LittleLes Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 (edited) Hi CAM, No. Most questions remain unanswred. Of course "true believers" have to pretend that they have been. That's the party line, isn't it. The fundamental question about the claimed divine inspiration of the bible has not been answered, perhaps other than, in effect, "you just have to believe." Things like the chronological impossibility in Lukes's nativity narrative in which Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 B.C.) and when Quirinius was governor of Syria (became governor in 6 A.D.) have never been explained except by the unproven assertion that Quirinius had really "been governor earlier too." So Luke's nativity narrative (like Matthew's which is quite different) can be shown to be fictional. And Hi In Circles, You might want to read the thread "Did Jesus found a Church" especially the beginning in which I demonstrate that it is extremely improbable that Jesus did, for the reasons given. But, of course, the "true believers" can't accept the facts no matter how overwhelming the evidence. "You just have to believe." Actually, Paul really founded the Catholic church as it exists today. The sect to which Jesus' original disciples belonged was destroyed in the late first century. LittleLes Edited March 30, 2005 by LittleLes
Cam42 Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 (edited) [quote]No. Most questions remain unanswred. Of course "true believers" have to pretend that they have been. That's the party line, isn't it. The fundamental question about the claimed divine inspiration of the bible has not been answered, perhaps other than, in effect, "you just have to believe."[/quote] Answered. You just don't accept it. [quote]Things like the chronological impossibility in Lukes's nativity narrative in which Jesus is born during the reign of Herod the Great (died 4 B.C.) and when Quirinius was governor of Syria (became governor in 6 A.D.) have never been explained except by the unproven assertion that Quirinius had really "been governor earlier too." So Luke's nativity narrative (like Matthew's which is quite different) can be shown to be fictional.[/quote] Whatever....you are incorrect. What are your sources and are they provable. What do B.C. and A.D. stand for again? You are denying inspiration. [quote]You might want to read the thread "Did Jesus found a Church" especially the beginning in which I demonstrate that it is extremely improbable that Jesus did, for the reasons given. But, of course, the "true believers" can't accept the facts no matter how overwhelming the evidence. "You just have to believe."[/quote] What authortitative documentation did you use to refute the proofs from the Catholic perspective? Are your opinions enough? I don't think so. You don't want people to go back and read, it will show you to be as big a farce as you have become. Cam Edited March 30, 2005 by Cam42
LittleLes Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Hi CAM. As I recall, I used the New Testament, especially the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles to point out the preponderance of the evidence that Jesus did not found a Church. That short term memory problem again. LittleLes
Cam42 Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 And I recall that we refuted your position. With the same books. Stop the charade. Cam
LittleLes Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 (edited) Hi CAM, Then you recall incorrectly. But I realize that you have to say you did. As I recall (and I don't think I'm suffering from short term memory loss) all you presented were a collection of the use of the word "church" in writings of the second half of the first century. But you never disproved that the early Christian community in the beginning was a "sect" within Judaism maintaining Jewish beliefs and practices, as Acts describes it. The first disciples of Jesus did not attempt to found a separate religion. But then Matthew hadn't been written yet, so they probably didn't know they were suppose to. LittleLes Edited March 30, 2005 by LittleLes
Paphnutius Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 30 2005, 06:47 AM'] No. Most questions remain unanswred. Of course "true believers" have to pretend that they have been. That's the party line, isn't it. The fundamental question about the claimed divine inspiration of the bible has not been answered, perhaps other than, in effect, "you just have to believe." [/quote] Would you please quit referring to it as a part line. It is not a party line but an article of faith that they are inspired. If you are looking for evidence of the inspiration of the Scriptures I refer you to the thread Melchisadec by Micahelfilo. I think you will be disapointed about our view on things. You never responded to my comment about those two going against articles of faith mentioned in the creed. Could that be because they do not fall into your favortie "party line" defense? What exactly is your definition of party line? I ask you to make a statement of faith on this board so I can rest assured that you are not confusing what the Church holds essential to the faith and what may be party lines... Do you believe in the ressurection? Transubstantiation? Virginal Birth? If you are a Catholic those should be easy for you. You only have to answer yes to one of them to show that you know the difference between a party line and an essential of faith.
Paphnutius Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 (edited) This should clear some things up about your party line defense. From merriam webster [quote]Main Entry: creed Pronunciation: 'krEd Function: noun Etymology: Middle English crede, from Old English crEda, from Latin credo (first word of the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds), from credere to believe, trust, entrust; akin to Old Irish cretid he believes, Sanskrit srad-dadhAti 1 : a brief authoritative formula of religious belief 2 : a set of fundamental beliefs; also : a guiding principle - creed·al or cre·dal /'krE-d&l/ adjective [/quote] [quote]The Nicene Creed We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, [b]the only Son of God[/b], eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit [b]he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man.[/b] For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. [b]On the third day he rose again[/b] in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. [b]He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.[/b][/quote] Just incase if you want to dispute that one: [quote]believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; [b]who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary,[/b] suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; [b]the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven,[/b] and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I[b] believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church;[/b] the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.[/quote] Emphasis added on the creeds. So as you can see Littleles, they are not party lines. They are one can say the unnegotiables. So drop the party line carp if you are Catholic. If you aren't Catholic then stop trying to present yourself as such to gain an edge. Edited March 30, 2005 by Paphnutius
LittleLes Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 (edited) Hi Paphnutius, But at least you are concurring that you cannot question anything in you belief system, aren't you But some of us can. Especially when error is detected. LittleLes Edited March 30, 2005 by LittleLes
Paphnutius Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 I can look into see why we think it is a matter of faith, but just as that. Not a party line. As for the things in the creed, I do not believe that they may be questiond for I truly have faith in them. Other things outside of the creeds I feel like I may question on a more solid stance, but not the creedal statements. Quit dodging the bullet and answer my question about your faith.
Paphnutius Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 30 2005, 10:46 AM'] But some of us can. Especially when error is detected. [/quote] I am glad that you feel you have some gnostic knowledge that the Church has been missing for nearly 2000 years.
LittleLes Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Yes indeed. I've concluded that clattel slavery is immoral despite former Church approval. There is no sin in charging reasonable interest on money loaned, despite former Church condemnation. The earth really does move, despite the former Church teaching. Contributing to the spread of AIDs by prohibiting the use of condoms is morally wrong. Torturing and killing heretics is not the will of God, despite Exsurge's claim. Silencing theologians wo don't entirely support the party line is morally wrong. Jesus really didn't ride two animals when entering Jerusalem. Matthew got it wrong. In short, I'm not a gullible Catholic. But I know a lot of Catholics who are. LittleLes
Socrates Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 How about a "LittleLes" carp and a "LittleMore" honesty. You've been proven wrong in all of your attempts to discredit the Church. Your pride appartently cannot admit that you are misinterpreting Scripture and Church tecahing rather than the Church being wrong. Why do you even call yourself Christian, much less Catholic? You apparently don't beleive that Jesus was God (or if He was, that He didn't know what He was talking about), or that He founded a Church. If Christ did not found the Catholic Church, why belong to it? Why call oneself Catholic? Why not just be honest and call oneself atheist or agnostic or whatever, rather than playing this silly charade?
Paphnutius Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 30 2005, 12:42 PM'] Yes indeed. I've concluded that clattel slavery is immoral despite former Church approval. There is no sin in charging reasonable interest on money loaned, despite former Church condemnation. The earth really does move, despite the former Church teaching. Contributing to the spread of AIDs by prohibiting the use of condoms is morally wrong. Torturing and killing heretics is not the will of God, despite Exsurge's claim. Silencing theologians wo don't entirely support the party line is morally wrong. Jesus really didn't ride two animals when entering Jerusalem. Matthew got it wrong. In short, I'm not a gullible Catholic. But I know a lot of Catholics who are. LittleLes [/quote] Once again we see you sidestepping the question about your faith by a retort in disciplenes. I thought that this was on matters of faith? Man what a slight of hand. Congratulations. Those are disciplenes, some of which (slavery) that I agree that the Church may of been wrong on. What does that have to do with the creed? Answer my question Littleles. You do not have to agree with every little thing that the Church has done throughout the centuries. Those disciplenes may be party lines. I recall your attention to the mentioning of Virginal Birth, Transubstantation, Ressurection, etc... Those are not party lines. Refer to your creed Littleless. Quit confusing faith and your party line discipline. They are in the creed, they are matters of faith, faith that is essential to being Catholic. Do you believe in Vigirnal Birth? Inspiration of the Scripture (mind you He spoke through the prophets)? Ressurection? Answer them, yes or no. That is all Littleless. Quit changing this to a discussion about disciplines, that is a different topic. These scholars were denying essentials to Catholic Faith. Do you believe in them? They are not party lines for the last time. Do you believe?
LittleLes Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Hi Socrates, No. I haven't been proven wrong. That's just a little more of the apologist's "lets pretend" when, because of their belief system, they have to stick to the party line. Like pretending that the Church never supported the institution of slavery LittleLes
Theoketos Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Mar 30 2005, 10:34 PM'] Hi Socrates, No. I haven't been proven wrong. That's just a little more of the apologist's "lets pretend" when, because of their belief system, they have to stick to the party line. Like pretending that the Church never supported the institution of slavery LittleLes [/quote] Actually Little Les, the Church did support Slavery! Slavery can be Just (in a certain manner of speaking)! But "Just Slavery" is never based on race. And the Church has always condemned unjust slavery.
Paphnutius Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Since you have posted in other threads and neglected to respond to my question in this one, would it be ok to assume from your silence that you do not believe in the Ressurection, Vigrin Conception, Transubstantiation? Littleless if you do not believe in those three, among others, then you are not a Catholic. I am operating from your silence that you do not believe in them and therefore have not faith. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong and you do belive in the Real Presence, Immaculate Conception, etc... I would recommend that you pray for the theological virtues of faith, haope, and charity. They would do you some good.
LittleLes Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Slavery is never "just." Read "Veritatis splendor, p80," CCC 2414, Rerum Novrum, and Gaudium et Spes #27 (Vatican II). Moreover, the form of slavery the Church approved is "chattel" or perpetual slavery, in which the person remained a slave until his death and all his children and their children remained slaves. See Leviticus 25: 40 et seq., which was cited as the approving biblical passage. The "just slavery" explanation made by some apologists may work on gullible Catholics, but not on those who research the subject for themselves. Littleles
Cam42 Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 I already debunked that brother Littleles. Look to my post on Infallible......Mar 27 2005, 08:30 AM. Take that discussion back to the proper thread. Cam
LittleLes Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 (edited) Hi Paphnutius, I don't confuse mythology with history, nor fact with fiction. And I don't respond to Inquisitions by posters who have lost their original arguments. But I particularly enjoy reading the claims of posters who have clearly lost their arguments, but pretend that they have won them. LittleLes Edited March 31, 2005 by LittleLes
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now