LISTENING TO ROME NEED TO BE OPENED AND CLEARED TO SEE AND HEAR THE TRUTH THAT THE CHURCH SO SKILLFULLY TRIES TO COVER UP WITH ONE CONTORTED STATEMENT AND A FOLLOW UP OF A SECOND DEFINATION TO BRING CLARITY TO THE FIRTS...IF THIS SOUNDS SILLY AND CONFUSED THEN SO DOES THE ARTICLE AND ALL THE ARTICLES PRESENTED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. BECAUSE IT IS BUILT ON FALSEHOODS, TWISTING OF GOD'S SCRIPTURE AND IT'S DETERMINATION TO ADD TO AND TAKE AWAY FROM GOD'S WORD. ... TO DO IT'S OWN THING WHETHER IT GOES AGAINST GOD OR NOT.

Scruffy Kid
Apr 29th 2008, 07:03 PM
Dear servantsheart,
I'm glad to have you here at Bibleforums. :pp

However, I think you are misreading my post.

1. One posts can't address every topic: I stated my limits clearly:
I addressed ChristianKnight's question about historical injustices, not matters of Doctrine.

ChristianKnight asked a specific question about historical political wrongs which he thought were the responsibility of the Catholic Church. It was that question to which I replied in the post of mine that you responded to. This was obscured by the fact that your quoting of my post, in addition to adding your interpolations in green -- that it was you speaking there was clear enough, so I don't much object to that -- you didn't bother to include the quote from ChristianKnight to which I was refering. The quote button won't automatically do that, but it's easy enough to fix.
Dear ChristianKnight,
Thanks for you sincere questions. ...


Perspective on the wrongs of the past

Well, what about what happened during the Crusades, and when Protestants where splitting? I mean, was it very Christ-Like to kill off thousands of innocent Jews/Muslims/? Was it very Christ-Like for Catholics to kill hundreds of protestants/jews in the Inqusitions? I am just wondering, why the Catholics are the "true" church,

I think, though, we need to get things in some perspective. ...

The United States killed many many thousands of Indians, and stole their land. We enslaved many tens of thousands of Africans ... Why then do I think we should not go around damning the US for all the evil it has done?

Do you understand why I ask this question -- why it is a relevant response to your question. I made it quite clear that the subject I was addressing was how we should think about violent wrongs long ago by institutions (the Catholic Church, the US, Spain, or even New England Protestant Churches). That was the question that the CK asked at the end of his quotation of my previous post, that was the question I quoted, and I made it clear by headlines and examples in my post that it was the kind of historical wrongs that CK had asked about concerning which I was writing.

You replied
I don't see how this arugement compares to disregarding God's Holy Word and doing what you want to do just because your elected Pope ... Political wars and injustices are in an arena of their own. Discernment of God's Word and how it is presented ... is totally separate. ... Yes it's totally separate, and it is not what I was addressing. I'm sorry that you were disappointed the subject on which I wrote was not what you wanted me to write on, but I was being responsive to the question I was asked of me. So I fail to see the pertinence of your remark. You can start a thread, or even respond to CK's thread, with your own thoughts about doctrine, but when I try to stay on the OP's question, it's not very sensible to object that I didn't address a quite different subject that you happened to have in mind.

2. I also made related remarks about human sinfulness and fallibility,
as these affect the mistakes big intitutions have made historically.
Are you saying statemen can be faultless in making policy decisions?

I went on to note how hard it is to make large historical decisions well, illustrating this with the difficulty of knowing how the current war in Iraq will be seen in future generations, or how it appears in God's sight.
And also the point that any country, or institution, with a history of hundreds of years has bad incidents in their past. ...


Thinking about the wrongs of the United States
As an example of trying to think about the past ...

... Let's take a contemporary example as an illustration: the war in Iraq.

(I am not taking any position of my own, here, on what the US did: just trying to illustrate that it is often hard for historical actors to know, in advance, ....)

The US invaded Iraq. ... So should we be in Iraq? What will this look like in historical perspective?
(1) Some people think that ... So perhaps people will look back and (rightly) say that what we did saved many lives and made the lives of others better; that it was necessary, justified, wise, and compassionate, and for the good of the world, and of Iraq, as well as of the US.

(2) Others think that ... So perhaps people will look back and (rightly) say that what we did was brutal, destroyed and injured many innocent lives, and was unnecessary, unwise, selfish, harmful to Iraq, the region, and even to ourselves. Which is correct?

I don't know the full answer with certainty, and perhaps no one can know; but we have to make choices now in our ignorance -- an ignorance which is always (but culpably) laced with our own selfishness, bias, anger, impatience, unnecessary ignorance and carelessness, small-perspective, lack of love, and so on. In doing that, I emphasized human fallibility, and human sinfulness which colors human fallibility. This seems not to have sat well with you, for you replied:
[When we come to know Jesus as our Lord and Savior we have a renewed mind, we have a Christ like mind. A new character, new thinking, forgiving hearts and minds, new perspective, forgiveness in our hearts. We do not have to make choices in ignorance. We should no longer feel selfishness, or have a small perspective, etc., all of these things can be seen and felt through God in prayer.] There are two things very odd to me about this response. First, when you object -- in response to my noting that it's hard to know what are the right courses of political action, because we don't know how history will turn out -- that we have the mind of Christ, this gives the impression that you disagree, and think we can know in advance who's right and who's wrong about Iraq war policy. Surely, though, since there are many Christians on both sides you can't mean that Christians automatically have discernment as to what side of a difficult practical debate about foreign policy is correct! So I don't get what it is you do mean.

Second, you seem to object to my caution that when we make difficult decisions, and try to understand how to look at complex human decisions, we suffer not just from simple ignorance, but also from "selfishness, bias, anger, impatience, unnecessary ignorance and carelessness, small-perspective, lack of love, and so on." Are you really saying, as it seems, that among Christians these things are absent? No selfishness, bias, anger, or impatience in Christian families, churches, or individuals? Do you in fact suppose that you yourself are free of faults of perspective and character? I can't really suppose that you think such a thing, but if that's not the meaning your reply is meant to carry, I really don't see what your remark did mean.

3. You end by a sentence in the form of a question which, however, seems
to attribute to me a lot of things I didn't say. It's a bad sign of something wrong.
Please don't do that. For your own sake.

Then, at the end of quoting my post (with your interpolations within it) you ask:
Question: why is it ok to kiss the ring an ordinary man wears and treat him likened unto God and give him a royal place to live with a basement filled with treasure taken from the Jews they helped to exterminate? While I don't personally take offense at your question, it is a very offensive remark, objectively speaking. I said nothing about these matters, and when you ask me why it is OK to "live with a basement filled with treasure taken from the Jews they helped to exterminate" you implicitly attribute to me things I never said. That's not appropriate: it's not truthful. Your final phrase is a particularly malicious and slanderous falsehood (quite apart from your implicitly in associating me with it) but I'm not going to debate it. It's more important to address the real issue your post raises which I will address in my last paragraph.

I believe the Bible. It tells us to tell the truth. It tells us to speak graciously to others. It tells us not to slander. It tells us not to hate. That is closely connected with the fact that we are sinners, and that Jesus came for the forgiveness of sins, and to set us free from sinful ways. God's love and mercy -- not bitterness and anger, even where these are in some measure meritted -- should be the things which mainly inform our lives and hearts and minds.

Frankly, you will get along better in your life if you speak and think as God commands us to do, in a moderate, logical, truthful, and gracious way, rather than allowing your bitterness and blaming to grow the point where it overwhelms even ordinary logic and common sense in your thinking and talking. Bitterness and anger, if allowed to grow, will take over and ruin a person's life. I hate to see that happening.

In friendship,
And hoping for God's blessing in your life,
Scruffy Kid


"be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil" I Timothy 2:24

aurora77
Apr 29th 2008, 08:51 PM
This as everything else is 'twisted' to suit what the church wants the pope to be and do with the idea of infailibility...just read it with an open mind and you can plainly see how they state one things but turn around and make excuses for it in the next statement....Papal Infailibilty: Bishops also have infailibily....Pope: A Chrism enjoyed in virtue of his office!(Then they say this is separted from sin...a pope can be sinful >>dah! but infailible on doctrine...this means the church and its man made laws and traditions and dogmas that are combined with certain scripture and the scripture has been 'twicked' just enough...maybe by only one word ...to read the way they want it too to support their traditions, etc. .How is this twisted, no Catholic would ever claim that infallibility=no sin. All men sin. If sin makes it impossible for a person to define doctrine or interpret scripture, as you seem to be claiming, it would follow that no one could ever understand the scriptures.



This even claims that the Holy Spirit leads them...how could the Holy Spirit lead them to go against God and his Holy Word??? This is blasphemas!!!!!.Why? How do you know? Who tells you that it is blasphemous?

IF IT IS NOT FULLY OF GOD AND HIS HOLY WORD THEN IT IS NOT WORTH BELIEVING IN AND ADHERING TO.

THE EYE GATE AND EAR GATE OF THOSE LISTENING TO ROME NEED TO BE OPENED AND CLEARED TO SEE AND HEAR THE TRUTH THAT THE CHURCH SO SKILLFULLY TRIES TO COVER UP WITH ONE CONTORTED STATEMENT AND A FOLLOW UP OF A SECOND DEFINATION TO BRING CLARITY TO THE FIRTS...IF THIS SOUNDS SILLY AND CONFUSED THEN SO DOES THE ARTICLE AND ALL THE ARTICLES PRESENTED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. BECAUSE IT IS BUILT ON FALSEHOODS, TWISTING OF GOD'S SCRIPTURE AND IT'S DETERMINATION TO ADD TO AND TAKE AWAY FROM GOD'S WORD. ... TO DO IT'S OWN THING WHETHER IT GOES AGAINST GOD OR NOT.You're getting very angry here; I'm not sure what point you're making. Please don't shout, we can have a civil discussion.

servantsheart
Apr 30th 2008, 12:40 AM
How is this twisted, no Catholic would ever claim that infallibility=no sin. All men sin. If sin makes it impossible for a person to define doctrine or interpret scripture, as you seem to be claiming, it would follow that no one could ever understand the scriptures.
Sorry I did not mean it to sound like I was 'screaming' as you put it. The description of the pope and his infalibility is spoken of in the web site you listed...it mentions that the pope does sin but then returns to how infalibilie he is...I was being sarcastic I guess about the image of this mortal man who wears clothing with much of it still having signs of paganism on them, saying he is infalible, but might sin a little......YES, if you still use things that have symbols of pagan gods on clothing, the mitre, the sunburst on the altar, and much more. But mostly, if you take God's word and form it to suit what you want it to say...and state that the Holy Spirit directs you in doing this!!! Then you are far from being a Christian. Christians avoid ALL things pagan!!! We avoid idol worship. We don't pray to the dead. We don't ask Mary to interceed for us on anything. We admit we are sinners. We don't claim to know it all or be infalible in understanding God's word. But as born again Christians we do have the Holy Spirit living inside of us and the Spirit does lead us in discerning scripture.

Why? How do you know? Who tells you that it is blasphemous?
You're getting very angry here; I'm not sure what point you're making. Please don't shout, we can have a civil discussion.
Everything I was talking about comes from the web site you listed.
The point I am trying to make is that for the church to say that the Pope and the Bishops are infalibile and that the Holy Spirit leads them.....I find this hard to believe. The Holy Spirit leads the saints in all things religious.....But when the Catholic Church claims it is ok to change scripture by adding to it or taking from it ...and does so to fit the dogmas, laws, traditions they have set forth then why would they say the Holy Spirit was leading them in this offense to God's word as God tells us not to add to or take away from his Word. It is defaming against the Holy Spirit to say that the Holy Spirit would work against what God had set forth in his holy Word (the Holy Spirit is God and God would not go against himself).

Jerome1
Apr 30th 2008, 11:09 PM
Everything I was talking about comes from the web site you listed.
The point I am trying to make is that for the church to say that the Pope and the Bishops are infalibile and that the Holy Spirit leads them.....I find this hard to believe. The Holy Spirit leads the saints in all things religious.....But when the Catholic Church claims it is ok to change scripture by adding to it or taking from it ...and does so to fit the dogmas, laws, traditions they have set forth then why would they say the Holy Spirit was leading them in this offense to God's word as God tells us not to add to or take away from his Word. It is defaming against the Holy Spirit to say that the Holy Spirit would work against what God had set forth in his holy Word (the Holy Spirit is God and God would not go against himself).

You don't understand what the RCC teaches about infallibility. There are countless sources out there go and look them up. It doesn't teach that the pope and his bishops are always infallible, it teaches that when he with the magisterium define a doctrine they are prevented from teaching error. The pope has to meet certain criteria before his pronouncements are regarded as infallible.

David Taylor
May 2nd 2008, 12:46 AM
The pope has to meet certain criteria before his pronouncements are regarded as infallible.

Maybe on a RCC forum.

On this Protestant Christian forum, the Pope is never regarded as infallible.

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 02:37 AM
Maybe on a RCC forum.

On this Protestant Christian forum, the Pope is never regarded as infallible.

There is a misconception among protestants regarding the infallibility issue. Some believe it means the pope can't sin, or can never be in error, that isn't want the RCC teaches.

The RCC teaches that he has to meet strict criteria in order for his pronouncements to be considered infallible.

ChristianKnight
May 2nd 2008, 02:42 AM
There is a misconception among protestants regarding the infallibility issue. Some believe it means the pope can't sin, or can never be in error, that isn't want the RCC teaches.

The RCC teaches that he has to meet strict criteria in order for his pronouncements to be considered infallible.

Either way he isn't better than anyone else, even though he or some Catholics might think that.

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 02:50 AM
Either way he isn't better than anyone else, even though he or some Catholics might think that.

What does better than everyone else mean?

There are people who are more righteous than others, but that is for God to decide. Obviously in the RCC the pope is a very important figure, who bears a great deal of responsibility.

Athanasius
May 2nd 2008, 03:00 AM
You're only infallible till the next Pope comes along and undoes what you did.
I'm reading through a lot of these 'proofs' for Papal Infallibility in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and a lot of them have nothing to do with infallibility.

David Taylor
May 2nd 2008, 03:01 AM
There is a misconception among protestants regarding the infallibility issue.

No, Protestants are very clear regarding the infallibility issue --

the Pope is never regarded as infallible. (in any situation)

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 03:09 AM
You're only infallible till the next Pope comes along and undoes what you did.
I'm reading through a lot of these 'proofs' for Papal Infallibility in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and a lot of them have nothing to do with infallibility.

Can't discuss this issue on this board, there are plenty of sources however regarding supposed contradictions, that are easily refuted.;)



No, Protestants are very clear regarding the infallibility issue --

the Pope is never regarded as infallible. (in any situation)


Yes i'm aware that protestants don't accept the infallibility claims of the pope, or they wouldn't be protestant. The misconception is that some think it means he is without sin or can never be wrong, which isn't what the RCC teaches.

Athanasius
May 2nd 2008, 03:11 AM
I'm aware of the 'refutations'. Hardly satistifying. . .

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 03:23 AM
I'm aware of the 'refutations'. Hardly satistifying. . .

I think there is three apparent contradictions and i believe a lot of protestant scholars even accept that the arguments are weak. I'd need to refresh my memory. I remember finding the explanations more than convincing.

ChristianKnight
May 2nd 2008, 03:51 AM
What does better than everyone else mean?

There are people who are more righteous than others, but that is for God to decide. Obviously in the RCC the pope is a very important figure, who bears a great deal of responsibility.

Yes, but so does a Baptist Minister, or a Jewish Rabbi, but they are not publicized constantly, for being the "holy father"...

If a man is called the "holy father" and he is not god....

I do not see the pope better than anyone else spiritual cause on a level we don't know how spiritual he is or anyone cause thats not something a lot of people go out and talk about, epsecially at my age, cause if you stick to the commandments your automatically a "Jesus Freak", "Bible Beater", "Bible Freak"

Revinius
May 2nd 2008, 04:54 AM
if you stick to the commandments your automatically a "Jesus Freak", "Bible Beater", "Bible Freak"

Bear the badge with pride. The word 'Christian' was originally used in a derogratory sense.

Athanasius
May 2nd 2008, 05:01 AM
Hey man, I was known as 'BibleBoy' and 'The Virgin Mary' in high school. If I wasn't then I'd of wondered what I was doing wrong.

Jerome1
May 2nd 2008, 02:04 PM
Yes, but so does a Baptist Minister, or a Jewish Rabbi, but they are not publicized constantly, for being the "holy father"...

If a man is called the "holy father" and he is not god....

I do not see the pope better than anyone else spiritual cause on a level we don't know how spiritual he is or anyone cause thats not something a lot of people go out and talk about, epsecially at my age, cause if you stick to the commandments your automatically a "Jesus Freak", "Bible Beater", "Bible Freak"

Where I live there are countless protestant stations, and only one catholic station.

If a baptist minister, or Jewish Rabbi was leader of the biggest christian denomination, then you would hear a lot more about them in the news.

daughter
May 2nd 2008, 02:05 PM
My son is a twelve year old "Bible nerd", "Jesus Freak", "Mother Teresa."

I think it goes with the territory. (You know what is really sad? He goes to a "Christian" school!)

Revinius
May 2nd 2008, 04:01 PM
the only Holy Father i am aware of resides in unity with his son and spirit.

Roelof
May 9th 2008, 01:42 PM
An interesting news article on the Pope:

From The Times (UK)
July 11, 2007

If it isn’t Roman Catholic then it’s not a proper Church, Pope tells Christians


Richard Owen and Ruth Gledhill

The Vatican has described the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as“not proper Churches” in a document issued with the full authority of the Pope.
Anglican leaders reacted with dismay, accusing the Roman Catholic Church of paradoxical behaviour. They said that the new 16-page document outlying the “defects” of non-Catholic churches constituted a major obstacle to ecumenism.
The document said that the Orthodox church suffered from a “wound” because it did not recognise the primacy of the Pope. The wound was “still more profound” in Protestant denominations, it added.

It was “difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to them”, said the statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Roman Catholicism was “the one true Church of Christ”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece)

servantsheart
May 10th 2008, 12:35 AM
An interesting news article on the Pope:

From The Times (UK)
July 11, 2007

If it isn’t Roman Catholic then it’s not a proper Church, Pope tells Christians


Richard Owen and Ruth Gledhill

The Vatican has described the Protestant and Orthodox faiths as“not proper Churches” in a document issued with the full authority of the Pope.
Anglican leaders reacted with dismay, accusing the Roman Catholic Church of paradoxical behaviour. They said that the new 16-page document outlying the “defects” of non-Catholic churches constituted a major obstacle to ecumenism.
The document said that the Orthodox church suffered from a “wound” because it did not recognise the primacy of the Pope. The wound was “still more profound” in Protestant denominations, it added.

It was “difficult to see how the title of ‘Church’ could possibly be attributed to them”, said the statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Roman Catholicism was “the one true Church of Christ”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2056515.ece)

Reconize him? He is not God. He is just a mortal man who draws attention to himself with all the finery he wears and the way he positions himself to be above the heads of those around him so everyone is shown as though they are looking adoringly at him. He makes false claims in the name of a church... from not baptizing in full immersion, to telling your sins to another mortal man, to celebrating communition wrongly, to Mary worship, and praying to the dead.
If your born again you have the Holy Spirit living inside of you and guiding you in all things religious...you don't need a mortal man telling you how to read the Bible or how to worship God or that your in the wrong church if your not Catholic. Been there done that!

Roelof
May 10th 2008, 08:33 AM
Reconize him? He is not God. He is just a mortal man

I fully agree in your whole post.

servantsheart
May 10th 2008, 11:55 AM
Hi Roelof, it is very, very, sad ... it is as if he elevated himself above God...especially since the church claims they can add to and take away from God's word. I know that unless God has 'opened' your eyes to such things than it is not likely that those in the faith see any thing wrong...actually they have a snobbishness to them because they think they are the true church. I felt it when I was still in this religion. But how could a man like the pope and other church officials read the Bible and never ever begin to question the teaching of the faith over what is in God's word? Wouldn't you think they would begin to see the difference between what God's word and the "choosen traditiions" of the faith.
I know how much my pastor worries about teaching us God's truth through scripture and he knows he is held responsible to do so by God and will account for it one day. I don't see the pope in worry over misleading or misinterpretation of scripture.
Maybe he should study the word more and do less with rituals and reciting the same prayers over and over again.
Why is it that Catholics never think to question the teachings of their faith? They just seem to accept it and then fight for it like it was manna from heaven. They can fight like this for what their faith tells them to do but they don't see that they should be fighting to do what Father God tells them to do. How twisted! Boy does satan have them fooled and blineded. We must continue to pray for them to have their eyes opened by God to the truth and let them walk in the light.

Jerome1
May 12th 2008, 11:23 PM
servantsheart you do realise any of these criticisms could be aimed at any denomination that differs from your own, what makes you think you are right and everyone else is wrong?

With all due respect it doesn't sound like you know much about the RCC to be criticising it.

servantsheart
May 13th 2008, 12:15 AM
servantsheart you do realise any of these criticisms could be aimed at any denomination that differs from your own, what makes you think you are right and everyone else is wrong?

With all due respect it doesn't sound like you know much about the RCC to be criticising it.

This is true and if that person was doing or not doing the things the Pope does in the name of the RCC I would tell you they are going against God and his holy word.
This is why we have the Spirit living inside of us...to guide us in all things religious. We are to be discerning about God's truth. We can not add to it and we can not take away from it.
Did you ever look up the history about the RCC concerning the Council of Trent, or how the pagan symbols used when the church began are still seen in the church today.
Does God truly think it alright for a mortal man to say he can forgive sins because he is God's represenative...this is not in God's word...it is made up by the church, or call an unleaven waffer the body of Christ...and the wine the blood of Christ...rather than taking them in rememberance only.
Does God mind that it was his son who gave his life on the Cross of Calvary but the RCC church prayes to Mary to interceed when it is only Chirst who can interceed on our behalf to the prayers we pray to God.
Does God not mind when there is idol worship of the church instituted Sacred Heart of Jesus (this is not in the Bible...only in the portion of documented works that the RCC church add to their Bibles).
Does God think it ok to pray to the dead???!! He tells us in his word not to communicate with the dead...it is only eveil spirits you talk with.
Does God not mind that the pope says he is infalible...this puts him on a level with God. No one is on a level with God. Only God is perfect. Moratal made has a sinful nature and is far from being perfect.
He oversees all the wrongful teachings and supports them and encourages them...just like genuflecting to the candle by the altar becasue the people are told that it is Jesus present in the church, putting the unleaven waffer in the ?(can't think of it's name now...but the thing that holds the waffer in between the glass) and having everyone kneel to it because it is Jesus; and someone has to remain with it all night long because it is Jesus and it would be rude to leave him alone all night sitting on the make shift altar in another part of the church...
Really, now, does this truly make sense to claim that all of these inanimate objects are Jesus? How does Jesus feel about people putting such priorities on these things instead of just kneeling in their prayer closet and pray and talking with him.
All of these things and much more are supported by the pope. Becasue he claims to be the head of the one true church and he is infalible...if he is infalible how come he can not read the Bible for what it says but has to change it to suit the church traditions and laws and dogma....as I recall, Jesus died to end the legalism of the OT. The RCC binds it 's people to legalistic ways of thinking and believe you can buy your way into heaven with good works, and indulgenes(not biblical either).
Again I explain that I was RCC for 30 years and I am not proud of it. But I am filled with such love and gratitude to God for opening my eyes and bringing me out of the church and showing me what is loving word is truly all about....it is all about HIM and not about a pope or a church, Mary worship, idol worship, believing that wearing a sacpular can protect you more the God Himself.
When I was RCC I 'just thought' I knew it all. There is a superiority within the faith. This is the evil one making those in the RCC church elevate themselves above other faith.Now I know that I learn something new everyday from God's word...I learn by way of the Holy Spirit...not what the pope chooses to tell me to know or think.
I had a priest once tell me (during confession) that I was a sinner for using birth control...I had just miscarried at five months and lost six units of blood and the hospital had a seventh on stand by for me. My doctor said he would not see me through another pregnancy...plus I have a bad back that eventually had to have surgery ...which also made it difficult to carry a baby. I have two wonderful adult children...I knew I was not a sinner and that God loved me for having the children we have and going through the two miscarriages.
God himself was not condemning me. Why should a mortal man condemn me? This is how the church puts uncalled for guilt on women and families by thinking they know it all and that God knows or says nothing important.
I know this may have gotten off subject but because I may not have connected all the dots back to the pope...if you have to move it I understand and I am sorry for the confusion. Pat

Jerome1
May 13th 2008, 01:43 AM
Again servantsheart i have investigated the RCC and it's claims extensively, if i didn't believe it was what it claimed to be, i wouldn't be a RC.

I could answer all your concerns in depth, but this isn't a RCC apologetics forum.

I won't be the one to judge you, the choices you make are between you and God.

ChristianKnight
May 13th 2008, 03:23 AM
Why is it that the Pope is so special? It is not like he is another Jesus. I mean he gets so much credit for nothing, what has he done that makes him so much better than anyone else?

Jerome1
May 13th 2008, 10:25 AM
Why is it that the Pope is so special? It is not like he is another Jesus. I mean he gets so much credit for nothing, what has he done that makes him so much better than anyone else?

No one is claiming that the pope is like another Jesus, Jesus is the head of the church. RC's just believe that he is endowed with the authority to govern the church.

MidnightsPaleGlow
May 13th 2008, 10:35 AM
Does God think it ok to pray to the dead???!! He tells us in his word not to communicate with the dead...it is only eveil spirits you talk with.

Isn't that Necromancy (communicating with the dead), correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Necromancy a form of sorcery if I recall?

servantsheart
May 14th 2008, 04:16 AM
Isn't that Necromancy (communicating with the dead), correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Necromancy a form of sorcery if I recall?
Sorry...I was not asking "if" it is ok to talk with the dead. I know better. I was using it to make a point with someone else concerning the Pope and RCC praying to the dead...I was asking if he thought that God did not care about what he has told us not to do and that is why the RCC chooses to pray to the dead... they ignore what God says to do their own thing.
And I don't know the word Necromancy but you may be correct. The church does pray to dead.
So would it be a form of sorcery the way it claims that Jesus goes through "transubstanation" at communion for the people to eat his body and drink his blood. This is also what they believe..that Jesus' body is transformed and the unleaven host become the body and the wine becomes the blood.
I did not 'see' the truth about the church until God opened my eyes...and it is a lot like 'magic' they use to keep you under their thumb...but what else would be expected from a religion that started out in the pagan world and they still do use pagan symboles on different things in the church...one being the sun burst because they used to worship the sun goddess...this symbole is on the altar as well and on other things too.

Athanasius
May 14th 2008, 04:32 AM
Isn't that Necromancy (communicating with the dead), correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Necromancy a form of sorcery if I recall?

Off topic but there's a necromancer where I work. Interesting girl... Very broken girl ;(

Jerome1
May 15th 2008, 02:56 PM
Isn't that Necromancy (communicating with the dead), correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Necromancy a form of sorcery if I recall?

If we believe that Christ died and was resurrected and sits at the right hand of the Father, where do you think the saints are?

They are not dead, whether you believe they can intercede for us here on earth is a different matter.

servantsheart
May 15th 2008, 11:02 PM
If we believe that Christ died and was resurrected and sits at the right hand of the Father, where do you think the saints are?

They are not dead, whether you believe they can intercede for us here on earth is a different matter.
Yes, those who died knowing and accepting Jesus are the saints and are in a place called Paradise.
The RCC prays for the dead saints. The Bible tells us not to pray for the dead or try to talk with the dead. You pray for the living.
Mary is dead. But the RCchurch prayes to her to interceed. She can not do this. God's word tells us that only Jesus interceeds and is our advocate.

Jerome1
May 15th 2008, 11:32 PM
Yes, those who died knowing and accepting Jesus are the saints and are in a place called Paradise.
The RCC prays for the dead saints. The Bible tells us not to pray for the dead or try to talk with the dead. You pray for the living.
Mary is dead. But the RCchurch prayes to her to interceed. She can not do this. God's word tells us that only Jesus interceeds and is our advocate.


I think technically the RCC doesn't prayer for saints, because they are already in heaven. It doesn't discourage asking saints to intercede for us here on earth.

SoldierOfChrist
May 16th 2008, 03:08 PM
I think technically the RCC doesn't prayer for saints, because they are already in heaven. It doesn't discourage asking saints to intercede for us here on earth.

So who says the saints are in heaven or who says they are even saints? That job is left up to God and it is not for man to decide who is in and who isn't. Soon many RCC will command that they pray to the dead Pope and many already do pray to the Pope. The Pope that taught that Mary was the co-redemptress (Immaculate, Mother of God, Queen of Heaven, Co-Redemptress, Intercessor). Was it Mary's blood shed on the cross? NO!

There is only one intercessor between man and God... Jesus the Christ.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

No one in the RCC knows if they pray to a saint or a devil as these were chosen by man. This is the spiritual whore and is breaking the first command of Jesus to love God with our whole heart. Ya I've heard the argument "we honor not worship" deception plain and simple!

Why does the pope let others worship him when John was not allowed to worship the angels?

Revelation 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Revelation 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

Revelation 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

The error of the RCC church could fill a book, luckily it was about the Pope... so I will stop for now.

Michael

servantsheart
May 17th 2008, 03:11 AM
Spoken like a man who reads and understands God's Word. Amen

David Taylor
May 17th 2008, 04:52 AM
And with post 100, those are great words to usher this tired thread into retirement.

Let the old sinful pope catch his breath and rest a spell.