Are Catholic Beliefs and Practices Biblical?

[UNA]

Nice try but no cigar. The problem is with you and you don't want to accept it. If a doctor rattled off a bunch of big medical terms to you, you wouldn't understand them because you're not a doctor. It's no different with Christianity. You THINK you know something but you don't and you're upset because of it, even though it was your choice not to listen to those of us who do understand it. :shrug:

No, I can go look those terms up on my own, I don't have to put my full faith into the doctor. "Nice try..."

God wants us to come to Him with "childlike faith", not blind foolish faith.
He'll take you either way: Learn about Him first and then follow Him OR follow Him and then learn more as you go.

The Bible is not written for us to take everything literally. This is why there are soo many divisions out there. It will surely contradict itself if every verse was taken literally. Look at how Islam screwed up their literal interpretation of the OT...

So then you pick and choose

That is such a weak argument; Ancient history. Would you drink a glass of water with only a drop of poison in it?

How is that ancient history?! It happened after most of the atrocities you hold against modern day Catholics...

 

[UNA]

Go, Radiant!

 

[Bird Dog]

Radiant is on a roll !!!

I wish I had your syle and grace.

 

[ItalianScallion]

You did not put those qualifiers on your previous statement. Did you realize what you typed? The last sentence is, of course, the one I find intriguing. You said "none of us", which, going by the straight-forward interpretation as well as the contextual (there's one of your favorite words), includes everyone... including you. Are you now officially backpedaling?

I've said that a number of times. You don't want to follow Him, then don't expect to understand His Word. The things that Christians can't understand, aren't necessary for us to live our lives. The way to Christ is the most important part of the Bible and that message is clear enough for anyone to understand. Accepting it is another matter, though.

Depends. Did you create my child and/or the vehicle?

It absolutely does not "depend" on anything. The point is clear: God gave everyone life and many destroyed it by their choices.

It is different with Christianity because any medical dictionary will have the same definitions. Similarly, a thousand doctors will define a given term the same way. You'd be hard pressed to find such uniform agreement in Christianity.

It's the people who understand it wrong that cause the problems. The "main & plain" things in Scripture are just that.

Uh. How is one supposed to follow him if they don't know/understand who or what they are following?

God reveals Himself enough for a person to trust in Him and, if they don't like Him, they CAN change their mind and go back to the deceiver...See? Free will!

If I laid a stack of papers in front of you and said, "This is the MOST important contract you will ever sign," would you sign it then read it later?

"We have to pass it so we can see what's in it"...

 

[ItalianScallion]

Yet no one becomes a doctor by just reading medical books. They are taught by another...

No one becomes a doctor without textbooks either...

He is powerful enough to make all of the scribes, translators and publishers infallible in their copying of the Bible, but not powerful enough to make one man at a time, in very limited circumstances, infallible.
You make no sense at all.

That was addressed to Mongo (who is Catholic and who doesn't believe in the Bible).

 

[ItalianScallion]

...You hate us because of Jesus. Should I thank you for the persecution making us to be more Christ-like?

Do you like to hear this? I LOVE YOU Radiant1! I hate no one so please stop saying that about me. If my pointing out certain wrong beliefs, makes you more Christ like then, by all means, you're welcome!

What Satan loves more is using scripture to justify his actions and the divisions in the Body of Christ. Should I tell you to keep up his works? I mean hey, I can point fingers at you for your errors, and you can continue to point fingers at me for what you perceive are mine; however, where does that get us? Absolutely nowhere, and wouldn't Satan just love that!

Pride and ignorance causes divisions. Pointing out errors gets a lot of people thinking about how, even Christians, can be misled if they aren't careful.

Instead of justifying your piss-poor actions, you may instead want to ask me why I have more respect for the non-Christians, Agnostics and Atheists in this forum.

Why? I guess because they don't tell you the truth?

Did I ever tell you that I love feisty ladies?

 

[ItalianScallion]

No, I can go look those terms up on my own, I don't have to put my full faith into the doctor. "Nice try..."

Now (as you say), you missed my point completely.

So then you pick and choose

Not at all. I just know when to take verses as literal and when not to. There's no picking and choosing. Every verse has or had a meaning & purpose.

How is that ancient history?! It happened after most of the atrocities you hold against modern day Catholics...

How is the 3rd Reich ancient history?

 

[Mongo53]

WOW! Satan loves people like you. No wonder you don't know truth. So, (in your mind), God isn't powerful enough to allow His Word to be properly translated into the many languages? I guess that this Scripture verse is improperly translated too?

16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work". (2 Timothy 3)

Is that "your own Satan" or would it be my "another Satan"?
The rest of us think just "Satan" is likely more enamored with you, but I guess that is the "another Satan", perhaps "your own Satan" has his own perspective?

 

[Mongo53]

Yes. Scripture was given by inspiration of God; therefore, I should believe it.

Yes, Scriptures was given by inspiration of God; and written down and then delivered to you by a long line of Fallible men.

This is the only ever case of inspiration of God?

Context is very important!

Yea, you think? like maybe the culture and historical context of the Dark Ages?

 

[UNA]

Now (as you say), you missed my point completely.

So you weren't comparing Christianity to the medical profession? You weren't saying that people like you and I lack a complete understanding of either yet we trust in both? Oh...well what were you saying then?

Not at all. I just know when to take verses as literal and when not to. There's no picking and choosing. Every verse has or had a meaning & purpose.

So if you know, you must have some sort of rule set; otherwise if you cannot show a predictable pattern it's random i.e. you're picking and choosing.

How is the 3rd Reich ancient history?

I was refering to Nazi Germany; I hardly thought anyone would have assumed I actually meant refference to the Holy Roman Empire as the Third Reich refers to the succession rather that the Empire itself...

 

[Radiant1]

That was addressed to Mongo (who is Catholic and who doesn't believe in the Bible).

I don't recall Mongo ever stating he doesn't believe in the Word of God as found in the bible. Is this yet another case of a non-Catholic telling a Catholic what they believe?

Never the less, I think you owe Libby an answer to her query. She's too nice to just call you out on it, but I will...you're a hypocrite.

Why? I guess because they don't tell you the truth?

Did I ever tell you that I love feisty ladies?

Because I find them more intellectually honest. Your statement above about Mongo is a perfect example of how you aren't.

Yeah, yeah you love me. You're my brother in humanity so I love you too, but that doesn't mean I have to like you.

 

[Bird Dog]

Do you like to hear this? I LOVE YOU Radiant1!

Did I ever tell you that I love feisty ladies?

It would help your cause if you were not so condescending to the ladies.

It makes you sound like a jerk.
You are not in RR picking up bar flies.

 

[Mongo53]

That was addressed to Mongo (who is Catholic and who doesn't believe in the Bible).

I don't recall Mongo ever stating he doesn't believe in the Word of God as found in the bible. Is this yet another case of a non-Catholic telling a Catholic what they believe?

Never the less, I think you owe Libby an answer to her query. She's too nice to just call you out on it, but I will...you're a hypocrite.

Thank You Radiant1, apparently ItalianScallion, and others, missed:

...Yes, we all believe the Scriptures are the word of God...

I made an analogy, either ItalianScallion couldn't understand it, or, like you speculate, he's intellectually dishonest trying to make it appear I do NOT believe in the Bible.

Because I find them more intellectually honest. Your statement above about Mongo is a perfect example of how you aren't.

Yeah, yeah you love me. You're my brother in humanity so I love you too, but that doesn't mean I have to like you.

Sadly, ItalianScallion is excessively Prideful, that is the only way I think he can say the things he says, Pray for Him.

 

[ItalianScallion]

Is that "your own Satan" or would it be my "another Satan"? The rest of us think just "Satan" is likely more enamored with you, but I guess that is the "another Satan", perhaps "your own Satan" has his own perspective?

There's only one.

So you weren't comparing Christianity to the medical profession? You weren't saying that people like you and I lack a complete understanding of either yet we trust in both? Oh...well what were you saying then?

I used a simple example to explain why you don't understand the things of God. That's all. What you said about looking something up goes for the Bible also.

So if you know, you must have some sort of rule set; otherwise if you cannot show a predictable pattern it's random i.e. you're picking and choosing.

Yes; there are a few rules for proper biblical understanding; the main one is called: context. Everything in question has to agree with the other verses.
Then there's knowing who it's written to, which determines if it's for all time or just for a particular people & time. There are civil laws, ceremonial laws and moral laws in the Bible. The first 2 can and do change but the last one never changes. I did give you some examples in other threads. I hope you remembered them...

 

[ItalianScallion]

I don't recall Mongo ever stating he doesn't believe in the Word of God as found in the bible. Is this yet another case of a non-Catholic telling a Catholic what they believe?

Of course you wouldn't. Birds of a feather... He implied that we can't trust the Bible translations because they were: written down and translated by fallible men:

Yes, Scriptures was given by inspiration of God; and written down and then delivered to you by a long line of Fallible men...you need to accept you no more have a corner on the truth than any other religion or person and must have the Humility to accept that

Does it sound like he's implying that the Bible is the only word of God and is totally safe to base our life on or not? We spend a lot of time on here showing and telling Catholics that the entire Bible must be used and used properly.

Never the less, I think you owe Libby an answer to her query. She's too nice to just call you out on it, but I will...you're a hypocrite.

I've answered her. Since you're her secretary today, what query did I miss?

I made an analogy, either ItalianScallion couldn't understand it, or, like you speculate, he's intellectually dishonest trying to make it appear I do NOT believe in the Bible. Sadly, ItalianScallion is excessively Prideful, that is the only way I think he can say the things he says, Pray for Him.

No, what's sad is that you didn't defend the Bible after making your point about it's "fallible" writers and translators. I understood your analogy but it seems to me that you're demeaning the Bible and defending the pope.
I may well have misunderstood you so would you care to explain the 2 parts I've highlighted below and hopefully clarify what I got from it?

Post 183 to Anabaptist question: "In what cases would the pope be infallible?" You said:

" In what cases would Scriptures be infallible?

Have you ever thought about it? Scripture originated the same way the Pope promulgates a teaching of faith.

I argue your case is far weaker, because you are also assuming modern translations of the original text, the translators must have been infallible.

Yes, we all believe the Scriptures are the word of God. But it was written by men inspired by god, NOT god. So to assume the Scriptures are infallible, the fallible men who wrote the scriptures must have been infallible.

And if you are making your literally, to the letter, interpretations from a translations of the bible, with no regard for any kind of context, then, does that NOT require those fallible men who were the modern translators, translating from ancient dead languages, must also have been infallible?

But the idea the head a church, in the very limited and carefully considered declarations of teachings to the church was found the same way as the scriptures were? NAW, that is Crazy.

Your perfectly welcome to act on your own interpretations and understandings, that is why we have different denominations. People accept that, you need to accept you no more have a corner on the truth than any other religion or person and must have the Humility to accept that"

 

[Anabaptist]

There is no answer to information that is false.

History books are false?

Considering there is no other organized body that is 2000 years old, it's not so bold of a claim.

Fabricated history that secular sources do not validate.

You're right. You are a blatant heretic and in gross error and have need to repent.

And I'm going to hell for being a non-Catholic right?

So, you can be fair to non-Catholics but not fair to Catholics. Interesting.

You are obviously reading but not comprehending.

If you have the source of truth but yet do not have all the truth, then I highly suggest you stop attempting to force others to believe in your version of it.

I'm simply suggesting that they consider the clear teachings found within the Bible.

 

[Mongo53]

Does it sound like he's implying that the Bible is the only word of God and is totally safe to base our life on or not? We spend a lot of time on here showing and telling Catholics that the entire Bible must be used and used properly.

You're twisting and construing everything.

The only thing you are showing Catholics is how Prideful and Judgmental you are.

How many Catholics spend time showing and telling that your interpretation of the Bible are too narrow and miss the central truths?

Which one is full of PRIDE and which one practice Humility?

No, what's sad is that you didn't defend the Bible after making your point about it's "fallible" writers and translators. I understood your analogy but it seems to me that you're demeaning the Bible and defending the pope.
I may well have misunderstood you so would you care to explain the 2 parts I've highlighted below and hopefully clarify what I got from it?

Actually, I defended the bible, but in a way that challenges your interpretations, the only thing that is sad is how narrow minded and in denial of the truth that you are.

Have you ever thought about it? Scripture originated the same way the Pope promulgates a teaching of faith.

Inspired by God? Duh? You really need someone to spell that out to you? Oh, and let me say for a 4th time, if you interpret that differently, then by all means act on our conscience.

you no more have a corner on the truth than any other religion or person and must have the Humility to accept that"

You Pride blinds you to you're own fallibility.

 

[Radiant1]

Of course you wouldn't. Birds of a feather... He implied that we can't trust the Bible translations because they were: written down and translated by fallible men:

Does it sound like he's implying that the Bible is the only word of God and is totally safe to base our life on or not? We spend a lot of time on here showing and telling Catholics that the entire Bible must be used and used properly.

I don't recall him saying he couldn't trust it. That's another example of your intellectual dishonesty.

I've answered her. Since you're her secretary today, what query did I miss?

Ok, not a query, but a statement that still deserved a response from you...

He is powerful enough to make all of the scribes, translators and publishers infallible in their copying of the Bible, but not powerful enough to make one man at a time, in very limited circumstances, infallible.
You make no sense at all.

Please clarify yourself and try to make sense. If not, you have a big foot in your mouth.

 

[Radiant1]

History books are false?

Loraine Boettner's was.

Fabricated history that secular sources do not validate.

Extant non-biblical sources most certainly do. Secular? Perhaps not defined as secular, no. They are called the Church Fathers. Ya know, the same ones that your David Bercot presumably is so enamored with.

Btw, I hate to tell you this, but...secular sources don't validate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, but yet you base your faith on that. :coughcough:

And I'm going to hell for being a non-Catholic right?

I wouldn't purport to know where you are going. As I said, we trust in the mercy of God.

You are obviously reading but not comprehending.

Well then here's your opportunity to clarify yourself. Why do Protestants get a pass on past atrocities done in their name, but Catholics don't?

I'm simply suggesting that they consider the clear teachings found within the Bible.

If the teachings are so clear, then why do you not have all the truth? Are the truths that you're missing just not important? If so, how convenient for you.

 

[libby]

Well then here's your opportunity to clarify yourself. Why do Protestants get a pass on past atrocities done in their name, but Catholics don't?

This is one of the beefs I've had with SM. He gets to hold us, the current pope, and everyone else who claims Catholicism, responsible for the Inquisition. Yet, since he is a Bible only Christian, he can just remove himself from the acts of any other "Bible only" Christians by saying that they were not interepreting the Scriptures correctly. It's ridiculous!
He (and I think IS on occasion) has enjoyed condemning heirarchy for helping to sweep abuses under the rug. While that has happened, I submit that having no authority makes for a much bigger risk of abuse. As a result, individuals who are Protestants may fall, but the institution of Protestantism is never held accountable.
They are no one body in Christ, they are separate and disjointed, for the good and for the ill.