Posted on 07/23/2007 3:36:15 PM PDT by annalex
You are obviously an expert on Catholicism. Could you please give me an example of this "magical thinking"?
Since that statement is not in the Bible, are you lying?
-A8
Maybe you'd like to explain how it is that the Christianity of places like Armenia, Iraq, and India, which were evangelized by the Apostles and never part of the Roman Empire, is far more like Catholicism than it is like the denatured, rationalistic Platonism that passes for American evangelical Christianity ... ??
“A lot of the goofballs that attack Catholicism with lies and slander do the same with Mormonism.”
Sad but true.
Special pleading. The argument that is always made is that "talking to the dead [sic] is necromancy". If it's necromancy when I do it, it was necromancy when Jesus did it. You say the Transfiguration is "not related" because it's an inconvenient counter-example that demonstrates the falsehood of your objections.
In fact, we have other scripture, from Jesus, no less, that emphasizes the futility of it.
???
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 8 |
Well the magical thinking of using Mary or any other human to control God is the current one we are discussing. Then of course you have all the superstitions associated with rosaries, medals, apparitions, omens and the like.
When you are transfigured and when the Father speaks to you from Heaven saying with you He is well pleased, and when He allows Moses to appear before you, feel free to talk to Moses. Otherwise you are rewriting the situation. Jesus calls Himself the Son of God, so is He setting a bad example for you if you are not to call yourself the Son of God? Very childish logic isn't it.
In the Transfiguration account, Jeus was alive and Peter, James, and John could clearly see Moses and Elijah, so we are not talking “spiritually alive” here. We are talking about Moses, whose grave was never found, and Elijah, who was taken up into heaven in a firey chariot. So were they “dead” or “alive”? Scripture tells us that Jesus was talking to them about His impending death (Luke 9:31). How do you know that He wasn’t asking them to pray for Him? He was clearly not looking forward to it, as His Agony in the Garden shows us (”His sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.” Luke 22:44b).
Why are you using the argument about “it wasn’t in Jewish Tradition”? I thought Protestants didn’t put stock in “man-made traditions.” and WE DON’T WORSHIP MARY AND THE SAINTS.
Let me tell you this again and maybe I can make it clear:
We pray to the Father, in the name of Jesus, through the Holy Spirit.
We ASK the saints to PRAY for us.
We further believe that Adam and Eve were physical historical parents of all mankind. This is a mandatory belief for a Catholic. If you want, I can research with greater precision what exactly the parameters of Catholicism are in this regard, -- I remember seeing several bullet points, but that would be offtopic for this thread. Or you can look it up yourself in the Catechism.
We do not teach that the Bible is mythology, that is solely allegorical. We believe that the Church interprets the Bible, and that the Bible contains poetic or allegorical language as well as concretely descriptive language. We also allow a wide berth in some scriptural interpretations and less so in others. As regards the first chapters of Genesis, I just outlined what is and what is not permissible Catholic interpretation.
We believe that the Bible is inerrant inasmuch as it pertains to the questions of faith. It may get geological, historical, or biological facts wrong inasmuch as the inspired author never meant the Bible to be a manual of geology, history or biology.
Anyone who wishes to interpret the creation account literally in every detail -- an extreme literalist as you seem to be -- is welcome to the Catholic Church with this belief intact. His condition will be no different as a Protestant creationist's condition is now vis-a-vis the less fundamentalist as a whole body of Protestants.
>>And drop your goddess worship and follow the Bible and you’ll be on your way to worship of God through His son Jesus Christ.<<
So would this statement be Anti-Catholic or Anti-Annalex considering that WT used a specific word, YOUR?
Well you all say that, yet you insist on putting Mary in between you and Jesus. the word from the infallible Pope Leo xiii is proof of it
I wish you’d quit bringing up the Guiness and the repetitive argument counter cuz I can’t count that high and I don’t drink, and besides, where is Guiness in the Bible? On second thought, maybe I should have a few.
So who are the heirs of Paul then?
And to follow your take on the 70 being sent out and seeing other people using Jesus’s Name, the Scipture concerning what Christ himself said is of no effect, just another Zaccheus climbing a tree to see Christ that has no meaning.
BTW, Acts states that there were miracles done before the miracle at the Beautiful Gate....:)
And is that only Cephas or are we not all built upon the foundation that Christ has made?
I refer you to the tagline of the post previous to yours.
"An absolutely new idea is one of the rarest things known to man." - St. Thomas More
Despite the author's attacks on liberalism, he sounds like a coastal elite leftist when he attacks the Bible Belt and Fundamentalists
Good job on attacking the messenger. Someone that you do not know and have no idea what he stands for. The fact of the matter is that Catholics for years have had to walk out to their cars and find really stupid "tracts" on their windshields that attack their beliefs. Generally those tracts are put together by people who are either ignorant or liars. One does not have to be a "coastal elite leftist" to see this.
Oh boo freakin' hoo. Catholics leave church and find tracts under their windshield wipers. Call Amnesty International! Haul the perpetrators before the UN! Outlaw Protestant proselytization as a "hate crime" (since Catholics don't proselytize, they have no stake in the matter, do they?). I tell you, it must be hell being a Catholic in bad old Protestant America, especially in the rural hinterlands where people marry their cousins and don't know how to read. And how dare I point out the similarity between this attitude of so many Catholic and that of leftwing coastal elites?
You want to talk about double-standards? I'll tell you about double-standards. How about all the rhetoric about stupid "redneck" Protestants when your own membership during the Middle Ages was hardly made up of people qualified for Mensa? I will never understand why poor whites are needled and attacked ceaselessly for not being intellectuals whereas barefoot illiterate medieval Belgian peasants are held out as the absolute standard of piety. Has it ever occurred to you that our "rednecks" are merely our version of your illiterate medieval Belgian peasants? Or that your church during he Middle Ages would have done something much more drastic to heretics than putting tracts under their windshield wipers?
For some reason the ignorance of poor rural American whites is a vice while everyone else's is a virtue! There's your double-standard!
(not to mention the whining about the persecution of his "indigenous" ancestors by big bad Anglo-Saxons; that gets old too).
Yes, pointing out that the British were barbarians in Ireland is so passe. We should all know about every single instance where a Catholic misbehaved but we must never show where Protestants that they have behaved themselves more like Muslims toward their conquered subjects than Christian. That's just "old".
Ees de 'ow you say de eempeereealeesm! Ees de 'ow you say de coloneealeesm! We make de 'ow you say de rewolution! Sure wish I was "indigenous!"
And why is it all right for Catholic states to treat heretics like slime? Merely because in American Catholics are sophisticated ethnic urban immigrant Democrat union goons who are "victims" of the bigotry of poor barefoot hillbillies, right? Wow. What a deal!
Let the Catholic Church stop teaching that the Bible is mythology and a great deal of my own hostility will end.
Could you show me in the Catechism where the Catholic Church teaches that? If not, retract it and admit that you are doing exactly what the author describes. It is hilarious how people describe "what Catholic believe" and then attack what they say Catholic believe.
Whatever the catechism may say, Catholic books, literature, and Bibles (with the imprimatur) have taught evolution and the documentary hypothesis for decades. Do you deny this? I will not retract my statement because it is true, and your claim that if it isn't in the catechism it isn't "official" is like the John Birch Society claiming as long as the anti-Semitic content of their magazines isn't in their Bulletin then it isn't official!
Have you ever heard of Karl Keating? Have you ever heard of Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas? Do you have any idea what these highly visible Catholic apologists teach about total Biblical inerrancy? (They're against it!) How many Catholic children are taught by their bishops, priests, and religious that events of the Bible are nothing more than didactic parables? Where in the entire United States is a parochial school that doesn't teach evolution? This is how the Catholic Church teaches in the real world. Your "it has to be in the catechism" charge is dishonest in the extreme.
And as for the Catechism (which I've had quoted to me enough times on this forum, btw), its words on Biblical inerrancy are weasel words that can be interpreted either as teaching total inerrancy, or only theological inerrancy, according to however the reader wants to interpret it. Too bad the one true original church doesn't have the courage of tiny little rural Protestant sects who aren't afraid to come right out and defend total inerrancy, even if it offends intellectuals!
Catholics have been hit over the head with the Bible by Protestants for so long that they've come to distrust it.
Please provide an an example of this or retract your statement and admit that you are full of it.
Why don't you go to Donal Anthony Foley's Catholic creationist web site and read where he ascribes the Catholic affinity for evolution to a "distrust" of the Bible that entered the church at the time of the Protestant reformation? Or why don't you ask wideawake, since he's admitted this is the case for a majority of American Catholics?
Why are most of your co-religionists on this forum evolutionists and deniers of total Biblical inerrancy? You probably fall into these categories yourself, which makes you a hypocrite for protesting.
Now they've convinced themselves that total inerrancy is merely an adjunct of "sola scriptura" so now they're against it.
I say this in all charity. You have absolutely no idea about the topic you are speaking of. Your understanding of Catholicism is so far off that it is almost laughable. Please read up on the topics and when you have an understanding of Catholic teaching (the real kind not the Dave Hunt version) you can add serious commentary on Church issues.
And I say this to you in all charity: you are an ignoramus. I spent six years in your "unchanged and unchanging" church. To do so I had to reject a lifetime of beliefs and instincts, and every prejudice I ever had about Catholicism was confirmed in those six years. And as for Dave Hunt, so far as I know people like that are still harping on the Papacy and confession; how many Fundamentalist Protestants even know how liberal the Catholic Church really is? If they did, then they'd have some real ammunition!
I ask all members and moderators of this forum once again: what is the difference between the hostility of our urban coastal liberal elites towards the Biblicism of the American Heartland and that of our Catholic "friends" and "allies?" What is the difference between Al Sharpton's or Louis Farrakhans view of the "crackers" and that held by so many American Catholics?
Unfortunately, as members of a historically discriminated against minority group American Catholics behave the exact same way that the rest of them do. And that is obvious from reading this forum.
Could you show me any Catholic source that demonstrats Mary controlling God? I seem to have missed that.
Then of course you have all the superstitions associated with rosaries, medals, apparitions, omens and the like.
Please elaborate. I always find it amusing to be told what Catholicism teaches by people who have no idea what Catholicism teaches. It's fun.
I figure that Jesus “created” about 130 gallons of good wine at Cana for His friends. I believe He wanted us to love each other and that a little “vino” (or a lot short of of the sin of gluttony) is not a bad thing.
As for the “repetitive argument counter,” please flag any one you have not heard before on FR. This is akin to a basketball game and not really a discussion on apologetics.
Oops, missed that Mariology reference! CLICK!
Slainte!
PS My Guinness is on the back cover where I spilled some.
Oooo, someone had a nerve hit.
It’s alright, have some chocolate and you’ll feel better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.