K
kevangreen
Guest
where is the concrete evidence?
- Status
S
Sabbath_Keeper
Guest
Try reading some of the books written by RCs themselves. The most informative I’ve found so far is Malachi Martin. But there are others. It would seem that Non-Catholics are more informed of what’s going on inside the RCC then many of the laity. Get a clue dude.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
The first three are just a single line in a different, albeit somewhat similar, and unique heresy all of their own. Although they probably never met, they have the earmarks of a master/disciple relationship - one heretic influencing the next.
Sure some Protestants claim they were a precursor to the Reformation, but they do the same with others like Saint Augustine.
As for the last, it seems - from the information I’ve gleaned - that he might have been considered an ultra-traditionalist (using today’s language) in his distaste for the Renaissance and such. If he were alive today, he might be a member of the SSPX. So he rallied against the moral corruption of the time, so what. Many did and remained faithful in the Church. The Church agrees and the Council of Trent is a testimony to that agreement. Humans are in constant need of reform because we are constantly being deformed - but doctrine comes from God and is not deformed, hence cannot be reformed. That is the problem the Protestant heretics posed for themselves, they undertook to reform doctrine to their own distorted and perverted wills and to do the bidding of the devil who had deceived them (and as such are quite pitiable).
R
ralphinal
Guest
There is a division along lines drawn by VII, but they are more like this: those who want the documents to say something they do not and those who want to utilize what they actually say.
If you look long and hard at the two camps, those of the former position have as members those who think women can be ordained, those who advocate acceptance of abortion and ABC, and other such trash. The latter group, lead by the Pope, are willing to accept a smaller, holier Church. IN other words, if you want to promote heresy, do it on your own time.
D
Dameedna
Guest
Evidence.This is the camel, that will break religions back if they keep using it.
If you put forth a hypothesis, that Christ “was” god incarnate, and that christ did die, and resurrect, then it is up to you, to provide evidence. It is YOUR Hypothesis as a christian.
In the same vein, your church claims it came directly from the disciples. It is your churches hypothesis. Not fact…just an unproven idea…
The scientific method, reared it’s head, because humans realized a problem. Some-one stating something as a fact, did not mean it was actually true. So how do we decide it is true? By repeatable experiements, that can be observed and draw the same conclusion every time. We call that “fact”
That is how we “prove” an idea. You simply cannot claim something as “fact” until it has gone through the scientific method.
You can claim that God, is outside scientific evidence and that is totally fine. But you cannot claim it as fact. Only replicable evidence can.
I would worry “less” about others proving you are wrong, and more, about deciding why on earth you believe you are right?
No-one has to prove you are wrong, YOU have to prove you are right.
Cheers
S
sambos671
Guest
You’re profile says that you are a member of the church of physical science. Otherword you believe what you can experience with your five senses? Am I correct? Does this make you a scientist first and an athiest later? What do you do when you your senses contradict each other? Or something happens out side of the natural order of things? For instance you didn’t live 2,000 years ago. What would you say if you saw a man brutally crusified and dead. Then you saw him alive again walking and talking with wounds given him during the crusifixion? Just curious.
K
kevangreen
Guest
i did do some research of the elimination of the cathar religion
by the catholics, they were heretics. 4 million people were wiped off
the face of the earth
does that count
S
SIA
Guest
how can that be proven?
T
tGette
Guest
Evolution is not provable by the scientific method and still an overwhelming number of scientists believe it as fact. It is impossible to test and observe evolution because it happens over such a long period of time and no one lives long enough for that. (I am not trying to say whether evolution is real or not, frankly, there are too many scientists who claim both sides, so I am on the fence about that.)
I can reverse your line of questioning and we will begin recognizing that we know for a fact that Christianity began roughly 2,000 years ago. Now, it is up to you to prove who started it, since you believe it to not be true. Obviously it is true that Christianity exits, it is up to you to prove that Jesus did not exist and that He was not God and His followers did not exist and that some guys plotted together and concocted the Bible. You cannot deny that Christianity exists, so you need to provide evidence for your supposed “real reasons” of how Christianity began and give evidence for who really began the religion. Basically, you must, by the scientific method, prove why Christianity is wrong.
We cannot prove empirically that George Washington existed. We cannot prove empirically that all the names on the Declaration of Independence were actually signed by those people. They could have been forged. By your line of reasoning, a lot of things cannot be held as a fact because they cannot be proved by the scientific method.
Anywho…I appreciate and respect your opinions, but it has nothing to do with the thread. Though, you do make great points for a separate thread! (Hint, hint!)
The question was asked with the presupposition that non-Catholic Christians were to answer. I guess I did not state other wise. I should have specified.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Hey! You stole my line.
S
Snow
Guest
English please.
K
kevangreen
Guest
faith cannot be proven
but the events in say ones holy book can be proven
J
justasking4
Guest
We have good reason to believe that Washington existed based on historical evidence i.e. documents etc. If we deny the histroical method and documents then we can know nothing of the past including your own.
J
justasking4
Guest
What do you mean by proven?
We can believe by authority then. We believe in heaven and hell not because there is evidence for it here but it was taught by the Lord Jesus Who is the highest authority there can be because He is God.
S
SIA
Guest
That’s right and we see his words in the Holy Scriptures. Sure the Bible doesn’t contain everything, but it contains all that is sufficient and that’s according to the Apostle Paul.
S
Snow
Guest
There’s another faction that thinks Vatican II was a disgrace and should never have happened.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Gabriel of 12
I like the adventist christian groups, when they make self proclaimed prophecies. They never come true: including all their FAILED prophecieis about the second coming.
Peace
- Status