- Topic
In another thread, fromtheotherside, speaking of the materials presented againt the wmscog, said "none of your evidences speak for itself. if you have such evidence present it without your explanation."
I presented several 'evidences without explanation' there, but I think it would be a good idea to take each one separately into its own thread. Here's the first one:
Regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church being the Antichrist: the Ostrogoths were not destroyed in 538, the '10 kingdoms' from the Roman empire were not as the WMSCOG presents, 5 were destroyed not 3, and the destruction or survival of these 'kingdoms' did not depend on their following the Catholic Church. These are historical, textbook facts.
I originally did not link to my research about it, because fromtheotherside did not want explanation, but if you'd like to see the research, I've collected it here:
http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/11/daniels-prophecy.html
http://encountering-ahnsahnghong.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-666-pope-part-3.html
fromtheotherside tried to answer this point but so far was unsuccessful. I'll copy those pieces of the conversation here from the other thread, just to keep everything together.
If you dismiss what someone says with mockery thats insulting them
If you lack understanding of what some ones point is you ask not make disparaging remand
Your one-liners are usually hard to comprehend. I think you ought to explain what you mean. Perhaps it is only me but I find your remarks vague more often than not. That is why my statement. It is the truth. Your remark was vague and I often find it so. Is that an insult? I'm sorry if I hurt you. I did not intend to do so.
BTW in your post you've made two disparaging remarks without elaborating.
Surely you know of the crusades, trying scientists for heresy and witchcraft burning people like joan of ark to death
1 timothy 4 calls enforced celibacy doctrine of demons
Also saying something isn’t perfect isn’t disparaging
dismissing someone who disagrees because you don’t get why and just insulting that fact is.
Simon wrote:
Surely you know of the crusades, trying scientists for heresy and witchcraft burning people like joan of ark to death
1 timothy 4 calls enforced celibacy doctrine of demons
Surely you know that, if not for the crusades, Islam would have almost shut down Christianity centuries ago? They were wars not genocide.
As for trying scientists for heresy, if you are refering to Galileo, it is a rather long story. The bottom line is that you are right.
Galileo was right that the idea of geocentricity (earth is the center of the universe) was in error. But it was nothing original. Copernicus had already found that earlier and so had the Catholic observatories. In fact there is a body of opinion that Galileo plagiarized Copernicus' work. However, these others were also aware that heliocentricity (the sun is the center of the universe) as proposed by Galileo, was not accurate either, which has been conclusively proved subsequently.
The trial of Galileo had nothing to do with science. It had to do with heresy because Galileo was not satisfied with publishing his findings but went on to claim that his findings contradicted the bible. The church had no issue with his claim about heliocentricity but with his claim that it contradicted scripture. By the way, Luther also strongly opposed Galileo for this.
Re use of 1 Tim 4 to attack celibacy, first of all, the fact that the Catholic Church encourages marriage is pretty common knowledge. 1 Tim 4 was not refering to clerical celibacy. Celibacy is only enforced on the clergy. You look at 1 Tim 4 and conclude such. How about looking at 1 Cor 7:25-40?
The self same Paul writes how celibacy is better for serving God because it is less distracting. (paraphrased) Was Paul a demon too?
Scripture encourages priestly celibacy.
About the celibacy thing, the Church forces it on NOBODY. Its a vow or commitment that somebody takes on freely before God and His Church. The Church doesn't force ceilbacy on people any more than she forces marriages onto people. And it is not unheard of (sadly) for priests and professed religious to seek to be released from their vows. If a priest sadly is no longer willing to carry out his ministry, the Church can laicize him and he's free to marry. You don't hear about these cases because, well, they're sad for everybody involved, its no casual thing to give up on a promise made to God and His Church. Bottom line, the Church forces celibacy on NOBODY.
As for the crusades… I support them and the Popes who called them 100%. Men who attacked women, chldren, Jews, or other Christians (ie. the sacking of Constantinople) were automatically and then later formally excommunicated by the Popes of that time. If it weren't for the crusades we'd all be speaking Arabic. It was a just war.
The Inquisition had its serious faults, but its been totally distorted by the "Black Legend." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend
The Galileo affair, the Church overstepped its bounds. The Church is infallible in faith and morals, not science.
Ultimtaely, infallibility has to do with teaching, and I would die for the smallest doctrine of the Catholic Church, because its revealed by God and stands up to the tests of reason. Her sinful members on the other hand I would be less inclined to die for, but fortunately somebody already died for us once and for all….
In my post above I mentioned that Luther opposed Galileo too for having claimed that he had proved scripture was wrong. I should have said Lutherans not Luther.
emil wrote:
Simon wrote:
Surely you know of the crusades, trying scientists for heresy and witchcraft burning people like joan of ark to death
1 timothy 4 calls enforced celibacy doctrine of demons
Surely you know that, if not for the crusades, Islam would have almost shut down Christianity centuries ago? They were wars not genocide.
The crucades was killing more than muslems it killed Jews and other Christians pagans (other than muslims of course). and crucades was only one example of that.
Re use of 1 Tim 4 to attack celibacy, first of all, the fact that the Catholic Church encourages marriage is pretty common knowledge. 1 Tim 4 was not refering to clerical celibacy. Celibacy is only enforced on the clergy. You look at 1 Tim 4 and conclude such. How about looking at 1 Cor 7:25-40?
thats forbidding people to marry
The self same Paul writes how celibacy is better for serving God because it is less distracting. (paraphrased) Was Paul a demon too?
Scripture encourages priestly celibacy.
better yes required no
emil wrote:
Simon wrote:
Surely you know of the crusades, trying scientists for heresy and witchcraft burning people like joan of ark to death
1 timothy 4 calls enforced celibacy doctrine of demons
Surely you know that, if not for the crusades, Islam would have almost shut down Christianity centuries ago? They were wars not genocide.
The crucades was killing more than muslems it killed Jews and other Christians pagans (other than muslims of course). and crucades was only one example of that.
Re use of 1 Tim 4 to attack celibacy, first of all, the fact that the Catholic Church encourages marriage is pretty common knowledge. 1 Tim 4 was not refering to clerical celibacy. Celibacy is only enforced on the clergy. You look at 1 Tim 4 and conclude such. How about looking at 1 Cor 7:25-40?
thats forbidding people to marry
The self same Paul writes how celibacy is better for serving God because it is less distracting. (paraphrased) Was Paul a demon too?
Scripture encourages priestly celibacy.
better yes required no
IrenaeusFTW wrote:
The Galileo affair, the Church overstepped its bounds. The Church is infallible in faith and morals, not science.
Buring people to death becuase you don't like them isn't moral
IrenaeusFTW wrote:
The Galileo affair, the Church overstepped its bounds. The Church is infallible in faith and morals, not science.
Buring people to death becuase you don't like them isn't moral
Simon wrote:
emil wrote:
Simon wrote:
Surely you know of the crusades, trying scientists for heresy and witchcraft burning people like joan of ark to death
1 timothy 4 calls enforced celibacy doctrine of demons
Surely you know that, if not for the crusades, Islam would have almost shut down Christianity centuries ago? They were wars not genocide.
The crucades was killing more than muslems it killed Jews and other Christians pagans (other than muslims of course). and crucades was only one example of that.
Irenaeus has already answered that in his post. Those killings were not sanctioned. The perpetrators were punished.
Re use of 1 Tim 4 to attack celibacy, first of all, the fact that the Catholic Church encourages marriage is pretty common knowledge. 1 Tim 4 was not refering to clerical celibacy. Celibacy is only enforced on the clergy. You look at 1 Tim 4 and conclude such. How about looking at 1 Cor 7:25-40?
thats forbidding people to marry
Sorry. The church does not forbid people from marrying. Priests make a choice to not marry and be priests instead.
The self same Paul writes how celibacy is better for serving God because it is less distracting. (paraphrased) Was Paul a demon too?
Scripture encourages priestly celibacy.
better yes required no
Why would he recommend it if it was demonic?
IrenaeusFTW wrote:
As for the crusades… I support them and the Popes who called them 100%. Men who attacked women, chldren, Jews, or other Christians (ie. the sacking of Constantinople) were automatically and then later formally excommunicated by the Popes of that time.
what about muslim males who didn't want war?
and with Papal succession how do we explain the ballet of chestnuts?
Simon, how do we explain it? It's called sin. Disgusting awful sin. How many times do I have to say that there is good and bad in the Church, even very very bad. Authorities in the Church can be terrible sinners, but the doctrine remains true.
It's just like Matt 23:1-3, only now the authority is the Bishops of the Church.
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
Their unworthiness does not negate the authority given by God. Saint John Chrysostom said that the roads of hell would be paved with the skulls of the bishops. The unworthy shepherds, and those in sheeps clothing will get whats coming to them.
He has left men in charge of his house. They will get their just rewards, good or bad. Luke 12:42-48.
emil wrote:
Sorry. The church does not forbid people from marrying. Priests make a choice to not marry and be priests instead.
That's a non sequitur
The self same Paul writes how celibacy is better for serving God because it is less distracting. (paraphrased) Was Paul a demon too?
Scripture encourages priestly celibacy.
better yes required no
Why would he recommend it if it was demonic?
that is a strawman
IrenaeusFTW wrote:
Simon, how do we explain it? It's called sin. Disgusting awful sin. How many times do I have to say that there is good and bad in the Church, even very very bad. Authorities in the Church can be terrible sinners, but the doctrine remains true.
It's just like Matt 23:1-3, only now the authority is the Bishops of the Church.
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
Their unworthiness does not negate the authority given by God. Saint John Chrysostom said that the roads of hell would be paved with the skulls of the bishops. The unworthy shepherds, and those in sheeps clothing will get whats coming to them.
He has left men in charge of his house. They will get their just rewards, good or bad. Luke 12:42-48.
Moses's seat wasn't authority from God but a literal chair from which scirpture was read.
Also, if the pope is morally infallible he cannot comit mortal sin that even your average atheist or pagan would never comit
I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that Moses' seat represented authority over the people, even in Christ's day. See Exodus 18:13-24
The pope is infallible in his teaching, not impeccable in his life. Nobody is claiming the Pope has to be a good guy. (Although most of them have been quite saintly)
so he is infallible in TEACHING morals but can be a completely horrible person? (in theory)
http://www.jpost.com/Travel/Around-Israel/Sites-and-Insights-Capernaum-with-a-view
about 1/4 of the way down is the Seat of Moses in Capernaum
Simon wrote:
so he is infallible in TEACHING morals but can be a completely horrible person? (in theory)
Absolutely. Pope Alexander VI was a horrifying person. In the Sistine Chapel he is portrayed in hell. Yet he never taught heresy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.