Attitude Towards The Jewish People

[Jaime]

and the Church is not a denomination

[Anomaly]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1088113' date='Oct 10 2006, 08:36 AM']
and the Church is not a denomination
[/quote]What's a denomination?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1088114' date='Oct 10 2006, 09:37 AM']
What's a denomination?
[/quote]

You already know. You've been baiting this topic for weeks.

[Aloysius]

a "denomination" must "denominate" from some other entity. I defy you to tell me which entity the Catholic Church "denominated" from. it is rather a continuation of an entity, the same entity, through many centuries. just because groups left the Church, denominated from the Church, does not make the Church a denomination

[Anomaly]

[quote name='hot stuff' post='1088116' date='Oct 10 2006, 08:45 AM']
You already know. You've been baiting this topic for weeks.
[/quote]I've been baiting for someone to provide their definition of a denomination. and what's wrong with it.
Sometimes you bait the hook and wait, and wait, and wait, and wiat, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait.


[quote name='Aloysius' post='1088119' date='Oct 10 2006, 08:59 AM']
a "denomination" must "denominate" from some other entity. I defy you to tell me which entity the Catholic Church "denominated" from. it is rather a continuation of an entity, the same entity, through many centuries. just because groups left the Church, denominated from the Church, does not make the Church a denomination
[/quote]
buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
No. A religious denomination is a congregation of like minded persons. Look it up and start a thread.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1088133' date='Oct 10 2006, 11:37 AM']
I've been baiting for someone to provide their definition of a denomination. and what's wrong with it.
Sometimes you bait the hook and wait, and wait, and wait, and wiat, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait.
buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
No. A religious denomination is a congregation of like minded persons. Look it up and start a thread.
[/quote]
guess it depends on your definition

[Jaime]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1088133' date='Oct 10 2006, 10:37 AM']
I've been baiting for someone to provide their definition of a denomination. and what's wrong with it.
Sometimes you bait the hook and wait, and wait, and wait, and wiat, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait.
buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
No. A religious denomination is a congregation of like minded persons. Look it up and start a thread.
[/quote]


You start a thread. You're the one who's questioning it. Start a legit discussion instead of being passive aggressive.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1088133' date='Oct 10 2006, 09:37 AM']
I've been baiting for someone to provide their definition of a denomination. and what's wrong with it.
Sometimes you bait the hook and wait, and wait, and wait, and wiat, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait.
buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
No. A religious denomination is a congregation of like minded persons. Look it up and start a thread.
[/quote]

A religious denomination, Anomoly, is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity. So, would you like to show me how Catholicism is a "subgroup" of Christianity?

Catholicism is a dirivative of what religion? Care to trace the lineage back for me? Yes, Catholics are like-minded, for the most part, and yes, Catholics are part of a congregation, but that is where the similarities end.

In order for the Catholic Church to meet the definition of a religious denomination, it must be a subgroup and I argue that the Church is not a subgroup, but rather the Master group and all Protestant denominations are a subgroup, to a greater or lesser degree of the Catholic Church.

Good Luck.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1088133' date='Oct 10 2006, 11:37 AM']
I've been baiting for someone to provide their definition of a denomination. and what's wrong with it.
Sometimes you bait the hook and wait, and wait, and wait, and wiat, and wait, and wait, and wait, and wait.
buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
No. A religious denomination is a congregation of like minded persons. Look it up and start a thread.
[/quote]
LOL

yes, in common usage, that is how it is used. but etymologically and actually, a denomination by definition must be de-nominated from another group (usually by a distinguishing name like "lutheran" et cetera; hence the use of the word "de-nominatinate"). You can use the word as it has evolved in protestant circles to support protestant purposes, or you can use it the way it is etymologically intended.

Definitions are not always as simple as the first phrase in a dictionary. if you don't know what I'm talking about, take a debate class there is absolutely nothing in the word "denomination" which suggests "a congregation of likeminded persons".. for that you could use "congregation" perhaps... or "religion" (though some religions were de-nominated from other religions and those could be called "denominations")

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1088151' date='Oct 10 2006, 10:01 AM']
LOL

yes, in common usage, that is how it is used. but etymologically and actually, a denomination by definition must be de-nominated from another group (usually by a distinguishing name like "lutheran" et cetera; hence the use of the word "de-nominatinate"). You can use the word as it has evolved in protestant circles to support protestant purposes, or you can use it the way it is etymologically intended.

Definitions are not always as simple as the first phrase in a dictionary. if you don't know what I'm talking about, take a debate class there is absolutely nothing in the word "denomination" which suggests "a congregation of likeminded persons".. for that you could use "congregation" perhaps... or "religion" (though some religions were de-nominated from other religions and those could be called "denominations")
[/quote]
Take it up with Webster, the dictionary guy. Creating some arcane definition and assuming everyone should know it is like Clinton asking what "is" is or Euty asking what "Church" means. If you have some other way to define denomination than what is used in standard english and is found in an english dictionary, please feel free to establish and define it so that others may know what you mean. Within my household, family and certain friends, 'gar' has a clear and identifible meaning we all comprehend, know, but has nothing to do with the type of fish people associate with the word.

[Aloysius]

no, it's what de-nom-ination means.

de- of/from
nom- name
ination- noun form

it must be 1 of or from something and 2 take a common name to be a denomination.

it's not rediculous, it's how you actually look at definitions in debates (you don't just go to #1 in websters and think you have something). denomination as you use it has evolved out of a modernist philosophy and a protestant philosophy which is attempting to justify the existence of each denomination by applying it to every group within Christianity. as the word actually indicates, it can only apply to groups which came from other groups within Christianity.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1088167' date='Oct 10 2006, 10:19 AM']
no, it's what de-nom-ination means.

de- of/from
nom- name
ination- noun form

it must be 1 of or from something and 2 take a common name to be a denomination.

it's not rediculous, it's how you actually look at definitions in debates (you don't just go to #1 in websters and think you have something). denomination as you use it has evolved out of a modernist philosophy and a protestant philosophy which is attempting to justify the existence of each denomination by applying it to every group within Christianity. as the word actually indicates, it can only apply to groups which came from other groups within Christianity.
[/quote]
It's spelt 'ridiculous', with an "i".
I'm not college educated so I just use the dictionary to define words so that other people know what I'm talking about. Besides, I think you are confusing 'derivative' with 'denomination'.

Using your word play, "detail" cannot mean a smal part, it is poopy.

de- of/from
tail- end; rear;

from the rear: poo poo.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Anomaly

[Aloysius]

hahaha funny stuff... if "tail" was actually derived from the english word "tail" then you might be right

1603, from Fr. détail, from O.Fr. detail "small piece or quantity," from detaillier "cut in pieces," from de- "entirely" + taillier "to cut in pieces." Modern sense is from Fr. en détail "piece by piece, item by item" (as opposed to en gros), a commercial term used where we would today use retail. Military sense is 1708, from notion of "distribution in detail of the daily orders first given in general," including assignment of specific duties. The verb is from 1637.

whereas "de-nomination" does come from the prefix "de" and the latin for "name", it comes from something and distinguishes itself by a different name.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1088179' date='Oct 10 2006, 10:40 AM']
hahaha funny stuff... if "tail" was actually derived from the english word "tail" then you might be right

1603, from Fr. détail, from O.Fr. detail "small piece or quantity," from detaillier "cut in pieces," from de- "entirely" + taillier "to cut in pieces." Modern sense is from Fr. en détail "piece by piece, item by item" (as opposed to en gros), a commercial term used where we would today use retail. Military sense is 1708, from notion of "distribution in detail of the daily orders first given in general," including assignment of specific duties. The verb is from 1637.

whereas "de-nomination" does come from the prefix "de" and the latin for "name", it comes from something and distinguishes itself by a different name.
[/quote]Really, now. So when I take my car to the detailler, is he chopping it up to sell it? At least I know he isn't going to mushy mud pie in the seat. (And the poo poo post IS funny. I keep chuckling to myself. I often find it's more satisfying to be clever than smart.)

[Cam42]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1088158' date='Oct 10 2006, 10:14 AM']
Take it up with Webster, the dictionary guy. Creating some arcane definition and assuming everyone should know it is like Clinton asking what "is" is or Euty asking what "Church" means. If you have some other way to define denomination than what is used in standard english and is found in an english dictionary, please feel free to establish and define it so that others may know what you mean. Within my household, family and certain friends, 'gar' has a clear and identifible meaning we all comprehend, know, but has nothing to do with the type of fish people associate with the word.
[/quote]

Actually, "Gar" means cat.

But you haven't answered my questions yet Anomoly. Based upon how denomination is rendered, you have to speak to my questions. Good Luck, buddy, you'll need it.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1088199' date='Oct 10 2006, 11:16 AM']
Actually, "Gar" means cat.

But you haven't answered my questions yet Anomoly. Based upon how denomination is rendered, you have to speak to my questions. Good Luck, buddy, you'll need it.
[/quote]Case in point. [url="http://www.floridaconservation.org/Fishing/Fishes/gar.html"][b][size=5][u][color="#990000"]GARFISH[/color][/u][/size][/b][/url]
Garfish.

So, what's your definition of denomination?

Edited October 10, 2006 by Anomaly

[Aloysius]

[quote]is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity.[/quote] -Cam

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1088148' date='Oct 10 2006, 10:00 AM']
A religious denomination, Anomoly, is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity. So, would you like to show me how Catholicism is a "subgroup" of Christianity?

Catholicism is a dirivative of what religion? Care to trace the lineage back for me? Yes, Catholics are like-minded, for the most part, and yes, Catholics are part of a congregation, but that is where the similarities end.

In order for the Catholic Church to meet the definition of a religious denomination, it must be a subgroup and I argue that the Church is not a subgroup, but rather the Master group and all Protestant denominations are a subgroup, to a greater or lesser degree of the Catholic Church.

Good Luck.
[/quote]
dANG. i MISSED YOUR POST.

You said "So, would you like to show me how Catholicism is a "subgroup" of Christianity?"
Christianity is known as all groups that profess Jesus as Christ. ergo, catholics are a sub-group of Christianity since they're not baptists or pentecostals (who are recognized as Christians, but not catholics)

[CatholicCid]

He also asked "Catholicism is a dirivative of what religion? Care to trace the lineage back for me?"

One probably could argue that Christianity came from Catholicism

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1087975' date='Oct 9 2006, 10:54 PM']
Augustine's view of predestination is perfectly within the bounds of Catholic Teaching. It is Calvinist misinterpretation of both him and St. Paul which is heretical.

One may agree with everything St. Augustine said about predestination and not be a heretic.

Of course, this is a tangent..
[/quote]
Hrm, I'm skeptical of this.... Augustine said some pretty strict things about predestination that the Church does not hold to, i.e. he calls the human race (several times) a "massa damnata" (the damned masses).

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm[/url]
[quote]The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation, not even negative, except in consideration of demerits. Augustine did not see that, and the unfortunate massa damnata theory, which said the whole human race by original sin became a massa damnata et damnabilis: God could throw the whole damned race into hell for original sin alone, without waiting for any personal sin.

God wanted to display mercy and justice. To display mercy, He chose a small percent to rescue; the rest He deserted and so they would go to hell.

He thought God picked those to rescue blindly, without any consideration of how they lived. He picked them not that He had any love for them, but merely to make a point. Augustine did not see it, but that was a denial of God's love. For to love is to will good to another for the other's sake. If I will good to another not for that other's sake, but for some outside purpose of mine, I am not loving that person, but using him.

So in that theory, God does not really love anyone, He merely uses the few for His own purposes, not for their sake. Hence, as we shall son see, he explicitly denied several times that "God wills all to be saved: (1 Tim 2:4) . He even said, as we shall soon see below, that it means nothing to God that most persons are damned, without a chance.

Of course Augustine did not see this fact, or he would surely have stayed away from his theory. Actually, as we shall see later on, in about six places he implies the opposite of that theory, when his sense of God's goodness took over his thinking.

Further, he reached this theory from a collection of reasons, chiefly, the fact that he misunderstood the passage in Romans 8:29 through chapter 11. He thought it all referred to predestination to heaven or hell. (Hence, within that framework, he thought that the words of Romans 9:13,"I have loved Jacob and hated Esau" meant that God really hated Esau. And without even looking at Esau's life wanted to beaver dam him) . Actually, St. Paul does not speak of any such thing, but only of predestination to full membership in the Church. (We will; explain below why we use that word full) . By allegory—without any support in the text or context, he thought that in the image of the potter in Romans 9:19-24 the gob of clay on the potter's table meant the whole human race, made into a massa damnata et damnabilis by original sin.
[/quote]

Quotes from Augustine:
[quote](1) Enchiridion 103: "When we hear and read [b]in sacred Scripture that He wills all men to be saved . . . we must . . . so understand [it] . . . as if it were said that no man is saved except whom He wants [to be saved][/b]. . . . Or certainly it was so said . . . not that there is no man whom He is unwilling to have saved, He who was unwilling to perform the wonders of miracles among those whom He says would have done penance it He had done them: but in such a way that we understand 'all men' to mean the whole human race, distributed into various categories: kings, private citizens, nobles, ordinary men, lofty, lowly, learned, unlearned. . . ."

(2) De correptione et gratia 14. 44: "And that which is written that which is written that 'he wills all men to be saved and yet not all are saved, can be understood in many ways, of which we have mentioned some in other works, but I shall give one here. It is said in such a way . . . that all the predestined are meant: for the whole human race is in them."

(3) De correptione et gratia 15, 47: "That 'God wills all men to be saved' can be understood also in this way: that He causes us to wish [that all men be saved]. . . ."

(4) Epistle 217, 6, 19: ". . . and so that which is said, 'God wills all men to be saved' [b]although He is unwilling that so many be saved[/b], is said for this reason: that all who are saved, are not saved except by His will."
[/quote]