- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pope Francis endorses evolution and big bang
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:07 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:07 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Yes. Because Scripture says homosexuality is a sin.
Since when did the Catholic Church limit themselves to the confines of scripture? There is nothing in scripture that remotely says anything about Mary being conceived immaculately or ascending to heaven like Jesus, yet it's a church teaching.
2
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:17 pm to Revelator
quote:
There is nothing in scripture that remotely says anything about Mary being conceived immaculately or ascending to heaven like Jesus, yet it's a church teaching.
Point to me where it says in Scripture that everything has to be found in Scripture for it to be true and then we'll talk. And then show me how the Council of Nicea, a Catholic Council, came to its conclusions on the exact nature of Jesus Christ and the nature of the Blessed Trinity, when Jesus even said in Scripture, "The Father is greater than I."
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception goes back to the earliest days of the Church, centuries before there was a Bible put together for people like you to read.
This post was edited on 10/29/14 at 6:21 pm
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:23 pm to TK421
quote:
I guarantee my knowledge of scripture and early church history surpasses most if not all of the posters on this site.
There is ample evidence in this thread to the contrary. Your entire thesis hinges on the claim that the church of Rome, the one in existence today, is markedly different in doctrine and practice from early Christianity. The sources of early Christian beliefs, the writings of the earliest Christians spanning the first several hundred years of church history, speak against this claim.
I don't give a frick which side is historically accurate, because I think both protestants and catholics believe in what they do without any good reason, but to deny that Catholicism more closely resembles the early church is to deny pretty much the entirety of early church writings.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:25 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception goes back to the earliest days of the Church, centuries before there was a Bible put together for people like you to read.
The inference is that Mary was born without original sin and remained sinless. This is absurd in the face of scripture with things as simple as Mary referring to Jesus as her Savior and Lord. People without sin need no savior.
This post was edited on 10/29/14 at 6:32 pm
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:27 pm to TK421
quote:
I guarantee my knowledge of scripture and early church history surpasses most if not all of the posters on this site.
Well, you're nowhere near my level.
And seriously, y'all are going to get banned.
This post was edited on 10/29/14 at 6:28 pm
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:29 pm to TN Bhoy
When Darwin's theory first came out, the Anglican church accepted it.
Their reasoning?
The laws of physics are God's laws. Miracles violate God's laws. Thus the belief in miracles is actually atheist.
I always thought that was interesting
Their reasoning?
The laws of physics are God's laws. Miracles violate God's laws. Thus the belief in miracles is actually atheist.
I always thought that was interesting
This post was edited on 10/29/14 at 6:31 pm
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:30 pm to Revelator
quote:
Let's say science concluded next week that their is definitively a gay gene and a person isn't able to chose his behavior regarding homosexuality. You insist that the Catholic Church would hold to their previous beliefs regarding this matter instead of bowing to scientific evidence and social pressure?
Yes, because that is what religion does. It denies evidence contrary to it's dogmas because that is what it must do to survive.
The catholic church's doctrine doesn't require evolution to be false, as some protestant denominations do, and thus they freely accept it. Religion accepts what their theology allows them to accept and throws out the rest. That is what it has always done, and what it will always do.
The church CANNOT accept homosexual marriage. It would be admitting fault, and part of their dogma is inerrancy in matters of faith and morals.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:35 pm to Revelator
quote:
This is absurd in the face of scripture with things as simple as Mary referring to Jesus as her Savior and Lord. People without sin need no savior.
But without Jesus Christ she would be with sin, thus why she called Him her savior.
Also...in the Gospel of Luke you have this passage:
quote:
"And the angel came in unto her, and said, hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women."
The original text, written in Greek, used the word kecharitomene in place of the English "full of grace." The word Kecharitomene can be translated to mean "perfection" or "abundance."
In other words, Mary was proclaimed by the angel to be with a perfection of grace, which was a very powerful statement. How can Mary be completely and perfectly with God's grace, yet still have sin left in her?
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:38 pm to Revelator
quote:
Since when did the Catholic Church limit themselves to the confines of scripture?
They don't, but neither did the early Christians. They couldn't given that New Testament didn't exist yet. The early church was entirely oral tradition. Even once all of what would be the biblical texts had been written, the vast majority of Christians then couldn't read them.
And besides, the church DOES teach that they are infallible and unchanging on matters of faith and morals. Changing stances on homosexuality would be an obvious deviation from a major moral teaching, thus invalidating their claims.
They CANT change their teaching on that, lest they cease to exist in their current form.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:40 pm to Revelator
quote:
The inference is that Mary was born without original sin and remained sinless. This is absurd in the face of scripture with things as simple as Mary referring to Jesus as her Savior and Lord. People without sin need no savior.
This depends entirely on one's interpretation of scripture, but the fact remains that the idea of Mary's sinless nature was being tossed around in writings as early as 100 AD. Whether it is true or not (and I obviously believe it to not be so) many early Christians did believe it.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:41 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
In other words, Mary was proclaimed by the angel to be with a perfection of grace, which was a very powerful statement. How can Mary be completely and perfectly with God's grace, yet still have sin left in her?
The are so many scriptures that alludes to the fact that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and such, but your church tradition is held higher than scripture so it's pointless for us to debate this.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:42 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
They don't, but neither did the early Christians. They couldn't given that New Testament didn't exist yet. The early church was entirely oral tradition. Even once all of what would be the biblical texts had been written, the vast majority of Christians then couldn't read them.
Well obviously the Church couldn't contain themselves to only scripture before the scripture was written, but the oral words and letters became scripture.
This post was edited on 10/29/14 at 6:49 pm
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:43 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:quote:There is ample evidence in this thread to the contrary.
I guarantee my knowledge of scripture and early church history surpasses most if not all of the posters on this site.
. . . . . . . . . . . . b o o m !
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:46 pm to Revelator
quote:
Well obviously the Church couldn't contain themselves to only scripture before the scripture was written
So why do so now? Especially when some of the extra-biblical doctrines were already believed prior to the canonization of the Bible?
There is precedent in church history for oral tradition playing a role in doctrine.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:49 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
So why do so now? Especially when some of the extra-biblical doctrines were already believed prior to the canonization of the Bible? There is precedent in church history for oral tradition playing a role in doctrine.
What's the point in gathering a council to canonize certain books of the bible and discount others if you only resort to embracing the other writings anyway at a later date?
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:52 pm to Revelator
quote:
The are so many scriptures that alludes to the fact that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and such, but your church tradition is held higher than scripture so it's pointless for us to debate this.
And yet the Fathers of the Protestant Church (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) accepted Marian doctrine and defended it until their deaths. Protestants did not begin to reject Marian doctrine until around 1800 or so - nearly 300 years after the Reformation. So you're telling me that for 1,800 years or so, Christians got it wrong on Mary?
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:52 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
You don't want to say the answer because you know I'm right.
Sorry, my life doesn't revolve around TD.
There is no evidence of anything remotely resembling the modern catholic church before it was made the official Roman religion. Any argument to the contrary is superficial and silly on your part.
quote:
since Catholics were indeed the first Christians.
This is even more asinine. Jews were the first Christians and indeed practiced early Christianity in synagogues. The Pauline epistles make this abundantly clear.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:53 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Your entire thesis hinges on the claim that the church of Rome, the one in existence today, is markedly different in doctrine and practice from early Christianity.
I said nothing of the sort. You are, once again, lying.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:56 pm to Revelator
quote:
What's the point in gathering a council to canonize certain books of the bible and discount others if you only resort to embracing the other writings anyway at a later date?
I suppose you are speaking of the 7 deuterocanonical books Catholics have in their Bibles that Protestants do not? Yeah...that's not true. Martin Luther threw those out. He also cut out parts of Daniel and Esther and considered throwing out 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. He called the epistle of James an epistle of straw and said he would expect a book like Revelation to be more revealing. Only the vocal protests of his followers kept him from removing the New Testament books.
Posted on 10/29/14 at 6:56 pm to Revelator
quote:
What's the point in gathering a council to canonize certain books of the bible and discount others if you only resort to embracing the other writings anyway at a later date?
For the same reason that legal texts don't contain examples and explanations of every conceivable legal scenario.
Besides, the catholic bible with seven extra books DOES contain references to some of the "extra-biblical" doctrines such as purgatory. While true these books werent officially canonized at the first council, they are referenced very early in Christian writings and are present in every handwritten manuscript of the Bible we have AND the original Gutenberg bibles.
This post was edited on 10/29/14 at 6:57 pm
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News