"Scholars have found that over 75% of rites and ceremonies practiced by the Roman Catholic church are of pagan origin..."

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chesapeake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NotWorthy said:
OK, evidently, we’re both going to end up agreeing not to be offended by each other. With that being said:I don’t think soldiers dealing with accusations of child abuse, simply because they are soldiers, doesn’t put them in the same category as the clowns that get offended because their cause didn’t get the respect they mistakenly think it deserves.

I’m not here to insult you. I just think If I said something that legitimately insulted someone, and I didn’t intend to cause that effect, then I would be generally sorry.

“Get over it” would not be in my apology.

If I said something that was misconstrued by someone with a chip on their shoulder, “Get over it” would certainly come to mind.

Now, maybe we can get back to the thread. If you have problems with what I typed, feel free to air your opinions by PM.

P.S. I would have preferred to PM you with this message, but evidently you are not accepting PM’s. Again, you might want to turn it on if you wish to continue this discussion.
Click to expand...
I can take constructive criticism and it is accepted. As for the PM I was doing that but I ended up with so much stuff it was hard to handle all of it. I didn’t want the automatic emails and while I was in there I basically turned off everything. But I may consider the PM again. No problem with what you typed. Like I said I can handle anything. I’m a big boy now and have been through the mill a time or two so not much gets to me. I’ll refrain from using the “get over it” bit. It does sound a little brutal, even tho I really don’t mean it that way. What I was trying to say by that is something to the effect like "so that’s water under the bridge, so get on with life. Don’t dwell on what’s happened by go on and keep on keeping on. So your point is well taken.
 
revmarty said:
Catholics are Christians I agree but do I have to be Catholic to be called a true Christian, because according to my understanding of the word of God a Christian is a person who is Christlike not Catholiclike if that were the case we would be called Cathians, hmm.

Bless you

MARTY
Click to expand...
That would include good JW’s and even good Hindus? Nope, one’s doctrine plays a large role. (I think it would exclude you, as I doubt you qualify as “Christlike.”)
revmarty said:
YOU CAN’T BEAT THEM JOIN THEM, AN AS THE GOVERNMENT TAKE AWAY THERE THREAT FROM WITHIN, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ARE SOCIALLY DRIVEN NOT SPIRIT DRIVEN. THEIR PLAN (THE ROMANS) WORKED, PEOPLE BELIEVE MORE IN THE READINGS OF THEIR CHURCH FATHERS? THEN THEY DO THE BIBLE, WOW THOSE ROMANS WERE SMART…
Click to expand...
From this and your prior rants above (copy n paste from other anti-Catholic works?), you clearly do not believe in Christ as head, foundation and builder of His Church. At its genetic level, Protestantism rejects Christ as head of the Church … except perhaps in some ineffective symbolic, figurehead sense.
 
zackonattack said:
I can take constructive criticism and it is accepted. As for the PM I was doing that but I ended up with so much stuff it was hard to handle all of it. I didn’t want the automatic emails and while I was in there I basically turned off everything. But I may consider the PM again. No problem with what you typed. Like I said I can handle anything. I’m a big boy now and have been through the mill a time or two so not much gets to me. I’ll refrain from using the “get over it” bit. It does sound a little brutal, even tho I really don’t mean it that way. What I was trying to say by that is something to the effect like "so that’s water under the bridge, so get on with life. Don’t dwell on what’s happened by go on and keep on keeping on. So your point is well taken.
Click to expand...
Hey, Zack?

God Bless You, my brother!🙂

Let’s just both agree to “Get over it”!!! 😉
 
Vigis said:
Let me say this, I ask you to back up your statement/arguement or what ever you want to call it, but you did not. All that does is make it seem hollow.

Also, you did make an arguement. You made a statement that directly contradicted another person’s statement. That is an arguement.

I do want to know the truth, but that does not give you any excuse to abondon your responsibility to your arguement without a good reason.

It seems that you have failed to read the article to which someone posted a link to in post #25. I even told what post it was on. If you actually go and read it then you would see a very convincing arguement for December 25th.

I will tell you why. Even though I think the date to be trivial I prefer to celebrate it on the date that I was raised to celebrate it on. Though I may believe that the date is trivial I still maintain that Christ was born somewhere around December 25th. Let me give you an example of my reasoning. I think Oreos are the most delicious cookies that you can buy at the store even though that may be trivial I will stand by that statement and belief.

Hungary does void your arguement. If the Crusaders could do such a thrashing on the Moslems so quickly then they could have done the same much quicker on them. Their may be certain events that were conversion by the sword by the Catholic Church, but it not mass conversion to which you imply. \

One more thing. I asked for proof where changing Christ’s birhtday goes against his teachings. So far you have failed to back that up. Could you please back that up?

I have an open mind for you Elric. I will only come to accept your statement as truth only if you can back it up, and it disproves mine.

God speed.

Vigis
Click to expand...
Sigh. Ok try this link for starters, its an interesting read:

versebyverse.org/doctrine/birthofchrist.html

Heres another couple:

didyouknow.cd/xmas/Jesus.htm


http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/CHRDAT.TXT

They dont agree with what I stated, but they are interesting reading anyway.

Now the bit about changing the date going against his teachings, I did answer that. But that was not how you phrased the question.

You said: “point out to me where the date of December 25th as a celebration of Christ’s birth goes against Christ’s teachings.”

There is a significant difference between that and “changing the date”, especally since you dont believe that the date was changed. But even with the limited scope, I still managed to answer.
 
There’s a website that spouts this nonsense:

cuttingedge.org/articles/RC125.htm

Basically, it can be reduced to a syllogism:

Pagans use pine cones in their art.
Catholics use pine cones in their art.
Therefore, Catholics are pagans.

As if God is not the God of all creation!

You could just as easily say:

Pagans use the sky in their art.
Catholics use the sky in their art.
Therefore, Catholics are pagans.

I hope the fallacy in logic is obvious to everyone.
 
Kay_Cee said:
There’s a website that spouts this nonsense:

cuttingedge.org/articles/RC125.htm

Basically, it can be reduced to a syllogism:

Pagans use pine cones in their art.
Catholics use pine cones in their art.
Therefore, Catholics are pagans.

As if God is not the God of all creation!

You could just as easily say:

Pagans use the sky in their art.
Catholics use the sky in their art.
Therefore, Catholics are pagans.

I hope the fallacy in logic is obvious to everyone.
Click to expand...
Yeah that is just needless catholic bashing for the sake of it. All that talk of satan and pine cones is utter nonsense.

You can really see it for what it is and it doesnt have much bearing on what is being discussed really.
 
Elric said:
Yeah that is just needless catholic bashing for the sake of it. All that talk of satan and pine cones is utter nonsense.

You can really see it for what it is and it doesnt have much bearing on what is being discussed really.
Click to expand...
You missed the key word: syllogism.

What you, and others, are arguing with, Elric, is what is called a syllogistic fallacy.
 
Lots of stuff in this entire world comes from Pagan, does it mean people are pagans…

The Statue of Liberty is a Pagan goddess given to American Christians as a gift for freedom. The goddes of Libertas.

Nike is also a pagan goddess, the goddess of atheleticism, speed, and agility. Are people who wear Nike product Pagans?

Mariage rings, and other things, the list goes on.

In Christ!
 
What exactly do people really think that is pagan in our church??

Its not the statues, because they are of saints, not mythological Gods…

The fact that the church is stationed in Rome dosen’t proove anything either. Its simply where Peter and Paul finally settled…

Has there been any pagan religions that consecrates bread and believes it to be the actual body and blood of their main benefactor??

Claiming the ressurection is pagan provides a problem. Since Jesus Christ is the only man that came back from the dead who actually had witnesses…

The only time when something is truely pagan is when polytheism comes into play, or things like wicca and the mytholgical Gods. Since Catholicism is a monotheistic religion it is not pagan…

Protestants again with their zeal of hatred for the church… They think anything that dosen’t follow their heretic beliefs are pagan…
 
SPH1 said:
That would include good JW’s and even good Hindus? Nope, one’s doctrine plays a large role. (I think it would exclude you, as I doubt you qualify as “Christlike.”)

From this and your prior rants above (copy n paste from other anti-Catholic works?), you clearly do not believe in Christ as head, foundation and builder of His Church. At its genetic level, Protestantism rejects Christ as head of the Church … except perhaps in some ineffective symbolic, figurehead sense.
Click to expand...
Protestants did get it right when they called themselves LUTHERans… its bout the only thing they did get right…👍
 
Elric said:
Sigh. Ok try this link for starters, its an interesting read:

versebyverse.org/doctrine/birthofchrist.html

Heres another couple:

didyouknow.cd/xmas/Jesus.htm


http://www.new-life.net/chrtms10.htm

ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/CHRDAT.TXT

They dont agree with what I stated, but they are interesting reading anyway.

Now the bit about changing the date going against his teachings, I did answer that. But that was not how you phrased the question.

You said: “point out to me where the date of December 25th as a celebration of Christ’s birth goes against Christ’s teachings.”

There is a significant difference between that and “changing the date”, especally since you dont believe that the date was changed. But even with the limited scope, I still managed to answer.
Click to expand...
Very interesting articles. Thank you for them.

No, you never answered any question relating to where Christ teaches against changing the date.

Also, I never said that the date of Chris’s birth was not changed. I just believe that December 25th. is quite accurate. Please do not say that I believe one thing when I have never said that I have believed it.

Quit beating around the bush. Either say you are wrong or back up everything that you have said. You have backed up some, but you still continue to build up strawmen. I do not appreciate that, and I find it quite rude.

God speed.

Vigis
 
KofC660 said:
You missed the key word: syllogism.

What you, and others, are arguing with, Elric, is what is called a syllogistic fallacy.
Click to expand...
Not really, Im not saying that celebrating Christs birth is paganism, because I dont think that it is. Im not even saying that celebrating it on the wrong date is paganism.
 
auhsoj88 said:
Lots of stuff in this entire world comes from Pagan, does it mean people are pagans…

The Statue of Liberty is a Pagan goddess given to American Christians as a gift for freedom. The goddes of Libertas.

Nike is also a pagan goddess, the goddess of atheleticism, speed, and agility. Are people who wear Nike product Pagans?

Mariage rings, and other things, the list goes on.

In Christ!
Click to expand...
Thats what I had said in an earlier post… since Pagans might even be pre-old testament pretty much anything can be derived from them… but really entruely what makes a person pagan is what they worship(polythiem-more than one God)…Without the Gods like Zeus, Molech, Jupiter, Iris, etc it really isn’t truely pagan then…When the bible talks about idols it talks about the statues of the Mythological Gods and representative supertisions related to them… It has nothing to do with a picture of Mary, or the Crucifix, because they are in no way related to paganism…If what they said is really true then everything we see would be an idol…
 
Renton405 said:
Thats what I had said in an earlier post… since Pagans might even be pre-old testament pretty much anything can be derived from them… but really entruely what makes a person pagan is what they worship(polythiem-more than one God)…Without the Gods like Zeus, Molech, Jupiter, Iris, etc it really isn’t truely pagan then…When the bible talks about idols it talks about the statues of the Mythological Gods and representative supertisions related to them… It has nothing to do with a picture of Mary, or the Crucifix, because they are in no way related to paganism…If what they said is really true then everything we see would be an idol…
Click to expand...
When the bible mentions worshipping false idols, it means dont worship anything other than God. It has EVERYTHING to do with a picture of Mary or a crucifix in that you are not meant to worship them because they are not God. The Bible certainly doesnt make any seperation of specific idols or it depends where their roots lie, it just says dont worship them.

It goes hand in hand with “pray to no other except God”, but this very little to do with the discussion about pagan origins.
 
Elric, do you :confused: :confused: really believe that people can actually worship someone or something by accident???
Because that makes no sense at all. That would mean that we would all of us have to go around, tippy-toeing, for fear of worshipping our children, or our parents, or our pets???
Worship is an act of the will. No one can worship, unless they intend to do so.
Unless you claim to be able to read the minds & hearts of other people, you need to stop tossing out accusations that anyone is worshipping Mary, or anyone else!
 
Zooey said:
Elric, do you :confused: :confused: really believe that people can actually worship someone or something by accident???
Because that makes no sense at all. That would mean that we would all of us have to go around, tippy-toeing, for fear of worshipping our children, or our parents, or our pets???
Worship is an act of the will. No one can worship, unless they intend to do so.
Unless you claim to be able to read the minds & hearts of other people, you need to stop tossing out accusations that anyone is worshipping Mary, or anyone else!
Click to expand...
Hello Zooey,

Mate you might want to re read what I wrote because your reply quite frankly doesnt have anything to do with what was written.

There wasnt any accusations made in the post at all (unless you want to edit what was written to mean something else), there wasnt any anti-catholic sentiment involved either and I most certainly did not mention anything about involuntary worship (where the heck did that come from?)

What was written was a clarification of “Do not worship false idols” and that there were no clauses of exemption written in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top