 |
| |
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
3. There is no biblical reason to believe that priests or popes or whomever should not marry.
|
St Paul viewed abstinence as something better than marriage.
quote:
4. There is no biblical reason to believe that Peter was the first pope nor that after he died a new pope should be established. Jesus said that he would found his chuch on Peter. He didn't say that Peter would be the leader of that church.
|
Words have different meanings. These words of Jesus mean nothing, unless in an alegoric explanation. And alegory is always dependant on our interpretation. Church has its interpretation backed with centuries of tradition and saints of early Christianity. If protestants have any interpretation of this verse, it's an arbitral one by people whose link with the roots of Christianity is much weaker than the ones that established church hierarchy. Hierarchy of the church is nothing wrong per se, and as such, Luther and others had no real reason for attacking it but temporary ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
H., The Church justifies its position by claiming that Christ gave them the power. Luther said that if he were wrong, prove it through the scriptures. Instead, the Church simply ex communicated him.
|
Luther didn't manage to prove his rights to the church either.
quote:
Cybershy, I had not thought of the condom controversy in the context of AIDS and the spread of Catholicism in Africa. No one in the US observes the Church's teaching on birth control. However, the Africans, newly converted, just may.
|
Then this just points out that Americans shoud take example of Africans
quote:
If this is true, the Catholic Church is not doing Africa any good to the extent that people avoid using condoms while having extra-marital sex. Both are sins, presumably. It is amazing, then, that the Church has such a ludicrous position on condoms. |
What do You expect? That the church should agree for its members to commit sin?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CyberShy
|
 |
Delft, The Netherlands
Mar 1999
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
St Paul viewed abstinence as something better than marriage. |
For EVERY christian, not just for the priests.
Besides that he said that one should have the gift of abstinence, if one has not that gift, one can better marry then burn.
If I take a look at the many scandals in the roman catholic church I think that's exactly what Paul meant. Which doesn't mean that our church doesn't have it's own scandals and our own wrongs.
quote:
Words have different meanings. These words of Jesus mean nothing, unless in an alegoric explanation. And alegory is always dependant on our interpretation. Church has its interpretation backed with centuries of tradition and saints of early Christianity. |
There's not historic evidence that Peter gave these 'keys' to any successor. There's even biblical evidence that Peter wasn't the leader of the church. James was the leader of the church of Jerusalen and Paul teaches Peter (Acts 15, Galatians 2) that he's doing wrong. Publicly.
Jesus gave the keys to Peter, in an allogorical way. Not in any literal way. There's no reason nor any evidence that Jesus meant Peter to give them to someone else. It's a roman interpertations that most obviously has risen centuries later.
Not to mention that the roman catholic church has many wrongs that apparantly may exist despite the fact of it's long tradition. Not to mention the worship and praying to saints or worst of all, paying for forgiveness in the middle ages. PAYING for forgiveness!
Again, our church has done many wrongs as well. For that reason I would not dare to lean on our tradition to defend our current points of view. If our view is not biblical, it's not true.
And if your point is not biblical, it's not true. And 'the long catholic tradition' is not a good argument for it's many many failures.
quote:
Hierarchy of the church is nothing wrong per se, and as such, Luther and others had no real reason for attacking it but temporary ones. |
Luther most of all attacked the church position on paying for absolution. Which is, you must admit, the worst thing the church has ever done.
There's no problem with some hierarchical, though the absolute position of the pope is way too much. So much power for one man is too much. Way too much, as history teaches us. JP II fortunately was one who apparantly could handle these powers.
quote:
Ned: Cybershy, I had not thought of the condom controversy in the context of AIDS and the spread of Catholicism in Africa. No one in the US observes the Church's teaching on birth control. However, the Africans, newly converted, just may. |
If the africans will obey the church's teaching on birth control they will obey it's teaching on sex within mariage as well.
There are only two positions, either: have sex with anyone you want, but do it save, or: only have sex within mariage. Both positions work against AIDS.
Don't mix them up though. If you mix them up the result will be: "Have sex with everyone you want but don't use a condom"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:32
|
|
The bishop of Rome didn't even have power over the other bishops in the Western Empire until the Emperor granted him that power in 444 by making him Pontifex Maximus (a title he still proudly bears) and expressly making all other bishops in the Western Empire subject to him. Still, though, the bishop of Rome remained subject to the Roman emperors until 800, when the pope openly broke with the Empire and appointed, on his own, a Western Emperor, one Charlemagne. The cause of this break was the regency of Irene, the first and only women Empress.
But it also seems the case that the bishop of Rome had to approve the cannons of the synods before they became law. This does show that there was at least some "respect" for the bishop of Rome as first among equals.
Last edited by Ned on 14-04-2005 at 06:26
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
For EVERY christian, not just for the priests.
Besides that he said that one should have the gift of abstinence, if one has not that gift, one can better marry then burn.
|
Well, the priests should have the gift of abstinence according to RCC.
quote:
If I take a look at the many scandals in the roman catholic church I think that's exactly what Paul meant. Which doesn't mean that our church doesn't have it's own scandals and our own wrongs.
|
Actually, I agree with You. Celibate shouldn't be compulsory. Just I'm enangered by ones who think that conservatives in RCC have absolutely no reason for their beliefs. They want priests to be perfect, I think it's putting too much pressure on sexuality issue.
quote:
There's not historic evidence that Peter gave these 'keys' to any successor. There's even biblical evidence that Peter wasn't the leader of the church. James was the leader of the church of Jerusalen and Paul teaches Peter (Acts 15, Galatians 2) that he's doing wrong. Publicly.
|
Leadership of church of Jerusalem doesn't mean leadership of the church necessarily. Also, many leaders are publicly criticised by their subordinates.
One could as well point that the church was in statu nascendi. Jesus' speech concerns long-term future more than present/near future.
The successor of St Peter on the bishopric of Rome was the default successor of owning the keys to Heaven.
quote:
Jesus gave the keys to Peter, in an allogorical way. Not in any literal way. There's no reason nor any evidence that Jesus meant Peter to give them to someone else. It's a roman interpertations that most obviously has risen centuries later.
|
Just like your interpretation, just it was made over a thousand years later. And making a line of successors make greater sense to me than making one unique successor after which no-one comes.
quote:
Not to mention that the roman catholic church has many wrongs that apparantly may exist despite the fact of it's long tradition. Not to mention the worship and praying to saints or worst of all, paying for forgiveness in the middle ages. PAYING for forgiveness!
|
You're not praying to saints to be exact, You're praying through saints. Saints are intermediates between us and God in prayer, and examples for our lives on Earth.
Paying for forgiveness is past, and it isn't completely nonsence. You can help the church by many means, also by giving it money. By helping the cause of God, You're balancing the bad deeds You've commited.
Of course, giving complete absolution for money may be seen as abuse of power, as symony, but it's not obvious.
quote:
Again, our church has done many wrongs as well. For that reason I would not dare to lean on our tradition to defend our current points of view. If our view is not biblical, it's not true.
And if your point is not biblical, it's not true. And 'the long catholic tradition' is not a good argument for it's many many failures.
|
But it has many many successes.
And why should we base on Bible only? It's a protestant, not universally Christian stance. God's spoken to many people, and acts through deeds of saints, through words of synods.
Of course, You can disagree with such opinion, but it's a matter of faith.
quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Heresson, can you explain to me why using birth-control is a sin?
I'm a christian, it's very important to me. I'm very strict on it, but I really don't see why using birth control is a 'sin'! |
I'm not a good catholic, perhaps You should read catechism or book by pope.
From what I know, it's a sin because only God is to decide when a human life starts and ends.
quote:
The bishop of Rome didn't even have power over the other bishops in the Western Empire until the Emperor granted him that power in 444 by making him Pontifex Maximus (a title he still proudly bears) and expressly making all other bishops in the Western Empire subject to him. Still, though, the bishop of Rome remained subject to the Roman emperors until 800, when the pope openly broke with the Empire and appointed, on his own, a Western Emperor, one Charlemagned. The cause of this break was the regency of Irene, the first and only women Empress.
|
Pontifex Maximus is just a title. Rome's role was traditional, and was confirmed by earlier synodi.
Of course, with time the role of pope grew and grew,
but pope was hardly a simple bishop from the beginning.
Also, while You're right with the story of Eirene, it's a more complicated matter. As soon as VI century, pope started (and earlier it was said about him as well) making a political influence on Italy. Haussig had his own theory about it, which I'll skip. What's important is that emperors, especially since Longobard and Arab conquests, had trouble exercising their power in Italy despite the papal wishes. One pope, Martin I think, was sentenced by emperor, but He had to be kidnapped by imperial official by night - otherwise the official would have been lynched. In theology, papacy was usually the main opponent of imperial wishes and in conflict, Italian army supported him, not emperor.
quote:
I suggest you check precisely what he said sorry for.
|
Too lazy. Find and post.
I assume for accusations of heresy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
You are so incredibly backwards... |
While I think it was ment as offence,
I urge You to reconsider what You've said.
The use of term "backward" indicates that You believe in progress, that You're meliorist, probably liberal meliorist. But what's that progress? What does "backward" really mean? Using terms such as progress or backwardness is poorly disquised showing of emotional attitude towards some facts, people, tendencies, but have no actual meaning.
Also, the inquisition was an institution to reveal and fight heresy. I think your remark was based on justified understanding of what I've written, but not what I've ment. When I say that inquisition can actually be right, it's about their opinion if someone's heretic or is not, not about the past opinion of it how to deal with heretics.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Provost Harrison
|
 |
The farce is strong with this one.
Feb 2000
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
While I think it was ment as offence,
I urge You to reconsider what You've said.
The use of term "backward" indicates that You believe in progress, that You're meliorist, probably liberal meliorist. But what's that progress? What does "backward" really mean? Using terms such as progress or backwardness is poorly disquised showing of emotional attitude towards some facts, people, tendencies, but have no actual meaning.
Also, the inquisition was an institution to reveal and fight heresy. I think your remark was based on justified understanding of what I've written, but not what I've ment. When I say that inquisition can actually be right, it's about their opinion if someone's heretic or is not, not about the past opinion of it how to deal with heretics. |
Because heresy (and thus inquisition) is an outmoded and dangerous concept. Everything should be open to scrutiny, we should work on the principle of the scientific method not the voice of authority and it's loosely interpreted works of fiction...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Everything should be open to scrutiny, we should work on the principle of the scientific method not the voice of authority... |
I wish i had more sig room.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Provost Harrison
|
|
The farce is strong with this one.
Feb 2000
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
try to work out art, religion, morality, or feelings like compassion on the principle of the scientific method. |
I don't see the relevance...these are the manifestations of a very complicated system, the brain, and it's organisation. They can be treated by science in the same way as chaos...there is a pattern but it is extremely complicated to simulate.
quote:
You can say that concept of heresy is dangerous, but it's existant, as the fact that it describes is. Inquisition was checking if someone's views were in concordance with current catholic teachings and if someone's were not, it's an existant act of heresy. Therefore, inquisition could be right about if someone was heretic or not. |
Well I suppose it exists in the Catholic world then. In the same way as God, transubstantiation, holy trinity etc, ie, exist to Catholics, utter nonsense to anyone else...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Also, the inquisition was an institution to reveal and fight heresy. I think your remark was based on justified understanding of what I've written, but not what I've ment. When I say that inquisition can actually be right, it's about their opinion if someone's heretic or is not, not about the past opinion of it how to deal with heretics. |
See my sig below? It's a translation of an actual quote spoken by the abbott Arnaud-Amaury during the 13th century Albigensian crusade. It was his reply to an inquiry by one of his subordinates as to how they should go about seperating the Cathar heretics from the good Catholics. The abbott is telling him to not trouble his little head with attempting to seperate them, but to kill everyone in his path. Some historians claim that over one million people were killed in this camapaign, though the number of Cathars is believed to have never been more than a few thousand. The abbott was rewarded for his service with the title of "Inquisitor". He was the first. More were to follow, many of whom used the same approach to their tasks as he.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
I hope that people who try to curb condom use or promote abstinence get AIDS. It's what they deserve. |
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
See my sig below? It's a translation of an actual quote spoken by the abbott Arnaud-Amaury during the 13th century Albigensian crusade. It was his reply to an inquiry by one of his subordinates as to how they should go about seperating the Cathar heretics from the good Catholics. The abbott is telling him to not trouble his little head with attempting to seperate them, but to kill everyone in his path. Some historians claim that over one million people were killed in this camapaign, though the number of Cathars is believed to have never been more than a few thousand. The abbott was rewarded for his service with the title of "Inquisitor". He was the first. More were to follow, many of whom used the same approach to their tasks as he. |
A commonly known story. But when it comes to the number of cathars, You probably mean the number of "good people" or whatever they were called, the ones observing all the demands of cathar faith. Supporters of cathar faith were much more numerable.
quote:
Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I don't see the relevance...these are the manifestations of a very complicated system, the brain, and it's organisation. They can be treated by science in the same way as chaos...there is a pattern but it is extremely complicated to simulate.
|
Does anyone know this pattern or do You just BELIEVE it exists? Also, if religion is redundant, why the art is not?
A world led by scientific method would be boring, sterile, ugly and inhumane.
quote:
Well I suppose it exists in the Catholic world then. In the same way as God, transubstantiation, holy trinity etc, ie, exist to Catholics, utter nonsense to anyone else... |
First, You can disagree with some creed, but someone's agreement or disagreement with it is something real.
Secondly, do You think all but catholics are atheists?
Several percent of world population is "anyone else"?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-04-2005 00:55
|