Catholic Church has skeptic arrested for explaining miracle

[Dinner]

Religion is the bane of humanity.

[Berzerker]

did jesus condemn and forbid slavery?

[regexcellent]

Moses did.

[Ben Kenobi]

The entire hierarchy should be gone. in christianity there aren't levels of hierarchy, we can learn from eachother of course, and some may know mroe then others, but in the end christianity is the faith of an individual. It's between 1 human and God.
Where there's hierarchy there's corruption and power and politics.

"Let us not give up the habit of meeting with one another."

We need each other, Robert. Nobody can pull the cart alone, and if you're going to try - it's just going to destroy you. Christianity is not designed to work as individuals, we are the Body of Christ. We need each other.

As for the heirarchy - Timothy is pretty clear that there exists a heirarchy of episcopai, (bishops), presbyteroi, (priests) and deacons. The threefold structure is biblical.

All of them

So you'd throw out the Nicaean Creed? The Athanasian Creed?

Nothing, I didn't say such a thing.

Then why not keep the old?

Times are changing and so are cultures.

If the culture is not getting better, what is the imperative to change?

Christianity is too often thought to be a moral answer on any whickd culture, but it is not.

Well, I'm a bit disappointed. You were a Christian, once, Robert. I remember. We used to write back and forth on these matters.

Do you think that Paul thought slavery was good? No, he said that God had meant all to be equal, men and women, rich and poor, slaves and masters. Yet when a slave came to his door he send him back. And he asked women to accept the rule of their husbands. Not b/c he approved slavery or sexism. No, only b/c christianity isn't about having a moral judgement on any culture, but about spreading the gospel. If Paul would have liberated the slaves and the women, the gospel would have been lost for the men and the slavemasters.

Exactly. Which is why the Church should continue to teach that homosexuality is sinful. The Church never capitulated and taught that slavery was good, just because that is what the cultures of those times believed. Neither should the Church capitulate on their fundamental teachings just because of what society in general believes.

But in the end I'm glad to live in this day and this culture.

Sure, for now. This world is only temporary, Robert. If you live for this world, you'll die with it as well.

I think that's a good thing.

Better than Christ?

[Robert]

I don't know what this has to do with believing that successive generations progress. Let's say a majority of a future generation is satanist. Does that mean christians should adopt satanistic doctrine? You completely sidestepped my point. The idea that future generations progress is all in your head. Where did you get this idea?

And did you realize that those people believed in progressivism? They believed that their generation had gained enlightenment, and that they knew better than early christians.


Where do you get the idea that stopping 'progress' is inherently bad? "Progress" is just a word for what you believe and you've attached a positive word to it. But you've asssumed in the first place that you should know better than previous generations.

I'm not saying that previous generations were any better, as they believed similar to you. I'm saying that every generation believes that there is something special about them. There isn't. Every generation starts in the same place.

With 'progress' I mean: moving on, changing things. I didn't say that that was a good or a bad thing.
Neither did I say that doctrines should be adopted, just that we should get along with culture. Adopt to the culture. There's no need explain that that obviously goes to a certain degree. Paul adopt to a culture with slavery, but tells christian slave holders to be very good to their slaves.

Anyway, most of your response seems to be based on the thought that I intended 'progression' to be an improvement by default and christians therefore should progress. I didn't mean that.

[Robert]

"Let us not give up the habit of meeting with one another."

We need each other, Robert. Nobody can pull the cart alone, and if you're going to try - it's just going to destroy you. Christianity is not designed to work as individuals, we are the Body of Christ. We need each other.

I didn't say we don't.
self-quote: "we can learn from eachother of course, and some may know mroe then others"
But getting together is something completely different then having a full-scale world size feudalistic hierarchy.

As for the heirarchy - Timothy is pretty clear that there exists a heirarchy of episcopai, (bishops), presbyteroi, (priests) and deacons. The threefold structure is biblical.

different positions is not the same as a hierarchy.
We also have deacons, elders, etc. in our church, but it's not a hierarchy.

So you'd throw out the Nicaean Creed? The Athanasian Creed?

As having authority? yes.

Then why not keep the old?

old generations make as much errors as new generations. Keeping old traditional texts as doctrine piles up the errors of the past. The RCC has clear examples of wrong doctrines of the past that the church can't get around now b/c they're authoritive now: Mary always a virgin, celibate, anti conception, to name just a few.
The first is based on a translation error in the first version of the Vulgate, for crying out loud, it has been corrected in the later versions, but the doctrine remains b/c it has been set one day and can never be changed after that.

So now the RCC is not only dealing with the errors of todays generation, but also with the errors of the past generations. Use the past as a point of reference but never as an authorized source. Never, b/c the people of the past made as many errors as the people now. And even the most holy pope was only a fallable human being.

If the culture is not getting better, what is the imperative to change?

be a greek with the greek and a jew with the jews.
Why? b/c we have a message for them. Not a moral legal bunch of rules.

Well, I'm a bit disappointed. You were a Christian, once, Robert. I remember. We used to write back and forth on these matters.

Christianity isn't about morals but about salvation.
It's not about trying to be a better man, but about acknowledging that you're a fallable man.
It's not about having faith in yourself to stop sinning, but about having faith in Christ.
It's not about telling other people about how wrong they are, but about how they can find help in Christ.
And everytime someone puts a focus on the first part of the above phrases, he's becoming a stand in the way for the 2nd part of the phrases, either for himself or for others.

Exactly. Which is why the Church should continue to teach that homosexuality is sinful.

Thanks to people like you non-christians think that christianity is all about being against gays. I bet you talk more about homosexuality then about Jesus Christ.
Thanks to people like you the gospel is a lost case for most gay people. If Paul would have been like you then no rich people and male humans would have been in the church today.

The Church never capitulated and taught that slavery was good, just because that is what the cultures of those times believed.

I'm not asking you to say that homosexuality is good, just adopt to it. The homosexuality of our times isn't the same as the homosexuality of Paul's time, or of Old Testament times. You can't copy and paste lines from ancient times to our times. Neither with slavery, neither with emancipation nor with homosexuality.

Neither should the Church capitulate on their fundamental teachings just because of what society in general believes.

So that's the fundamental teaching according to you?
See what happens when christians start to focus on the moral, they drift away from the real fundamental teaching: we are all sinners and should have faith in Christ, who must renew us.
Now it's all: "Renew yourself into my interpertation of the laws"

Sure, for now. This world is only temporary, Robert. If you live for this world, you'll die with it as well.
Better than Christ?

With whom was Jesus always arguing? With the sinners? No, with the know-all law preachers!

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am glad the OP posted such an unbiased article .

FWIW, I believe that the Catholic Church goes to great pains to fully test out potential miracles before giving its seal. They don't just hand them out willy-nilly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

FWIW, I don't think Paul thought there was anything inherently wrong in slavery. It was just what was the deal in his time. God sent the Holy Spirit so His revelation would continue for when we were ready for it. So while we weren't ready to acknowledge slavery was against God's will in Paul's time (even with the lessons of Exodus and Jesus being the new Moses leading us to freedom), we were ready in the time of William Wilberforce and Fredrick Douglas. He continues to make His purpose known if we are just open to it.

And Ben, the Papal Bulls Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex said that slavery was alright as long as not done to fellow Christians.

[SlowwHand]

I want to be honest with you, Imran; when I was young, real young, I could recite the chapters of the Bible without fail. I knew parables and different scriptures, but I learn a lot from you in the historical context. There are people in the Bible that I don't know enough about.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thanks Slow . That means a lot! Your heart is in the right place (well, when you aren't threatening to beat up people ) and that counts more than all the historical learning one can do about religion and God.

[Ben Kenobi]

But getting together is something completely different then having a full-scale world size feudalistic hierarchy.

Yet, you go on to say:

We also have deacons, elders, etc. in our church, but it's not a hierarchy.

Yes, it is a heirarchy. There's a reason you have these there - for the same reason the Catholic church does, because this is how Christ intended that his church be built. It seems far better to argue that yes, you do have a heirarchy, and so does the Catholic church, than to argue, "well our heirarchy isn't a heirarchy".

As having authority? yes.

Well, the problem with that, is that you have core doctrines in there, that Christ died, and was resurrected and returned on the third day, etc. I cannot see how one can be a Christian and bin all the actual Christian doctrines. This isn't a dispute over what the world teaches, this is a dispute over what does Christ teach and what does he expect Christians to believe.

Christians believe that Christ died and was buried, and resurrected three days later. Do you not believe this Robert?

old generations make as much errors as new generations.

Then why trade old 'errors' for new ones? If you believe that society has progressed then yes, it makes sense, but if you believe that it has not, then it makes no sense whatsoever to adopt the new.

Keeping old traditional texts as doctrine piles up the errors of the past.

As opposed to adopting the new errors, and the new passing fads that will fade away with time?

The RCC has clear examples of wrong doctrines of the past that the church can't get around now b/c they're authoritive now: Mary always a virgin, celibate, anti conception, to name just a few.

Ok. Lets go into all of them.

One, Mary - ever Virgin. You believe this is wrong, why? Because you believe she had other children other than Christ? The perpetual virginity of Mary is well attested by the early church fathers in the 3rd and the 4th century. I can understand your difficulty with the question - but the fathers are pretty clear on this and they are far closer to the text than we.

As for clericial celibacy, Paul affirms it, "the one who is unmarried is free to devote himself to God, while the one who is married has his attentions divided, in pleasing his wife." It's not doctrine (there are priests who become priests after they have been married), but is disciplinary.

Three, contraception was uniformly condemned by Christianity up until the Lambeth conference in 1932. Why? Because they took the command of God to heart - to "fill the earth and subdue it". Has God came down to man and said, "the earth is full enough?" It's not a Catholic/Protestant issue, but a modernist/traditionalist issue.

The first is based on a translation error in the first version of the Vulgate, for crying out loud, it has been corrected in the later versions, but the doctrine remains b/c it has been set one day and can never be changed after that.

What translation error are you referring to? Mary's perpetual virginity is attested by the Church Fathers. It's never explicitly spoken of in Scripture.

And even the most holy pope was only a fallable human being.

And many committed errors, etc. Infalliability refers only to their teachings on faith and morals, and only when they speak ex cathedra. The last time that happened was close to 170 years ago. They cannot contradict prior teachings of the Church, but they can clarify things (as they did with the Immaculate conception).

Why? b/c we have a message for them. Not a moral legal bunch of rules.

Salt and light. When salt loses it's saltiness, you throw it away. It's useless. Christians are called to be salt and light. That means engaging with the world, but not being of the world. In it, but not of it.

Christianity isn't about morals but about salvation.

And how does one become saved - repent. That means turning away from your sins. Christ himself says that not the least stroke of the pen has been removed from the Law.

It's not about trying to be a better man, but about acknowledging that you're a fallable man.

No. John 8:9-12

"At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

“No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

You must repent. It is not enough to acknowledge that you are sinful - you must repent. You must turn away and leave your sinful life. We all have to keep trying to become better, to become more like Christ.

"It's not about telling other people about how wrong they are, but about how they can find help in Christ."

If they do not know what sin is, how do the know what they must repent? One must first be aware of sin before one can properly repent and be saved.

And everytime someone puts a focus on the first part of the above phrases, he's becoming a stand in the way for the 2nd part of the phrases, either for himself or for others.

Denying that Christ teaches what is true and right is a major stumbling block. You say he does not teach morals, then what is his purpose here? How can one know what God wants of you, without understanding His teachings?

Thanks to people like you non-christians think that christianity is all about being against gays.

And thanks to you, people think that they don't have to repent from sodomy. That's, not a great outcome for them, is it Robert? People are going to die and go to hell. We have an obligation to get Christ's teachings right. If we paper over it, then some will be lost, and we will be responsible. Remember what Christ teaches about hanging a millstone around the neck of those who lead children astray? They don't have a pleasant outcome, Robert.

I bet you talk more about homosexuality then about Jesus Christ.

You love homosexuality more than Him.

Thanks to people like you the gospel is a lost case for most gay people. If Paul would have been like you then no rich people and male humans would have been in the church today.

Remember what Christ said about the rich - that they grow accustomed to rely upon themselves and not trust in God. Jesus himself turned away a rich man by demanding that he give away all he have and donate it to the poor.

I'm not asking you to say that homosexuality is good, just adopt to it.

And how does one adapt to it? Christ is very clear. Sodomy is sin.

The homosexuality of our times isn't the same as the homosexuality of Paul's time, or of Old Testament times.

Oh. How so, Robert? Is that a biblical teaching? Does Jesus come out and say that it doesn't apply?

You can't copy and paste lines from ancient times to our times.

Then Christianity is false, and there is no salvation, for anyone. Which is it, Robert? We can't cut and paste the lines that we do like apart from the ones that we find distasteful. Either Christ is true and all men are false, or Christ is false and we are condemned. And there is no hope.

So that's the fundamental teaching according to you?

I specifically asked you about the Athanasian, and the Nicaean Creeds. You said you did not accept them. Those are the core teachings and from what I can see, you don't accept them. I said that long before you decided to brush them aside. Why? Because you love sodomy more than Christ.

See what happens when christians start to focus on the moral, they drift away from the real fundamental teaching

Robert, if you sincerely believe what you just said, then you're not a Christian at all. Perhaps never have been. Christ is pretter clear on this, that unrepentant sinners will be condemned to the fires of hell. If there's no moral code than how can there be sinners?

I'll repeat myself, Robert.

If you live for this world, you'll die with it as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

And Ben, the Papal Bulls Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex said that slavery was alright as long as not done to fellow Christians.

If it was good, clearly they would not have made the distinction between Christians and non Christians. It was tolerated, in the sense that it was understood to be an evil. Paul even clarifies and says - "if you can go, then go". But he stops short from commanding the slaves to leave.

[Robert]

I specifically asked you about the Athanasian, and the Nicaean Creeds. You said you did not accept them.

I did not say that. Either you don't understand anything I say, or you're evilly twisting my words. Which one is it?
If it's the first, why do you not first try to understand me before you reply? Are you just a one way 'debater'. How do you think that you can ever convince your 'opponents' if you can't even understand them. What's your purpose?

If it's the 2nd....

you do have a heirarchy, and so does the Catholic church, than to argue, "well our heirarchy isn't a heirarchy".

Having a hierarchy means that one has authorization over the other. We don't have that.
And the local church is self authorized. There are bigger synodes, etc. but in the end the local church makes it's own rules.

[q]You love homosexuality more than Him.[/quote]

If one wants to grow in a debate and grow as a person and as a christian, he'd better try to understand the other, even if he disagrees with him. Just projecting your own ideas about me on me will not help you.

Bottom line is that you don't understand what I'm saying, and you're not trying to understand it either.
Only if you really understand what I'm trying to say you can legitly disagree with it.

Well, the problem with that, is that you have core doctrines in there, that Christ died, and....

I tell you that Christ died and rose again.
What I said is true, yet I have no authorization over you.

Christians believe that Christ died and was buried, and resurrected three days later. Do you not believe this Robert?

I do believe that.
But the core of my faith is not that I believe that certain things happened.
What really matterse and only matters is that I have faith in Jesus.

Then why trade old 'errors' for new ones?

We will get new errors anyway. Let's get rid of the old ones.
Let's always be allowed and able to rethink and reconsider everything without being forced to always end up with the 'old' result. Perhaps new ideas, new facts, new insights and new interpertations can do good to our faith.

Obviously be advised by the old, listen to them, but don't let them have authorization.
A good teaching will remain, no matter if it is a dogmatic teaching or not.

Not to mention that rethinking the gospel will burry the gospel deeper into the heart of the believer, then just recititing and accepting old thoughts as a fact.

That's the difference between the law written on stone and the law written in the hearts.

Ok. Lets go into all of them.

No, they were examples, not 3 new items for debate.
Never debate the exaple, just stick to the topic.

What translation error are you referring to? Mary's perpetual virginity is attested by the Church Fathers. It's never explicitly spoken of in Scripture.

I don't remember the exact whereabouts so I have to cease this.

They cannot contradict prior teachings of the Church, but they can clarify things

Thus a prior teaching that we now would find out about that it's false can't be corrected?
Or did the church never have false teachings? Has the church never made an error? No pope ever said something ex cathedra without making an error? Are you 100% sure about that?

Salt and light. When salt loses it's saltiness, you throw it away. It's useless. Christians are called to be salt and light. That means engaging with the world, but not being of the world. In it, but not of it.

I don't disagree, so what's your point?
My point is that what you consider to be salt turns out to be not salt but something that bad tasting that people reject the entire gospel for it.

And how does one become saved - repent. That means turning away from your sins.

By faith. But not having trust in yourself but in Jesus.
Turning away from your sinful nature. Accept that you can't be god, having knowledge and authorization over good and evil.

First one must know that he's a sinner. The mirror of the law is used for that. But the law isn't able to make us better people. (Romans 7).

Christ himself says that not the least stroke of the pen has been removed from the Law.

Not one. The law is still in full the rule on which the old man will be judged. If we take away a part of the law we take away a part of the judgement. We could take away the law, and could then say: "Look, there's no law, so we're not sinners."

But those who trust in Jesus for their judgement will pass through the judgement with him/in him, because he has lived up to the full law. He is the one who filled the law by doing all it said. He fulfilled the law.
And those who have faith in Jesus will live in the new life already, and the law has nothing to say about that anymore.

Just like the Canadese law has nothing to say about you anymore after you crossed the border.
The Canadese law still exists, but has no power over you anymore.
And there are a lot of simularities between the USA law and the Canadian law, like don't kill, don't steal, but in the end, despite the simularities, the Canadese law has no autorization over you anymore, because you're not under it's powers anymore.

No. John 8:9-12

What 'saves' you, not sinning anymore?
From what moment on? From birth? From the first repenting? From any repenting on?
If I sin 5 seconds after I repented, and die 10 seconds after I repented.... will I be lost then?

It's obvious that christians shouldn't do wrong.
Live in love to the other and God.
But it's not the core teaching for salvation. It's what fruits from salvation.

You must repent. It is not enough to acknowledge that you are sinful - you must repent. You must turn away and leave your sinful life. We all have to keep trying to become better, to become more like Christ.

John 3:16 says we just need faith.

If they do not know what sin is, how do the know what they must repent? One must first be aware of sin before one can properly repent and be saved.

So we first force the notion of sin through their troats, and then when they have swallowed it we force salvation through it as well?

Read acts, it's interesting to see how Paul (and others) to the Jews always bases the gospel on the Thora. But when Paul is speaking to the gentiles he's using another road to get to the gospel. He's not first teaching them the thora, making them accept it, and then bring the gospel.

If you think you can bring the gospel to people after first pushing your interpretation of any law through their troats.... then I fear not a lot of people will listen to you. All they will do is considering you an outcast and an annoying person, not worth to listen to.

Denying that Christ teaches what is true and right is a major stumbling block. You say he does not teach morals, then what is his purpose here? How can one know what God wants of you, without understanding His teachings?

I'll get back to this one later, it's too much to answer it now.

And thanks to you, people think that they don't have to repent from sodomy.

I'd say repenting in general is the message, or better: turn to Christ.
You want to hand every individual a detailed list of their sins (according to your idea about what a sin is?)
If that's true, how comes you apparently only talk about homosexuality all the time?

Remember what Christ said about the rich

Having critisism on the rich isn't the same as chosing side for the poor.
If paul would have freed the slaves, christianity would have become a slave-emancipation movement. And then it would have been lost for the slave holders.

Yet he can still criticize the slave holders, and the rich.

And how does one adapt to it? Christ is very clear. Sodomy is sin.

As a heterosexual it's easy to adopt.
Just understand that you're living in a world where homosexuality is accepted. Just like Paul accepted to live in a world with a lot of wars against non Roman people. Yet he never told the Roman kings to stop their wars. Do you think he loved those wars?

Oh. How so, Robert? Is that a biblical teaching? Does Jesus come out and say that it doesn't apply?

It's a twisted way of debating, you use, and not a response to what I said.
Answer the question, do you not agree that homosexuality in Moses time was different then homosexuality in Paul's time, and our time? (apart from the physical aspect of course).

Then Christianity is false, and there is no salvation, for anyone. Which is it, Robert? We can't cut and paste the lines that we do like apart from the ones that we find distasteful. Either Christ is true and all men are false, or Christ is false and we are condemned. And there is no hope.

The gospel is eternal.
Moral applications in time and place depend from time to time.
That even already happens in the Bible. Old testamentic rules for nomadic israelians are casted away in the New Testament.

Paul even says that people can have different ideas on times, days and feasts, on what's clean and unclean, yet all do it still for God to serve him.

I specifically asked you about the Athanasian, and the Nicaean Creeds. You said you did not accept them. Those are the core teachings and from what I can see, you don't accept them. I said that long before you decided to brush them aside. Why?

I agree with them. I do not accept them as authoritive.
Like I often agree with my preacher, yet he's not authoritive.
Even I agree with you regularly, yet you're not authoritive.

Because you love sodomy more than Christ.

I'm not really into sodomy so I can't say I love it. I'm even a bit disgusted a bit by it, but I'm also disgusted by it, but that's most probably b/c I'm a heterosexual. It's more a taste thing.

It would be very very very easy for me to reject homosexuality. I'm a heterosexual, it wouldn't cost me anything to reject it. It's so simplistic that I leave judgement over homosexuality to every homosexual christian for their personal life.

I'd rather think about my own wrongs.

Christ is pretter clear on this, that unrepentant sinners will be condemned to the fires of hell.

Please quote him saying that.

Repentance is needed, but faith saves:
Marc 16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. "

[Kidlicious]

FWIW, I don't think Paul thought there was anything inherently wrong in slavery. It was just what was the deal in his time. God sent the Holy Spirit so His revelation would continue for when we were ready for it. So while we weren't ready to acknowledge slavery was against God's will in Paul's time (even with the lessons of Exodus and Jesus being the new Moses leading us to freedom), we were ready in the time of William Wilberforce and Fredrick Douglas. He continues to make His purpose known if we are just open to it.

And Ben, the Papal Bulls Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex said that slavery was alright as long as not done to fellow Christians.

You don't really know if most christians will own slaves in the future or not. Oh and we had to fight a war and kill our own brothers to end slavery. Is that what you call the Holy Spirit in action? Do you think that Paul would have told people to kill to end slavery?

[Kidlicious]

With 'progress' I mean: moving on, changing things. I didn't say that that was a good or a bad thing.
Neither did I say that doctrines should be adopted, just that we should get along with culture. Adopt to the culture. There's no need explain that that obviously goes to a certain degree. Paul adopt to a culture with slavery, but tells christian slave holders to be very good to their slaves.

Anyway, most of your response seems to be based on the thought that I intended 'progression' to be an improvement by default and christians therefore should progress. I didn't mean that.

Ok, I did misunderstand you because the word 'progress' means a certain thing usually.

Anyway, I will just say that it's a little hypocritical when people say that others should tell people that things are wrong morally. People who do that are doing the same thing that they tell others to do. You can't throw out morality or the Law. Jesus didn't do that. He spoke out against the world for what He believed. That's what everyone must do. It's called taking up your cross. You can't just fit in to the world when you see something that is wrong.