God Conquers Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 Hey Littleles, I've been trying to keep up with all the threads you've been posting on. You say that Jesus didn't found the Catholic Church as we know it. You say that the papacy is not infallible. You've alluded that bishops aren't direct spiritual descendents of the apostles. You question the infallibility of scripture. All the while, you criticize people who do believe these things. "True believers" you call them. Your posts have been started you say, to make us think and to challenge us... which clearly they have, just look at how long they are. I am frankly intrigued at where you're coming from. Considering your alluded to beliefs, why are you Catholic? I mean this very seriously. What do you believe the Catholic Church is? What is its purpose? Why are you a member? Matt PS- I don't want anyone posting about what they THINK, or ripping on Littleles cause I'd like a real answer and not smartmouth because he's(?) been insulted or presumed already on this thread.
jasJis Posted March 30, 2005 Posted March 30, 2005 God Conquers, This is from a closed thread that doesn't show up on the first page on Debate Table. They are complete, unedited, cut and past quotes from LittleLes himself. [quote]Hi Folks, I'm Roman Catholic and I have no "animosity" toward the Church. But I insist on separating fact from fiction, and unfortunately a lot of the latter has gotten into Catholicism over the years. I am a bit intolerant of "true believers." These are those who insist that the "party line" be adhered to regardless of the evidence. And anyone who doesn't, or even questions them, are ignorant and enemies of Christ. Do you ever wonder what makes people think like that? LittleLes[/quote] [quote]Yes, apologists try the "discipline" rather than "doctrine" argument, when the doctrine is proven to be absurd. It's a very predictable defense. Or else, when they have no valid rebuttal, they lapse into the inquistitional mode. Is that what you are trying, Archangel? And sorry, Yiannii, One only has to follow the truth to be Catholic. Not the "party line." For example, I don't really have to burn heretics at the stake to prove orthodoxy. Do you? Little Les This post has been edited by LittleLes on Mar 25 2005, 08:21 PM [/quote]
God Conquers Posted March 30, 2005 Author Posted March 30, 2005 Thanks Jas, But that still doesn't answer my questions. I mean, it gives us insight into his thinking, but I'd like to know what he believes the Church IS, not what it is NOT.
God Conquers Posted March 30, 2005 Author Posted March 30, 2005 [quote name='Littleles']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. [/quote] What DO you believe in? What is the CHurch? What does it mean to be Catholic?
God Conquers Posted March 31, 2005 Author Posted March 31, 2005 Are you going to answer here? You won't let us in on what you believe? How can you save us from our folly otherwise?
Cam42 Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Good Luck getting him to respond. I think that jasJis nailed it though. However, I am interested in what he would have to say as well. Cam
Archangel Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Although he says he's Roman Catholic, he does not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. [quote] Jesus was believed to be a Messiah but not necessarily divine by his original disciples. The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up mostly of Jewish Israelites who had been followers of John the Baptist, and later Jesus. They were concentrated in Palestine and the surrounding regions and led by James the Just, the oldest brother of Jesus. Although predictably disparaged and minimized by Catholic apologists who, for doctrinal reasosn, don't want to acknowledge their existence, even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits the following: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/o5242.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/o5242.htm[/url] (CE - Ebionites) "Recent scholars have plausibly maintained that the term (Ebionite) did not originally designate any heretical sect, but merely the orthodox Jewish Christians of Palestine who continued to observe Mosaic Law." "They denied the Divinity and virginal birth of Christ, and clung to the observance of Jewish Law, they regarded St. Paul as an apostate, and used only a Gospel according to St. Matthew." The divinity of Christ continued to be debated up until the Council of Nicea in 325 at which it received the majority vote of the bishops. I more or less agree, then, with the original Christian view of Jesus.[/quote]
God Conquers Posted March 31, 2005 Author Posted March 31, 2005 That's interesting.... If Jesus isn't God... what's the point? Like St. Paul says: "...and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain; you are still in your sins." (1Corinthians15:17)
Guest JeffCR07 Posted March 31, 2005 Posted March 31, 2005 Christ is either God or a liar, but he cannot be simply a "good man."
Cam42 Posted April 4, 2005 Posted April 4, 2005 Ooops...sorry, I [u][i][b]BUMPED[/b][/i][/u] into hot stuff.
Kilroy the Ninja Posted April 4, 2005 Posted April 4, 2005 Since it's apparent Littleles isn't going to engage in this thread, may I suggest it be allowed to die? I'm sure I'm going to get some flak about closing threads today so, please guys... can we let it go? It's sort of an inappropriate thread to begin with. God Bless!
LittleLes Posted April 4, 2005 Posted April 4, 2005 (edited) Hi All, Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Somehow, until this morning, I've completely missed this thread. I must confess (sorry), that I post on a number of cites and generally read them quickly. I didn't catch that it was my name under the banner "an invitation." Unfortnately, it appears that a number of questions have been asked. Perhaps whoever originated the thread - was it God Conquers?- could restate a single question he'd likle me to answer. I don't do "shotgunning, "inquisitions." URL's, or 81 question questionaires. But if there is a single legitimate question, I'll try to answer it. After that, perhaps I can answer another. This way the size of posts remains manageable. LittleLes Edited April 4, 2005 by LittleLes
God Conquers Posted April 4, 2005 Author Posted April 4, 2005 [quote]Considering your alluded to beliefs, why are you Catholic? I mean this very seriously. What do you believe the Catholic Church is? What is its purpose? Why are you a member?[/quote] These questions are all closely related, and are personal, not inquisitional. I'd appreciate if you answered at least one.
LittleLes Posted April 4, 2005 Posted April 4, 2005 Hi God Conquers, I once asked an Irishman why he always answered a question with a question. His answer was "Why not?" That's somewhat like your question. I'm a cradle Catholic. But, of course, that doesn't have to mean that I buy into the whole belief system. But actually, I think as a belief system, it contains a lot to offer and a lot that is true. But as I mentioned elsewhere, a lot of not so good information got incorporated along the way. The trick is to separate the two, even though this may at times be painful. You actully asked three additional subquestions which are logical extensions of your first question. Lets begin at the beginning, which also seems to be the basis of a number of other questions asked me. Oops! Space is used up. Let me continue on the next post. LittleLes
LittleLes Posted April 4, 2005 Posted April 4, 2005 (edited) Matt 16:15 "But who do you say that I am"? Before we can answer this question satisfactorily, we have to look at the evidence available. (1) Jesus left no written record. (Eusebius in his Church History, chapter 1, claims that Jesus left a letter saying, in effect, that he didn't make housecalls, but not too many believe Eusebius on this and perhaps some other points). (2) There are a limited number of non-Christian references to Jesus. (3) There is basically only the New Testament record. And this can be viewed in two ways, See next post. And I really am glad that Kilroy the Ninja terminated two of the other threads. They were indeed becoming rather redundant! Little Les See, I try to limit them to one screen. This is not always possible, but it's a reasonable goal. Edited April 4, 2005 by LittleLes
LittleLes Posted April 4, 2005 Posted April 4, 2005 On the one hand, the New Testament can be viewed as "God breathed," the Holy Spirit whispered each passage word for word into the ear of the evangelists, therefore the new Testament is completely "inerrant." Formerly, this was the principle Catholic belief, but no longer. On the other hand, the best description is that given by Fr. Bonhoffer in his Concise History of the Catholic Church, which, since I'm away from my desk, I'll paraphrase from memory. The New Testament contains accounts of how the early Christian communities came to view Jesus. Not everything is really historical. Deeds were ascribed to him and words put in his mouth which, strictly speaking, he never said or did. This was not dishonest. It reflected how Jesus came to be remembered. The different gospels were written by different authors for different audiences at different times. They started to be written when it was realized that end times were not really imminent and a written, rather than a strictly oral record, was desirable. We could debate this, but it is fairly certain that none of the writers were eyewitnesses to the events they described. LittleLes
Jaime Posted April 4, 2005 Posted April 4, 2005 [b]Imagine Littleles at a restaurant for breakfast...[/b] Waitress: How would you like your eggs sir? Scrambled? Poached? Sunny side up? Littleles: I'm sorry but I don't respond to inquisitions or having questions shotgunned at me. If you could pose just one question at a time, I'll do my best to answer. Waitress: I'm sorry sir....... How would you like your eggs? Littleles: Waitress: Sir? Littleles: You know there are many people who would assert that the waffle originated in Belgium. We could begin a dialogue about the true nature of the waffle and its birth into society Waitress: Sir I'm sorry but you don't want eggs anymore? You would prefer waffles instead? Or did you want waffles as well as eggs? Littleles: You know its quite natural for someone who has no skills in debate to simply throw out 84 questions to deflect attention away from the fact that they have shown no evidence to support their assertions. Waitress: Sir I'm your waitress. I just want to take your order and help my other customers. The only thing I know about waffles is that they come from our kitchen. How would you like your eggs. Littleles: Oh how nice of you to take the party line. You cannot see the truth that waffles are not what you thought they are. Waitress: Sir HOW WOULD YOU LIKE YOUR EGGS? Littleles: If you recall, I answered that question previously and I would rather not take the time to repeat myself.
Recommended Posts