Intrigued by Catholicism, but just can't convert for many reasons

[jmcrae]

But again, (and I am referring to the aforementioned specific), how does one remain a good Catholic on this issue when the Pontiff is not handling the situation well?

How would a lay person know whether he is or not?

Bishops have been fired and reassigned. I am sure a great deal more is happening behind closed doors.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Calilobo,

I have no doubt that you are sincere in your comments. The problem comes in when we identify that sincerity is not enough - one has to be accurate. So, let me identify just where your arguments and statement fail.

Going to your comment to Guanophore - I went to the link you gave: biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html . And really, the author, James Melton is making up facts as he goes along. And, if you don’t believe me, just go back to the site and look for the following:

1- Footnotes or References. All Melton provides as a reference are Biblical verses that he has taken the liberty to inteerpret. .

2- Accurate dates. There are some real problems here:

• explaining historical events and persons based on nothing more then his opinion
• the New Testament did not exist as we know it by 300AD.

Now, let’s take a look at just one paragraph and see how he purposefully distorts history. It is purposeful and not accedential because his entire thesis is based on the Catholic Church being a pagan fraud. Check this out (I placed numbers [1], [2[/COLOR]], etc to identify what and where it is:

"The Roman Catholic Church claims to have started in Matthew 16:18 when Christ supposedly appointed Peter as the first Pope.
[1]]
However, the honest and objective student of the Scriptures and history soon discovers that the foundation of the Roman church is none other than the pagan mystery religion of ancient Babylon. [2]]

While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. [3]] Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of “bishops” ruling over hierarchies.[4]]
The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. [5]] Ministers became “priests,” and pagans became “Christians” by simply being sprinkled with water. [6]] This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism. [7]] "

[1] No where in Matthew 16:13-20 (usccb.org/bible/matthew/16) does Christ do this or say this! And, please note the role of God the Father in this scripture. Christ declared Peter as the Rock on which Christ (not Peter) would build His Chruch. Peter is the foundation chosen by God and Christ is the Cornerstone. This is the Divine Plan clearly spelled out. Make no mistake about it - Melton is devious. Notice in this sentence the implication is if you agree with him you are an ‘…honest and objective student of the Scriptures…’ Hey, that sounds pretty good, eh? Who would want to be thought of as dishonest and biased - but this is exactly what Melton is presenting: his distorted interpretation of Scripture. ****

[2] The basic problem with unsubstantiated statements is unless they are challenged from the outset - then the lie simply continues. If I tell you that the only reason why the Moon is uninhabited is because litle green men have chased off the astranauts.! You can not disprove a negative - but that is not the issue - the one making the claim must proof his claim (that little green men are on the moon AND they have chased everyone off) Melton simply makes this bogus claim about some un-named religion in Bablyon (and, of course it is Bablyon because he wants to weave ‘…the whore of Bablylon…’ into his on-going attack. This is a nonsense argument meant to catch those who are only interested in rhetoric and anti-Catholic hype. Melton excells in this while failing miserably at any type of scholarship.

[3] Most persecution of Christians by the Romans did take place during this time. Had simply stopped there he would have had one accurate sentence. But he does go on with a totally unsubstantiated statement. He claims that Christianity during this time went through a, ‘…gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice…’ Wow! Where did that come from. This is the Church founded by Christ on Peter and God let it just slip away?! This is like saying that God just the Hebrews ‘slip away’ from Egypt and no one seemed to notice - they just ‘drifted’! Christ promised He will not leave us orphans (John 14) - but Melton claims we just drifted?! Truly, Melton is just making wild claims.

[4] ‘…(L)ocal churches stopped being autonomous…’ Even a casual reading of St. Paul’s Letters tells you that he had been keep a watchful eye on all the Churches - when the Corinthians decided to get drunk and improvise - Paul slapped them down and tole them to straighten up. Look at how he encourages Timothy to be a good leader and watch over the churches. Here is a Protestat source that destroys Melton’s agrument: gotquestions.org/Book-of-1-Timothy.html
]

I’ve run out of time - if you give me some cogent feedback on what I have provided I will continue. Sorry, got a call and I have to go.

God bless

 

[meme1961]

Outsiders bring in guns - the majority get caught, but some slip through, and one person used a gun to kill five people.

Exactly. In a so-called gun free city, there are guns. Being used to kill people.

In other words, calling the city gun free didn’t make it so.

I understand that in a typical American city of similar size, the annual gun deaths are in the tens of thousands - hence, a good reason to avoid my question.

Not avoided . . . I simply wanted to see if you would do your own research and reach a reasonable conclusion.

In point of fact, your figure is a bit too high for the entire nation, to say nothing of just one city. The reported figures lump together different causes, and are different for every locale, to say nothing about across national boundaries. Anti-gun organizations will lump all deaths by gun fire into a single figure so as to inflate the figures and confuse the situtation, while pro-liberty groups will compile statistics on crimes stopped by guns, even if they gun was never fired.

Six years ago, the figures looked like:

According to the CDC in 2006, Last up to date numbers, 30,896 total, of which, 642 accidental, 16,883 were Suicide, 12,791 were Homicide, 220 were Undetermined and 360 by Legal intervention. Remember that in the same year, 43,664 were killed in Motor vehicle accidents, 37,286 died from poisoning, 20,823 died from unintention falls. In 2005 CDC reported 652,091 people died from heart disease, 559,312 from cancer and 143,579 from stroke.

Those figures have declined, since. The homicide figure, broken down, indicate that at least 60% of those were gang and/or drug related.

I invite you to do your own research in to how many crimes were prevented by guns during that same year. The figure will shock you, since you don’t seem to believe that guns have any beneficial use case.

Until the “protector” decides he has a “duty” to kill everyone who has ever wronged him in any way.

Your argument ignores the statistics, and the facts. The vast number of people who will never snap, and who are also law-abiding citizens will, in a so-called gun-free place, not carry a gun, while the person you posit will ignore the law, and be the cause of a yet another mass murder that will only stop when the killer runs out of bullets.

But, by your reasoning: disarm the police as well? The UK police have started having to carry guns now, in some locales, due to the increase in violence that occurred after the passage of yet more stringent gun control laws. Disarm them again?

The “gun free” zone idea, when applied to large areas, has also created a gun smuggling problem that, as with the drug runners, ends up in the occasional shooting. Those guns are being smuggled in to use in the commission of crimes, of course.

And someone gave them the guns to do it - they were underage, so an adult bought them the guns they used, without asking himself, “Is this a good idea?” And there were no checks or balances for anyone to ask what the guns were for.

Should there be?

Imagine if you could only buy pen and paper if you gave a reason for its use. Imagine if the store limited you to fifty sheets of paper a year, and only one pen. Imagine if every blog entry was required to undergo a background check before it was posted.

Yet arguably some of the greatest mass murders in history, as well as some of the longest running and most evil of political situations were instigated by “free speech.” Also, arguably, the right to free speech has been instrumental in saving a large number of people (publication of the Holy Bible being right up there among the most printed books in history).

At some point, you have to declare yourself a person who supports liberty, or you have to admit that you prefer some variant of Fascism. If you believe that giving up your freedom will actually benefit you, you should start by censoring yourself, shouldn’t you? After all, aren’t you instigating violence? If you are so sure that everybody around you is just waiting to snap and murder you, shouldn’t you restrict your speech so as to not give offence, and thus run the risk of being killed, or worse, instigating a rampage?

It was just a commercial transaction, the same as buying the kids a pair of bikes or a couple packs of smokes - worse, actually, since someone would have probably prevented the adult from buying cigarettes for kids.

No, in fact, almost nobody would have prevented the adult from buying the kids cigarettes. In most places, you can buy them over the counter with little or no age check being applied, so no adult is necessary.

Add in the power of the Internet, and often times you can simply buy them in bulk on line. Such is the power of free speech.

 

[jmcrae]

The “gun free” zone idea, when applied to large areas, has also created a gun smuggling problem that, as with the drug runners, ends up in the occasional shooting. Those guns are being smuggled in to use in the commission of crimes, of course.

As there is no other use for guns than to kill or injure human beings then, yes - this is true - gun runners are bringing guns in for the purpose of killing or hurting human beings, which is a criminal activity.

Making it legal wouldn’t make it good or right.

 

[meme1961]

While you have jumped to many erroneous conclusions from my comments I do not have time nor a desire to address them all. And I do not wish to enter into dualing statistics and studies–as we all know they can be made to say anything–

If misused, certainly. It says something that you don’t seem to trust anybody to honestly and with good faith compile and publish a study that has a statistical component.

after all how many studies–funded by drug companies but conducted by supposedly unbiased university professors telling us how safe xyz drug is only to find it recalled because it was not safe

Very few, actually. And in most of those cases, no bad faith or evil intent was involved. Most of these errors revolved around unexpected side effects, or an improper study protocols.

–do we need to see before we realize this? Gun studies are no better–no matter what side you’re on.

Not true. There are good, properly run studies with valid protocols. And then there are propaganda statements. Your response is analogous to the “moral relativist” stance.

It is incumbent on every adult to find the best information, think clearly and rationally, acknowledge the truth that nothing is perfect, and then make the best judgement possible.

I would however like to address the above–as you have responded just as I knew someone would. Please note: I never said anything about taking away anyones gun or even suggested it. I never voiced an opinion about or opposition to the second amendment. I never said I was against guns. This is the problem – it is impossible to have a discussion with people regarding what will actually make people safer–without you all screaming and kicking about your second amendment rights

A statement you could have made much earlier, if you did not wish to be misunderstood.

The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of the people who talk the way you do are doing so in preparation for arguing for just that: yet more gun control. And I, along with many others, are sick of having this conversation with people who don’t listen, can’t face reality or the facts, and in most cases are fans of yet more Fascism . . . the same thing that didn’t work the last 200 times it was tried.

I simply don’t believe the path that you seem to want us to go down will make us safer. I don’t think the prospect of an armed teacher or even an armed guard will make the people who commit these acts think twice (I realize you disagree and put great faith in their reasonableness and in the psychiatrists).

A mis-representation of my statements. I put the appropriate amount of faith in the work of good doctor’s who are doing their best under the constraints imposed by people who would rather have mentally ill people running around almost totally unsupervised, than have them properly institutionalized.

I also KNOW that emotionally disturbed people can and do make reasoned judgements such as: “Yes, I will have a better chance of killing lots of people in a crowded place where nobody else is armed.” After all, it isn’t a difficult concept, nor an equation that requires advanced thought to solve.

And if it could be proven that it would – then you would need an armed guard in every establishment in america –

No you wouldn’t.

Do we need a government licensed, back ground checked, heavily trained scribe for every person in America, in order to secure their free speech rights? Or do we let a free people exercise their rights without the requirement of governmental control?

Just as the right to free speech is an individual right (as it must be) the defense of one’s own life is also an individual right (as it must, also, be).

or you’d just be pushing these nuts from one location to another–choosing winners and losers so to speak.

No, it wouldn’t be I who is choosing “winners and losers”. It is those who choose to be vicitims that are responsible for their choice. I’m not liable for the choices made by third parties, including both the mass murderers, and those who believe in the fallacy of sacrificing liberty in order to gain safety.

If you have the choice to defend yourself, but refuse it, nobody else is responsible for that choice.

So just because I don’t agree with you regarding what will make us safer–please don’t jump to conclusions regarding what I think about guns.

And if you don’t understand why I inferred what I did from your statements, then perhaps this exchange can act as a lesson. IF, in the future, you wish to argue a question in a form that clearly aligns you with an established view point, but DON’T wish to be seen as aligning yourself with that point of view, then you might start with a disclaimer, instead of ending with one.

But I’m always willing to listen to a reasoned argument. If you weren’t against, weren’t arguing a given way, what are you suggesting WILL make us safer?

Continued . . .

 

[meme1961]

That said – in general – I do think I would be safer at the mall or anywhere with fewer people carrying concealed weapons. While most of these people are good law abiding citizens–so are most people until they have that one moment when they lose it. When that guy loses it–I am better off if he is not armed. Doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the right to be armed but I am not safer because he is and I think that in reality I am in greater danger because he is. And I am guessing this is where you and I will have to agree to disagree.

Well, yes. Because your point of view is based on flawed reasoning, and starts with unsupported assertions.

Reword it thusly: “That said – in general – I do think I would be safer at the mall or anywhere with fewer morally damaged, homicidal people carrying concealed weapons.”

Underlined bold, my edit.

We could agree, with that edit, on that point. I think institutionalizing the mentally ill, and those who are not compliant with their treatment regimens or who fail an assessment (or fail to show up for one) is a good idea. Too bad the ACLU can’t compromise on that.

Further: “While most of these people are good law abiding citizens–so are most people until they have that one moment when they lose it.”

Here is where we disagree. No, most mass murderers are not “good” people, and “law abiding” is rarely one of their attributes, either. Important to note that “good” and “law abiding” are not the same thing. What is especially distrubing, and where we REALLY disagree quite a lot, is that you seem to imply that every person is a mass murderer, just waiting to happen.

And more: “When that guy loses it–I am better off if he is not armed.”

I agree whole-heartedly. But that isn’t what you were arguing for. You were arguing for disarming the people who might otherwise have been able to defend themselves (and by extension defend you too), NOT the mass murderer. You also fail to address the simple fact that statistically, the number of actually good people is just about guaranteed to be far in excess of the number of mass murderers in the crowd on any given day. Thus, the number of protectors, if not hindered by the law, will always out number the evil.

More: “Doesn’t mean he doesn’t have the right to be armed”

I would argue that in fact he doesn’t, but that fact can’t be established due to the legal hurdles that must be jumped over before a nut case can be identified and instituionalized. That said, there will always be those who slip through the cracks, or who are morally damaged, and thus not a problem that can be addressed by the mental health professional.

Continuing: “but I am not safer because he is and I think that in reality I am in greater danger because he is.”

I agree whole heartedly. What your analysis forgets is, in the case of a state that supports and defends the 2nd Amendment rights of your fellow citizens, is the number of CCWP holders (or open carriers) in the crowd. You ARE safer because THEY are there. Heck, you could even be one of them, if the safety of the public is something that you care about, and are willing to take personal responsibility for.

Your mistake is in micro-focusing on a single individual. You fail to think in a sufficiently holistic manner. We were talking about a crowd, after all, not a one on one situation. Just you and an armed criminal, all alone, is of course a different matter.

Something has changed in our society.

And you need merely count the number of mass murderers who, when they thought they were about to be done, committed suicide. Consider the implications of that. Consider the implications of that from a Catholic perspective, then meditate on what their belief system must have been, and how/where they acquired such a belief system.

When I was in school you could have a gun rack in your rig with a gun in it and head up hunting after school. No one thought anything about it and we never had an incident of gun violence. Kids fought but no one went out and grabbed their rifle–it never occurred to them. Today it does and thats the problem–until that is addressed, until that changes–we will not be safer. And putting armed guards in our schools will not change that. Rather than addressing the root causes of our problems we simply wish to get more guns for ourselves and put armed guards everywhere and lull ourselves into a false sense of security–this is what I object to.

I agree. Armed guards are just wrong. Either a citizen accepts responsibilty for himself, and optionally, the safely of the body politic and therefore is ready and prepared to defend himself and those around him, or he does not. Armed guards are just another version of the system already tried, that has already failed.

So you see, we are not that far apart. I would register PEOPLE, not guns, and prevent those proven to be a danger to themselves and others from having access to cars, guns, large amounts of dangerous chemicals, swords and other implements of easy murder. If, by necessary, by institutionalizing them until they can be made well, or in the case of a stable adjustment or cure, released.

 

[meme1961]

As there is no other use for guns than to kill or injure human beings.

Since this quite isn’t true, your conclusion is faulty.

Once again: would you disarm the police? How about the armed forces?

There is no moral difference between a police officer shooting a mass murderer to prevent more innocent deaths than if any other citizen does the exact same thing for the exact same reason.

Since quite evidently your juridicial boundary must be permeable (because otherwise your police and armed forces won’t have their guns), then smuggling is even easier than it is for drugs.

 

[jmcrae]

Here is where we disagree. No, most mass murderers are not “good” people, and “law abiding” is rarely one of their attributes, either.

Actually, they are almost always the quiet kid in the corner who never made any trouble, or the neighbor who always gave cookies to the kids, and never had a bad word to say about anybody. Afterwards, everyone is always saying, “But he was such a nice guy - I have no idea how this happened.”

 

[meme1961]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but if you went to Mass every day for three years, don’t you hear the entire Bible (looking at all three readings, the alleluia, the psalm, and the entrance and Communion reading thingies)

Close, but not quite. You don’t get the long lists of names that were meaningful to the Jews, for instance.

But the genius of Holy Mother Church is that she can save, educate and help guide even the illiterate. Protestantism is quite deeply flawed in that regard, and could not have even existed much before the invention of the printing press.

Even afterwards, books were so expensive that the Protestant Churches had to violate three of their founding Solae to function in the real world. Two of those Solae are still regularly violated, even today . . . they have become a kind of “Protestant Tradition”.

 

[jmcrae]

Since this quite isn’t true, your conclusion is faulty.

Once again: would you disarm the police? How about the armed forces?

They carry guns in order to injure and kill people that society in general has decided are “bad.”

There is no moral difference between a police officer shooting a mass murderer to prevent more innocent deaths than if any other citizen does the exact same thing for the exact same reason.

Any citizen who wants to do this can join a police force. We don’t need vigilantes running around the city shooting everyone who looks like they might make trouble.

Since quite evidently your juridicial boundary must be permeable (because otherwise your police and armed forces won’t have their guns), then smuggling is even easier than it is for drugs.

Because one guy from Vietnam crossed the American border with a gun in his possession, and didn’t get caught? (He looked 12 - they didn’t think of searching him. He’s in jail now, and won’t get out for a good long time.)

 

[meme1961]

Actually, they are almost always the quiet kid in the corner who never made any trouble, or the neighbor who always gave cookies to the kids, and never had a bad word to say about anybody. Afterwards, everyone is always saying, “But he was such a nice guy - I have no idea how this happened.”

Actually, that isn’t true either. In the studies I’ve read, in most cases the mass murderer was known to be either a chronic victim (bullying or some other kind of harassment), to have emotional problems, or to be a concern to one or more people.

But again, we are talking statistics, so there will always be some who are loud, obnoxious people who then go ahead and commit mass murder. Or quiet ones, or normal seeming ones as well. I believe we’ve already agreed that perfection isn’t attainable, hence my support of shall-issue CCWP.

A problem of this type can’t be solved, only mitigated. The most effective mitigations are those that are holistic in nature, involving a number of different separate, but related and relatable changes.

 

[meme1961]

They carry guns in order to injure and kill people that society in general has decided are “bad.”

OK, I won’t repeat myself in detail, I will simply remind you that that isn’t true, as I’ve already explained.

Any citizen who wants to do this can join a police force.

So only the police have the right of self defense?

Again, I won’t repeat myself, but I’ve explained that that isn’t true in America. No classes, remember?

Interesting historical note: That isn’t true in many places in the world because the police evolved from the guard forces of the nobles, aristocrats and monarchs, and as such these forces were extendsions of, and therefore given a limited set of the powers extended to those nobles.

And thus were a different class of citizen than the ordinary.

We don’t need vigilantes running around the city shooting everyone who looks like they might make trouble.

No, we don’t. Who were you intending to reply to? I certainly never suggested that I supported “vigilantes running around the city shooting everyone who looks like they might make trouble”.

Thankfully, that kind of thing almost never happens in America. Does it happen where you live?

Because one guy from Vietnam crossed the American border with a gun in his possession, and didn’t get caught? (He looked 12 - they didn’t think of searching him. He’s in jail now, and won’t get out for a good long time.)

Nope.

If you aren’t going to disarm everyone, then you need arms. If you don’t have a sufficient native market, then you can’t have private fire arms manufacturers, and thus the most cost effective method will be to import your arms from some place that can support the market.

There-in lies the point.

 

[Miriam1947]

But again, (and I am referring to the aforementioned specific), how does one remain a good Catholic on this issue when the Pontiff is not handling the situation well? I am not referring to those who would rather be “good liberal Americanists.” I am referring to “good Catholics” who want and need to remain as such, but cannot reconcile this rather serious problem, the helm at which is the Pontiff. He IS the moral teaching of the Church, and many good Catholics disagree with his example of not doing enough to at least address the problem to its fullest. How does a good Catholic reconcile this within the Faith?

I became a Catholic after the scandals. Mere men will always sin, that has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of the Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Calilobo,

I’m back now and would like to finish this up with Part 2. Sorry about the interruption. Here is material from Melton

"The Roman Catholic Church claims to have started in Matthew 16:18 when Christ supposedly appointed Peter as the first Pope.
[1]]
However, the honest and objective student of the Scriptures and history soon discovers that the foundation of the Roman church is none other than the pagan mystery religion of ancient Babylon. [2]]

While enduring the early persecutions of the Roman government (65-300 A.D.), most of professing Christianity went through a gradual departure from New Testament doctrine concerning church government, worship and practice. [3]] Local churches ceased to be autonomous by giving way to the control of “bishops” ruling over hierarchies.[4]]
The simple form of worship from the heart was replaced with the rituals and splendor of paganism. [5]] Ministers became “priests,” and pagans became “Christians” by simply being sprinkled with water. [6]] This tolerance of an unregenerate membership only made things worse. SPRINKLED PAGANISM is about the best definition for Roman Catholicism. [7]] "

[5] The author has no trouble spinning his own conclusion from facts he has simply created to fit his objective. There are several recorded instances of dramatic breaks with Judiasm that is recorded in Acts - Jesus and the Twelve were all devout Jews - and would simply not have engaged in paganism under any conditions. Melton would have us bellieve that Christ’s Church was not only over-run with pagans - but was carried off like a spoil of war. There is nothing to back this up… and a lot of history of the earl Catholic Church that remains alien to the author. ****

[6] Yes, terms do change over time. Those who demonstrated to the Elders (Bishops) were ordaied as priests. And, yes - pagans did become Christians - and in Acts 10 we find the interesting interaction between Paul and the pagan Cornelius - who becomes a Christian here is a link: usccb.org/bible/acts/10 . Then we had the account also given in Acts of Peter’s Pentecost Sunday sermon where 3,000 (Jews?) were baptized. (usccb.org/bible/acts/2 ) Now stop and think about this - Jerusalem is long way from the Jordan River (or any other river for that matter) and putting 3,000 men in the city’s drinking wells would be not been a good idea from a public health stand point (something the Romans were familar with). So, while the text does not say how this large number were baptized - sprinkling water is at least a reasonable possibility. Recall, there is no specific method for the use of water, identified in Scripture for how someone is to be Baptized.

[7] “SPRINKLED PAGANISM” may be he best definition that Melton can come up with - but calling people names is more of a pre-school approach to resolving conflict. It really shows neither maturity of insight when one is criticizing Christ’s Church that is almost 2,000 years old. I really do not know what religion Melton is - but the Protestant Revolt happend 500 years ago - or 1,500 years after Christ founded His Chruch on Peter and these groups reject this concept and found their churches on themselves or some other man made item. ]

The reason I have spent so much time is that you did not have the time to respond to Guanaphore - and just flipped this link over like it would solve some real issues. Seriously, Melton is a flop at logiic and making a historical presentation on everything. My suggestion would be to spend some time on your posts - and, if you don’t have the time, then don’t post. I would also suggest that you be more critical when it comes to providing a link. The idea is that the link, says things in a better way than you. Links that are effectively ‘hate crimes’ via the internet - waste everyone’s time and document nothing of signifadance.- Melton documented nothing.

God bless

God bless

 

[guanophore]

Sorry I haven't the time to review the content of each link in detail, but here are some examples, and there are more if you search for them.  And if you really want detail, go to a Protestant bookstore:

Re: when CC founded
biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Catholic.html

Re: Catechism distorts Bible
jesus-is-lord.com/catectoc.htm

In a way I am glad to see that you are getting your information from these anti-Catholic sites that are full of misinformation and outright lies.

I say that because it means if you are willing to learn the true facts, then you will easily be able to let go of these calumnies. Why would I go to an anti-Catholic source to find out the facts of the Catholic fatih? Does that make any sense? That is like going to Iran to learn the history of the United States. Do you think what I would learn would accurately reflect the facts? You seem like a bright young person. Surely you can see some logical errors in such an approach.

  But what's so wrong about people wanting to seek the truth and practice it properly

God has created humans with the desire to seek the Truth and practice it.

when there are valid theological counterarguments like the links I posted above?

What you have posted above is slanderous drivel, and does NOT contain ANY “valid theological counterarguements”.

Why waste time in a whack church, when you can vote with your feet?

Spoken like a true blue American! But the Church founded by Christ is not a matter of economics or democracy. One does not “vote with their feet” in coming to Christ, but humbly, on the knees, and giving Him all. That means we don’t just walk out when we hear something difficult.

The CC can preach all it wants that children are a blessing, but it is a statistical fact that children are an **economic burden** to women, especially in the Westernized world.

I suppose Jesus was an “economic burden” as well. Perhaps the 12 sons Jacob were as well? It seems to me a great act of faithlessness to place one’s sense of economic security over the commandments of God. But, what you say is true. It is very hard for a person concerned about economics to enter the Kingdom of God. It is easier for one who is poor.

As countries develop, living costs rise, women need careers, and children become more economically burdensome, especially to the women that have to suffer the consequences.

You are a poster child for the culture of death. You could probably start publishing pamplets on this! I can see the glossy covers just reading it.

That is why calling for bans on abortion is unrealistic.

Wow. What can one say in the face of such warped values?

That is why most women want some degree of abortion rights, because they are the **victims**.

I agree that women are victims in the abortion trade. Most of them have no idea how damaged they become by such a practice.

 **This includes Christian women.**  Polls show that when women are taken away from the presence of men, they support abortion overwhelmingly.

If they are taken away from the presence of men, what need to they have for abortions? surely they are not fertilizing one another?

 As far as gay rights are concerned, it is a scientific fact that about 2 to 10% of humans are gay, and homosexual behavior is found in dozens of species.  Gays are everywhere in our history and our current society.  Gays are in every industry.  Heck, my bosses and secretary are gay.  If you are Catholic, you can oppose it personally.  But the Vatican isn't afraid of scientific progress, and **scientifically, homosexuality is normal.**

Normal, I suppose, in the sense that all objective disorders are “normal”. They are part of the fallen condition in which we live. Cleft palates, sickle cell anemia, other genetic and hereditary conditions. About 1% of the population is schizophrenic. That is a “normal” occurance in the population.

 ** But Protestant churches have grown and changed since their alleged "running dry" around 1975.**  Evangelical, nondenominational megachurches, like the one I attend, are growing by leaps and bounds.

Indeed they do, partly because of the “vote with your feet” mentality. They cater to the emotional and psychological needs of people with good praise music and preaching that appeals to the congregation.

They are not “nondenominational” though. they say they are, and the participants believe they are, but when their beliefs are examined, it becomes clear where the denominational influences lie.

Protestants are agreeing that denominational division is hurtful, hence the growth of the nondenominational church. Denominations are putting down their “petty theological squabbles” in favor of more unity. And by the way, they are still influenced by Calvin, Luther, and their “mainline Protestant” historical roots.

You made my point!

 

[guanophore]

Hi, Calilobo,

I have no doubt that you are sincere in your comments. The problem comes in when we identify that sincerity is not enough - one has to be accurate. So, let me identify just where your arguments and statement fail.

…I’ve run out of time - if you give me some cogent feedback on what I have provided I will continue. Sorry, got a call and I have to go.

God bless

Thanks for this. I just was so sickened by the mass of drivel I could not even formulate a reasoned response. I find myself overwhelmed with sadness for Calilobo, and anyone else who reads and believes such things.

Sad to say, the other site is even worse! I can’t even find anything on that site identifying the author/owner of the comments, so it is basically anonymous anti-Catholic spew. How sad for the OP to be drawn to such a site. :crying:

 

[joe370]

CaliLobo - The Papacy and Priesthood
In the Bible there are no popes or priests to rule over the church. Jesus Christ is our High Priest (Heb. 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:5; 8:1; 9:11), and all true Christians make up a spiritual priesthood (I Pet. 2:5). Jesus Christ has sanctified all Christians who believe on Him (Heb. 10:10-11), so all priests today are unnecessary and unscriptural. Furthermore, the practice of calling a priest “father” is forbidden by Jesus Christ in Matthew 23:9. There is only ONE mediator between God and men (I Tim. 2:5).

I won’t respond to the part about the “father” simply because no one, other than catholic bashers looking to draw people away, has a problem with the use of the word father. Check out the early church father, (folks closest to the apostolic age) and see what they have to say, regarding Peter and Jesus’ earthly priesthood. Surely that would be a better starting point than Mr. James L. Melton.

The Catholic church teaches that Peter was the first Pope and the earthly head of the church, but the Bible never says this once. In fact, it was Peter himself who spoke against “being lords over God’s heritage” in I Peter 5:3. Popes do not marry, although Peter did (Mat. 8:14; I Cor. 9:5). The Bible never speaks of Peter being in Rome, and it was Paul, not Peter, who wrote the epistle to the Romans. In the New Testament, Paul wrote 100 chapters with 2,325 verses, while Peter wrote only 8 chapters with 166 verses. In Peter’s first epistle he stated that he was simply “an apostle of Jesus Christ,” not a Pope (I Pet. 1:1). The Roman papacy and priesthood is just a huge fraud to keep members in bondage to a corrupt pagan church.

Sola scriptura is the touchstone of Protestantism. However, the bible says absolutely nothing about the man-made practice of sola scriptura and the early church, (unlike Peter being the earthly head of Jesus’ church) is silent as well. If I am right, then why embrace any form of protestantism? All catholic embrace the following quote: I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

The Worship of Mary. Roman Catholics believe that Mary, the mother of Jesus, remained a virgin after the birth of Jesus and was sinless all of her life. She is worshiped in the Catholic church as the “Mother of God” and the “Queen of Heaven.”

If Jesus is the king of everything then Mary is the queen. :thumbsup:Well, you know that Mary is not worshipped, so I digress.

Purgatory
The Catholic Church teaches that a Christian’s soul must burn in purgatory after death until all of their sins have been purged. To speed up the purging process, money may be paid to a priest so he can pray and have special masses for an earlier release.

How sad. More lies. No doubt you know better than to believe such silliness.

The Mass
By perverting the Christian practice of the Lord’s Supper (Mat. 26:26-28; I Cor. 11:23-27), the Catholic Church has created the Mass, which they believe to be a continual sacrifice of Jesus Christ:
“Christ…commanded that his bloody sacrifice on the Cross should be daily renewed by an unbloody sacrifice of his body and blood in the Mass under the simple elements of bread and wine.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 10, Pg. 13, Article: “Mass, Sacrifice of”)

If the sacrifice of the Mass is an invention of the CC then why did those folks closest to the apostles believe what the CC believes today? Who can be considered more reliable, early church leaders closest to the apostles or Mr. James L. Melton?

Jesus never made such a command. If you’ll check the above references in Matthew 26 and I Corinthians 11, you’ll see for yourself that the Lord’s Supper is a MEMORIAL and a SHOWING of Christ’s death until He comes again. It is not a sacrifice. The Catholic Encyclopedia states the following:

Saint Paul and all the early church leaders disagree with this Mr. James L. Melton:
“For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.” 1 Corinthians 11:29

The Catholic Church teaches that the “Holy Mass” is a LITERAL EATING AND DRINKING OF THE LITERAL FLESH AND BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST. The priest supposedly has the power to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

Read the catechism before entertaining such silliness. The power of the Holy Spirit…Want the truth, go here: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm.

If you want to entertain hate mongering, continue to go to anti-catholic sites. If you want the truth, well you know what to do.

Image Worship

Too ridiculously silly to even comment on…

Salvation by Works

Salvation comes from God alone. Read the book of James for the undeniable truth.

 

[Kal2012]

Thanks for this. I just was so sickened by the mass of drivel I could not even formulate a reasoned response. I find myself overwhelmed with sadness for Calilobo, and anyone else who reads and believes such things.

Sad to say, the other site is even worse! I can’t even find anything on that site identifying the author/owner of the comments, so it is basically anonymous anti-Catholic spew. How sad for the OP to be drawn to such a site. :crying:

I feel the same way. My heart just aches because I remember being like Caliloco and sincerely struggling over where I should be and why.

I fear that CaliLoco gets the impression that people who are pro-life always have been this way when that’s simply not the case. There was a time when I spewed the same rhetoric thinking the whole time that it just/right/true. I was being ‘fair’ and ‘nonjudgmental’ and all the things that our society values above Godliness. I just couldn’t imagine being ‘one of those people’ (an anti-abortion zealot) and sincerely thought that I was a better person because I was so ‘enlightened’ and ‘modern’. I fought God every step of the way when he was revealing the truths about life to me. It forced me to change in ways that put me in direct opposition to our culture and, when you value being liked, it’s hard to be ‘controversial’ and hold opinions contrary to what society says is okay.

Truth is the truth, regardless of whether you want it to be true or not. In fact, truth really has nothing to do with your opinion at all. It just is. You either reject it or you accept it. However, the truth doesn’t change, despite the fact that our society has placed value in moral relativism.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Guanophore,

And, thank you for your excellent insights and well-written posts.

Yes, there is a sickness I also have with regards to this anti-Catholic nonsense. It is not so much for the writer of such ‘drivel’ (good word!) that I am concerned about - it is those who lurk and don’t have a clue on what is factual and what isn’t. For those, like myself, with at least two functioning neurons - reading such poorly written hate-mongering like Meltonhas provided just makes me recall my high school English teachers - who would have very displeased at how logic and proper presentation have been squandered in favor of venom.

No easy answers here - but, anyone who reads material like Melton writes should immediately have a buzzer go off in their head that says, “That needs to be checked out!” The ability to immediately disassociate one’s self from obvious hate-speech is not to be under-rated. If the writer has something against the Catholic Church - and wants to find out what the Catholic Church has to say about the item - fine. Just spell out the problem area and provide some basis for what is going on and wait for the CAF responses… I feel confident that such an approach will have a basic appeal to a sense of honesty and desire to hear both sides of a story. Naturally, writers like Melton have issues they want to push as they vent their spleen. The only thing that keeps writers like him in business is a lack of critical thinking on the part of the readers.

I am confident that anyone willing to actually challenge hate mongering will quickly find that the ‘answers’ these hate-filled people provided are simply biased. Life’s too short to follow a venom filled path… at least that is my opinion.

God bless

Thanks for this. I just was so sickened by the mass of drivel I could not even formulate a reasoned response. I find myself overwhelmed with sadness for Calilobo, and anyone else who reads and believes such things.

Sad to say, the other site is even worse! I can’t even find anything on that site identifying the author/owner of the comments, so it is basically anonymous anti-Catholic spew. How sad for the OP to be drawn to such a site. :crying:

 

[empantarhei]

[Life’s too short to follow a venom filled path… at least that is my opinion.

God bless

[/quote]