dextorboot said:
...Ok Preach, so you say that the Church has been wrong before and made many mistakes and yet you use the NT to back up your arguments... The NT is just a collection of texts that the Church decided should be part of their sacred texts.
...We now know that there were other texts Christians followed before the NT was what it is today.
...By doing what you're doing you're negating your own argument. By your own words, the Church could be wrong about what it included in the NT.
...It's also the Church's belief that the NT is man-made. Biblical historians confirm that there were other texts that didn't hold with what the Church wanted so they just keep them out. They also confirm the high possibility that (even though they believe it was written by God through the writers) the writers own beliefs entered the texts.
...To say that the RCC (or any other denomination) is wrong in its teachings, then using the sacred texts (colored by each denominations printing of it) to back your argument doesn't hold water. All you're really doing is deciding what parts of the Bible (whichever version you're using) should be taken literally and which should not...
...Most would agree that any word put at the beginning of a sentence is capitalized. You obviously recognize the two are related, meaning it's no accident that it's called "The Roman Catholic Church."
...My joke-o-meter is always on, the needle just doesn't move for jokes that aren't funny
(1) Um, could you please clarify why it is that you think my admitting the church has been wrong before has ANYthing to do with my using the NT to back up my arguments?... The NT is a collection of texts, sure..what about it?... The fact is, all the Christian faiths that I know of AGREE on which texts make up the canon of the NT; where there's some dispute is in the OT, not the NT. And there, it's just a matter of whether the 6 "bonus books" I referred to should be included or not. In any event, you won't ever find me citing THOSE books, because it would only create another dispute, and there's nothing in them that I need to draw on at all. The ones that we ALL agree on will do quite nicely.
(2) Sure there were other texts that the NT writers used. Most of us call it "The Old Testament". If you're referring to other stuff that "didn't make it into" the canon of NT scripture, the church eventually decided that (for various reasons) those texts didn't meet the test to be considered as such. And since about 400 AD (give or take a couple hundred years, if memory serves correctly), ALL Christendom has agreed on what books belong in the NT.
(3) Um, hate to pop yer bubble, bub but I never said "the Church could be wrong about what it included in the NT". Instead of trying to put words in my mouth, how 'bout you concentrate on what words are flowing out of your keyboard, since they clearly a bit disjointed and incoherent (see #4 & #5 below).
(4) Not quite, pal. Obviously human hands physically wrote the NT, and human minds/hands assembled the texts, but I know of know credible Christian source/denomination that claims that the Bible was "man-made, in the sense that you seem to be using the term. And BTW, how do you reconcile your claim that "It's also the Church's belief that the NT is man-made" with the ensuing sentence "They also ... believe it was written by God through the writers..."?... The only logical solution to that dichotomy is if you're alleging that the "church" is at odds with the biblical historians on the issue. So, IS that what you're saying?... If so, then please SAY so; if NOT, then, good Lord, man, please clean up your writing and start to write coherently.
Finally, the writers own beliefs only entered the texts in that they believed that what they were writing was true. So what?... Seems you're implying that the writers "added" to what God told 'em to write. Not so, and if it IS what you're trying to say, I'd like to know how they (or better, YOU) intend on going about proving that hypothesis...
(5) Are you for real?... If one can't use the sacred texts of THAT very religion to back one's argument for/against a doctrinal point of the same religion, then what, pray tell, is one SUPPOSED to use?... Not only does it "hold water", Professor Einstein, but it it's probably the most airtight, seaworthy method one CAN use. Perhaps you meant that one can't use one's OWN religious texts to disprove the tenets of ANOTHER faith. If so, you need to do some remedial work on your English composition.
Anyhoo, as a Christian (and an evangelical, in case yer wondering), I believe in the whole Bible, and with the exception of the 6 "bonus books" I mentioned, it's the same Bible that Catholics use. What parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which are not is a question that has largely been settled for most of the body of the biblical text. Are there some legitimate disagreements between denominations about some stuff? Sure, but those account for little of the body of the text, and pointedly NOT the passage I quoted (esp. since the "Jesus is the only way" theme is repeated so generously elsewhere in the NT). Here, try these on for size:
"...that it was done by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, whom you crucified and whom God raised from the dead. In the power of that name this man stands before you perfectly sound. This Jesus is `the stone rejected by you the builders which has become the cornerstone. '. There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved."
(Acts 4:10b-12, from the New American Bible - a.k.a., the "NAB" - a standard ROMAN CATHOLIC translation)
"ALL Scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching - for reproof, correction, and training in holiness, so that the man of God may be fully competent and equipped for every good work."
(2 Timothy 3:16, emphasis mine. Again, taken from the NAB...)
That pretty handily torpedos your erroneous theory...
(6) Um, so?...You can put in the last paragraph at the end of the sentence on the bottom of the page for all the difference it makes. The RCC clearly chose their name for a reason. Duh. I was pointing out that "catholic" refers to the concept, and "Catholic" tends to refer to the proper name of the specific denomination.
(7) Oh, well in that case you might wanna check & see if yer sarcasmometer is functional. Oftentimes that ends up being the root of the problem. Hint: The word "Sheesh" often indicates nearby humor and/or sarcasm.
Pedro said:
...I give up, I mean you can't even see the problems with a fair and just god requiring your love to goto heaven,
...your belief despite the evidence leaning far in the direction of him not actually existing, scientific evidence contradicting everything in the bible...
-- That's because there ARE no problems. My parents were pretty fair and just, yet once I turned 18, they made it clear that, if I were to come back and live in their home, there were certain guidelines that were to be followed (no drugs in the house, no sleeping with girls under their roof, no firearms or high explosives, etc.), and if those were not followed by me, I was no longer welcome to live in their house.
The reasoning went something like this: "You're our son, and we love you. We will always love you. But you're 18, and are able now to live on your own. You're capable of making adult choices. But you also are responsible to live with the consequences of those choices. If you decide to violate our guidelines, you can find yourself somewhere else to live." Same principle with God.
-- You are so far off-base here I'll hafta ask you to get me a hotdog from the concession stand, since you're out there anyway:
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy"- Bill Shakespeare.
"Jesus said, 'If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains'. "'. -John 9:41
