Are Catholic Beliefs and Practices Biblical?

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Great, now I've been blacklisted by UNA too!

Is this thing on? Are my posts invisible? Am I dead and haven't realized it yet?

Aaaaaaah! I'm sorry! I was going to respond but I was at the nail salon an they called me back! Forgive me? LOL

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

This gets hard to follow when people don't put names on quotes.

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



So, This passage is a parable which is an extended metaphor narrated as an anecdote illustrating and teaching a moral lesson?

How am I playing games with words? By using definitions?

The bible is not always meant to be taken literally; that's fine. So you pick and choose just like you accuse Catholics of doing?

I actually think the most literal interpretations of the Bible make the most sense; so your particular Christian way of life is what makes the most sense to a non-Christian like me...it's all that picking and choosing that doesn't make any sense. IMO, many (not you in particular) Christians claim the happy NT parts to be literal and the scary OT parts to be allegorical because at their core, they're uncomfortable with the Bible in general. So when they're challenged on it they jump to "you don't know how to tell literal parts from allegorical parts because you hate God" and that way they don't actually have to think about their faith and it's core: The Bible.

I think it's pretty commonsense how a passage is interpreted. When I say we take the Bible literally, obviously I don't mean that we believe literally where a metaphorical meaning was intended. That would miss the entire point. Also we recognize that some parts of the Bible, while they are literal, are not intended to be followed by us today. For example, in Mark 6:8 Jesus tells his disciples to go out evangelizing and not take anything with them. "And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse." Does that mean we should never carry food or money if we go out evangelizing? Obviously not, because later on Jesus told the disciples to carry those things. Certain commands in the Bible were only for a certain time or place, but they are included because there is something we can learn from them.

That said, it's just dishonest when someone glosses over a part of Scripture that they don't like by saying that it's allegorical or "cultural." The dispensational movement is a good example; they basically discount the entire Bible as irrelevant except for the letters of Paul. The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written for the "transitional church," so they don't apply! This is done to protect a pet doctrine of theirs that says that once someone is saved they can never lose their salvation - which is contradicted by the words of Jesus and other New Testament books such as Hebrews and James.

If it's so obvious why are all the interpretations so different? (sorry for butting in?)

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

How am I playing games with words? By using definitions?

You are well aware of the connotative implication.

The bible is not always meant to be taken literally; that's fine. So you pick and choose just like you accuse Catholics of doing?

It would be "picking and choosing" if I ignored the message the parable was trying to give. I think it's a matter of common sense to discern between literal and metaphors. On top of that we compare scriptures and look at context to try to get the complete picture. I won't say i have it all right, but I'm trying!

That's it! You say you might not have it all right! This ends any debate because you are willing to admit that your interpretation may not be perfect!

(Sorry, I'm really excited; one usually doesn't hear this in this forum )

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



So, This passage is a parable which is an extended metaphor narrated as an anecdote illustrating and teaching a moral lesson?

How am I playing games with words? By using definitions?

The bible is not always meant to be taken literally; that's fine. So you pick and choose just like you accuse Catholics of doing?

I actually think the most literal interpretations of the Bible make the most sense; so your particular Christian way of life is what makes the most sense to a non-Christian like me...it's all that picking and choosing that doesn't make any sense. IMO, many (not you in particular) Christians claim the happy NT parts to be literal and the scary OT parts to be allegorical because at their core, they're uncomfortable with the Bible in general. So when they're challenged on it they jump to "you don't know how to tell literal parts from allegorical parts because you hate God" and that way they don't actually have to think about their faith and it's core: The Bible.

I think it's pretty commonsense how a passage is interpreted. When I say we take the Bible literally, obviously I don't mean that we believe literally where a metaphorical meaning was intended. That would miss the entire point. Also we recognize that some parts of the Bible, while they are literal, are not intended to be followed by us today. For example, in Mark 6:8 Jesus tells his disciples to go out evangelizing and not take anything with them. "And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse." Does that mean we should never carry food or money if we go out evangelizing? Obviously not, because later on Jesus told the disciples to carry those things. Certain commands in the Bible were only for a certain time or place, but they are included because there is something we can learn from them.

That said, it's just dishonest when someone glosses over a part of Scripture that they don't like by saying that it's allegorical or "cultural." The dispensational movement is a good example; they basically discount the entire Bible as irrelevant except for the letters of Paul. The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament were written for the "transitional church," so they don't apply! This is done to protect a pet doctrine of theirs that says that once someone is saved they can never lose their salvation - which is contradicted by the words of Jesus and other New Testament books such as Hebrews and James.

It's your assumption that common sense is used that's wrong that obviously doesn't enter into it for a lot of people. If it were obvious; most people would have the same interpretation! This is obviously not the case!

 

[SeekYeFirst]

Wirelessly posted



If it's so obvious why are all the interpretations so different? (sorry for butting in?)

Mostly because we tend to read the Bible with blinders on - pick and choose your favourite verses and forget about the rest. When you do that, it's very easy to develop an interpretation or doctrine that's nothing like what the verses were intended to say when you read Scripture as a whole.

 

[hvp05]

I was going to respond but I was at the nail salon an they called me back! Forgive me?

Sure. That is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

I was going to respond but I was at the nail salon an they called me back! Forgive me?

Sure. That is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted



It's your assumption that common sense is used that's wrong that obviously doesn't enter into it for a lot of people. If it were obvious; most people would have the same interpretation! This is obviously not the case!

The more I see of the world, the more I'm convinced that sense is anything but common.

 

[ItalianScallion]

If scripture isn't open to interpretation, and so many parts have been ‘interpreted’ differently, who is right and who is wrong? Revelation is a good example. How do you interpret what will REALLY happen in the end? Will it be exactly the way it’s depicted, or are all the beasts and visions of various figures symbolism? Who is right?
To you point #3… Only uninformed people would think that all Catholics are NOT Christians.

My point is: All Scripture means something. When I say it's not open to interpretation, I mean that we can't just interpret it any way we want and say we're right. That's why we have soo many denominations today. Scripture HAS to agree with Scripture to be accurate. When 2 true Christians come up with a different meaning of the same passage(s), one or both of them is wrong. When Christians understand the Bible in it's proper context, there should be no disagreement. Yes, Christians can mis-interpret Scripture but that doesn't mean they can't get a good grasp of most of it. There will always be some passages that none of us will understand, however.

And about my point #3; You might not have understood what I meant. What I meant was, just because someone calls themselves a Catholic, Baptist, etc., doesn't mean they are really Christians. That was my counter point to what someone said earlier about all Catholics being Christians.

Well then why did Jesus bring one?

Jesus didn't bring a literal sword. His Word (teachings) were the sword He spoke of and He said those teachings would cause a "war" even between the members of ones immediate family.

You guys are masters at talking out of both sides of your mouths.

You really need to stop quenching the Holy Spirit and drop those bad teachings you've been led into.

The bible is not always meant to be taken literally; that's fine. So you pick and choose just like you accuse Catholics of doing? I actually think the most literal interpretations of the Bible make the most sense; so your particular Christian way of life is what makes the most sense to a non-Christian like me...it's all that picking and choosing that doesn't make any sense. So when they're challenged on it they jump to "you don't know how to tell literal parts from allegorical parts because you hate God" and that way they don't actually have to think about their faith and it's core: The Bible.

You're making progress! You're actually making my point for me about unbelievers not being able to see spiritual things though. You're seriously trying (it seems) to figure it out but only with God's enabling will you be able to know when and when not to take passages literally. In most cases, we have that ability.

It's not a convenient hiding place for us. It's actually the way the Bible was written. God made the way to salvation clear to anyone who wants it BUT, to those whom He knew only wanted to ridicule it, He makes it "foolishness" to them.

 

[hvp05]

There will always be some passages that none of us will understand, however.

Isn't the Bible written for us (humans)? Why would god put something in there we could not understand?

to those whom He knew only wanted to ridicule it, He makes it "foolishness" to them.

Similar question: why would god create people he knew would ridicule him and his work? Not only that, but these people are apparently the majority. Good plan.

 

[UNA]

You're making progress! You're actually making my point for me about unbelievers not being able to see spiritual things though. You're seriously trying (it seems) to figure it out but only with God's enabling will you be able to know when and when not to take passages literally. In most cases, we have that ability.

It's not a convenient hiding place for us. It's actually the way the Bible was written. God made the way to salvation clear to anyone who wants it BUT, to those whom He knew only wanted to ridicule it, He makes it "foolishness" to them.

You missed my point...completely.

It's convenient that only 'true believers' (by your definition only, of course) can understand the nuances of the Bible; it enable you to make claims about the Bible and upon being challenged say "you just don't understand because you're not a 'true believer'".

I can guarantee one thing, I will never believe in something that I'm not going to understand unless I believe in it...that makes absolutely no sense.

What I was saying is that a complete literal interpretation of the Bible is the ONLY interpretation that makes sense (of course if you do this, you have to contend with all the contradictions in it...). Otherwise, whether you're willing to admit it or not, you're picking and choosing.

 

[hvp05]

It's convenient that only 'true believers' (by your definition only, of course) can understand the nuances of the Bible; it enable you to make claims about the Bible and upon being challenged say "you just don't understand because you're not a 'true believer'".

Of course, that needn't apply only to us heathens. He says it to other Christians who have done as much or more research than he has - all of whom have their justifications and proofs for their beliefs. All from Satan, obviously.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

It's convenient that only 'true believers' (by your definition only, of course) can understand the nuances of the Bible; it enable you to make claims about the Bible and upon being challenged say "you just don't understand because you're not a 'true believer'".

Of course, that needn't apply only to us heathens. He says it to other Christians who have done as much or more research than he has - all of whom have their justifications and proofs for their beliefs. All from Satan, obviously.

Anyone who doesn't agree is the Antichrist. There is only one TRUTH

 

[SeekYeFirst]

Are all of the Catholics gone?

 

[libby]

Are all of the Catholics gone?

Well, I'm still here reading, but I decided some months ago that some of you are not really interested in dialogue. SM, IS, and now you and anabaptist; the hubris is revolting. I much prefer a conversation with the so-called atheists.

 

[SeekYeFirst]

Well, I'm still here reading, but I decided some months ago that some of you are not really interested in dialogue. SM, IS, and now you and anabaptist; the hubris is revolting. I much prefer a conversation with the so-called atheists.

What gives you the impression that we're not interested in dialogue?

 

[libby]

What gives you the impression that we're not interested in dialogue?

Hmmm...the Catholic Church did this, the Catholic Church did that. Ignoring, for instance, Radiants points that while wrong, it was just the unfortunate culture of the time.
The Catholic Church has done more good, as an institution, over the last 2000 years that any other.
Lastly, you cannot get through your heads that while there is only one truth, what any of us think that is is merely our opinion. You people need to stop telling us where you think we're wrong. Let us have our interpretation and explain it to you. You can have your opinion and explain it to us.
That's how it should be done.

 

[Radiant1]

Wow. Miss one day and look what happens.

What gives you the impression that we're not interested in dialogue?

Perhaps that is because you do not take what Catholics say about their own faith at face value and instead continue on with your preconceived notions. Such a thing is intellectually dishonest for one and basically creates an environment where everyone is just a bunch of monkeys slinging crap. I say this, you say that, nanny nanny boo boo and neener too. It's been done to death on this forum. As for myself, I've been in the pit of apologetics for over 15 years. You're not going to say anything I haven't heard before.

If you will notice there are a lot of people (yourself included) who say what Catholics believe (and get a lot of it wrong) without even being Catholic. On the other hand, you don't see Catholics stating what you believe. Instead, we ask you. In other words, you do not create an environment conducive to dialogue. Instead, you create an environment that intends to divide and separate (and isn't that the Protestant way).

FYI, Catholics are confident in their faith and you aren't going to convert anyone here. Your time would be best spent discussing things we can agree on (i.e. the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of God with whom we devote our lives) rather than what we don't.

I have more respect for the non-Christians, Agnostics and Atheists who participate in this forum than I do persons such as yourself. Sad but very true.

 

[Bird Dog]

What gives you the impression that we're not interested in dialogue?

You and the others are not interested in dialogue. You just want to tell us how wrong the Catholic Church is.
The same squawks, same rants, same bigotry.

It is like having a battle of the wits with unarmed people.