The Catholic church did not give us the Bible

[Tomster]

NotTooSmart;5648189:

Wow.

I mean wow.

I thought as a Christian I had the Holy Spirit of God.

All I ask is for some consistency in what you take credit for as opposed to what you pass the buck on to others.

So instead, I have demons.

When you can’t use reason, you can always fall back on personal attacks.

Oh I am sorry. I forgot this was the ONE TRUE CHURCH I am dealing with here.

This is great stuff.

You still haven’t addressed my questions.

 

[NotTooSmart]

You still haven’t addressed my questions.

I’m not dealing at all on whether priests that do this go to heaven or hell. I’m not God and it is not a part of my job description to do eternal life judgements.

The issue in this case is taking responsibility and ownership of actions performed on earth, whether good or bad.

 

[Tomster]

Tomster;5652612:

I’m not dealing at all on whether priests that do this go to heaven or hell. I’m not God and it is not a part of my job description to do eternal life judgements.

The issue in this case is taking responsibility and ownership of actions performed on earth, whether good or bad.

Precisely.

Why would it, then, be necessary to take responsibilty and ownership of actions performed on earth, whether good or bad, if one is guaranteed security of salvation by having faith alone in Jesus Christ?

I do believe that you are trying to hold Catholics to a different Gospel than the one you adhere to, unless you do not subscribe to the heresy of Faith Alone.

 

[Tomster]

I’m not dealing at all on whether priests that do this go to heaven or hell. I’m not God and it is not a part of my job description to do eternal life judgements.

The issue in this case is taking responsibility and ownership of actions performed on earth, whether good or bad.

As far as taking responsibility and ownership of actions performed on earth, and a good one I might add, the Catholic Church does take responsibilty for determining which books should and should not be included in both the Old Testament and New Testament. The Catholic Church settled this matter centuries ago.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Precisely.

Why would it, then, be necessary to take responsibilty and ownership of actions performed on earth, whether good or bad, if one is guaranteed security of salvation by having faith alone in Jesus Christ?

I do believe that you are trying to hold Catholics to a different Gospel than the one you adhere to, unless you do not subscribe to the heresy of Faith Alone.

google John Canning Sebring Florida for grins and giggles.

There you will find an account of a Pentecostal pastor (that I have shaken hands with btw) in prison for life for double murder.

I don’t know and I don’t care if I will see this guy in eternity. The state of Florida didn’t either. The state of Florida was only concerned on whether this guy did the crimes he was charged with and what the appropriate penalty is. The state of Florida leaves his eternal judgement to God.

The state of Florida is correct in determining what the scope of its responsibility is concerning this man.

 

[Tomster]

google John Canning Sebring Florida for grins and giggles.

There you will find an account of a Pentecostal pastor (that I have shaken hands with btw) in prison for life for double murder.

I don’t know and I don’t care if I will see this guy in eternity. The state of Florida didn’t either. The state of Florida was only concerned on whether this guy did the crimes he was charged with and what the appropriate penalty is. The state of Florida leaves his eternal judgement to God.

The state of Florida is correct in determining what the scope of its responsibility is concerning this man.

“I don’t know and I don’t care if I will see this guy in eternity.” - NotTooSmart

Well, that pretty much says it all about you. Is this what they teach you in your Pentecostal - Charismatic - Christian Assembly?

WOW ! ! !

 

[Tomster]

NotTooSmart;5652667:

Precisely.

Why would it, then, be necessary to take responsibilty and ownership of actions performed on earth, whether good or bad, if one is guaranteed security of salvation by having faith alone in Jesus Christ?

I do believe that you are trying to hold Catholics to a different Gospel than the one you adhere to, unless you do not subscribe to the heresy of Faith Alone.

You still have not addressed the questions. Why is that?

 

[lucky_boi]

First of all, thank you for responding without all of the complements that I have received from other posters. Although the complements really are in reality priceless.

I had to cut your post due to space.

You lay out two alternatives:
But what we have here is a third option: individual people’s evil behaviour in the process of representing the said coalition.

Under this third option we have two sub-conditions

• with the knowledge and approval of the coalition
• without the knowledge and approval of the coalition

And actually these are two poles of a scale. You might have the coalition explicitely authorizing such behavior, implicitely authorizing such behavior, turning a blind eye to such behavior, covering up such behavior when it occurs, etc.

One other thing. We will assume that said coalition in essence is good coalition and has laws against such behavior.

Now if you are a victim of this evil behavior by one individual in the process of representing the said coalition, it does not matter if this individual was a high-level leader, a low-level peon, with the approval of the coalition or without the approval of the coalition. Just because your perpetrator did it in the name of the coalition is enough for you as a victim to ascribe guilt to said coalition.

Our legal system operates under these rules. If I am a victim of wrongful behavior by one member of the coalition acting on behalf of the coalition, I can suit the coalition for damages. And get awarded big bucks. And that is happening with the assorted suits victims of the priest sex abuse scandals are bringing against the Catholic Church (not to mention the suits against McDonalds for its operatives spilling coffee).

To cite another example, the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Now as far as we know this was done solely by low-level operatives in the US Army. Now there may or may not be some complicitness further up the food chain, but I don’t know.

But, this torture was done by representatives of the United States in the armed forces acting on behalf of the United States. So in this context, it is perfectly legitimate to say that the United States tortured Iraqi prisoners at Abu Grhaib.

Hi there,

I’ve already previously mentioned that it appears that your OP suffers from the fallacy of equivocation, specifically in relation to the definition of ‘church’. Like I said, your statements may be factual, but lacking in truth.

Do you see where the fallacy lies? Simply put, you are ascribing the nature of specific small subsets to the whole umbrella. I question the logic of this. Members of the faithful came together (even if representively) as a whole to discuss biblical cannon - we call this unity ‘the church’; unless you specifically point out where in the magisterium child molestation is encouraged, individual actions by priests do not constitute ‘the church’ directly causing this scandal.

Yes, the church is responsible for the scandals, and many believe that although nothing can come close to compensating the victims, the church is doing its best to help (though you might have a different view on this).

That aside, you are now applying a different argument (from a legal viewpoint). You might be familiar with the concept of representation in the eyes of the law, and yes because bad priests represent the church in the eyes of the law, the church has to make restitution to victims. However, this is not a legal forum. The law views representation from a specific viewpoint (which is difficult to apply to the episode of compilation of the bible); one which if I may point out, is quite different when viewing the same event through a religious viewpoint.

A key issue is that notably, members of a church are self professed (including tax collectors, harlots, basically sinners… as long as they profess faith); whereas you may not be circumscribed by the law by choice.

Also, the Catholic church professes to be guided by the Holy Spirit. This means that it may defend a moral stand at odds with the law, and yet be morally right (eg abortion). Arguing from a legal perspective does not a persuasive argument make. Legally, being inspired by the Holy Spirit does not mean anything.

I hope that I have given you something to think about. I can’t be sure, but I notice that there seems to be a biased slant in your OP (i didn’t read the next 6 or 7 pages after but…). Does it matter who claims credit for what?I urge you not to look at the church from the exacting eyes of the law, a man made construct. (Let him without sin cast the first stone.) Why not look at it another way… the church is not purposefully proud that she compiled the bible; rather, it just needed to be done. Jesus mentioned that to one that is given more talents, much more is expected… the good work was just starting with the compilation of the bible, and the church has much more good to do in this world.

 

[kalel76]

…unless you also want to say that the Catholic church gave us the inquisition and the priest sex abuse scandals.

The point being that you can not take credit for the positive while at the same time pass the buck on the negative. A little consistency on this please.

We can’t deny the negatives, but these negatives are not exclusively Catholic. Protestant sects were known very well for their witch hunts (remember Salem?) and sex scandals are abundant in Protestant circles as well. The reason you don’t hear about the protestant sex scandals as much is because the Catholic church is a megolithic institution that is more centralized It’s easy for the media to look for scandals in the Catholic church. It’s a lot harder for the media to focus on institutions that are vastly spread out and divided as the protestants are.

There are more positives to the Catholic church than just the bible though. Hospitals, Universities, Art, Science, Missionaries, etc. etc.

 

[Tomster]

Tomster;5652716:

You still have not addressed the questions. Why is that?

Still waiting . . . .

 

[NotTooSmart]

“I don’t know and I don’t care if I will see this guy in eternity.” - NotTooSmart

Well, that pretty much says it all about you. Is this what they teach you in your Pentecostal - Charismatic - Christian Assembly?

WOW ! ! !

You know what I meant. That for the sake of this discussion his eternal status is not relevant.

 

[NotTooSmart]

You still have not addressed the questions. Why is that?

And I am not going to because it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Hi there,

I’ve already previously mentioned that it appears that your OP suffers from the fallacy of equivocation, specifically in relation to the definition of ‘church’. Like I said, your statements may be factual, but lacking in truth.

Do you see where the fallacy lies? Simply put, you are ascribing the nature of specific small subsets to the whole umbrella. I question the logic of this. Members of the faithful came together (even if representively) as a whole to discuss biblical cannon - we call this unity ‘the church’; unless you specifically point out where in the magisterium child molestation is encouraged, individual actions by priests do not constitute ‘the church’ directly causing this scandal.

Yes, the church is responsible for the scandals, and many believe that although nothing can come close to compensating the victims, the church is doing its best to help (though you might have a different view on this).

That aside, you are now applying a different argument (from a legal viewpoint). You might be familiar with the concept of representation in the eyes of the law, and yes because bad priests represent the church in the eyes of the law, the church has to make restitution to victims. However, this is not a legal forum. The law views representation from a specific viewpoint (which is difficult to apply to the episode of compilation of the bible); one which if I may point out, is quite different when viewing the same event through a religious viewpoint.

A key issue is that notably, members of a church are self professed (including tax collectors, harlots, basically sinners… as long as they profess faith); whereas you may not be circumscribed by the law by choice.

Also, the Catholic church professes to be guided by the Holy Spirit. This means that it may defend a moral stand at odds with the law, and yet be morally right (eg abortion). Arguing from a legal perspective does not a persuasive argument make. Legally, being inspired by the Holy Spirit does not mean anything.

I hope that I have given you something to think about. I can’t be sure, but I notice that there seems to be a biased slant in your OP (i didn’t read the next 6 or 7 pages after but…). Does it matter who claims credit for what?I urge you not to look at the church from the exacting eyes of the law, a man made construct. (Let him without sin cast the first stone.) Why not look at it another way… the church is not purposefully proud that she compiled the bible; rather, it just needed to be done. Jesus mentioned that to one that is given more talents, much more is expected… the good work was just starting with the compilation of the bible, and the church has much more good to do in this world.

I will try to get to this today, butI am very busy.

 

[Bill_Pick]

I must be really a nitwit, because I totally do not understand what bearing my belief on “faith alone” has on this.

And I am not sure whether I can explain my beliefs in one sentence anyway.

Well your name is NotToo Smart and you think you are a hitwit and no one is argee with you.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Well your name is NotToo Smart and you think you are a hitwit and no one is argee with you.

Thank you Bill. You have just added to my collection:

What a piece of work. You sure did choose your username well.

You make zero sense and you know it,

yet you just want to troll and (successfully) get a rise out of people for who knows what reason?

I don’t think you even care about those that were abused:

Yes, people like yourself are the gates of HELL who try to put down the Catholic Church and have been doing so for centuries and yet, “IT” still stands and yes Jesus Christ is correct WHEN HE SPEAKS ABOUT YOU, yes YOU, that YOU will not prevail over it!

Asking question as this I,l bet you got good mark in History and it looks like you not much at reading a new paper or are you just slow.

God help this person and keep him/her in your prays, The good abut this post is the person handle and boy it is right on the money NotTooSmart,say bye

Well your name is NotToo Smart and you think you are a hitwit and no one is argee with you.

'll keep you in my prayers, you have a lot of demons.

 

[Tomster]

And I am not going to because it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

Oh, but it does.

 

[Bill_Pick]

…unless you also want to say that the Catholic church gave us the inquisition and the priest sex abuse scandals.

The point being that you can not take credit for the positive while at the same time pass the buck on the negative. A little consistency on this please.

Like the name said NotTooSmart this person got this question fron some Penteecostal site and may be the dumbist question I have ever seen on this board and makes no sense at all. Non of the sexual abuse Priseit are not living at the time of the inquistion and the people from the sex Abuse are not living …So the right person has ask the right question NOT TOO SMART

 

[josie_L]

This is an easy one, the Catholic Church did give us the Bible. Case closed.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Hi there,

I’ve already previously mentioned that it appears that your OP suffers from the fallacy of equivocation, specifically in relation to the definition of ‘church’. Like I said, your statements may be factual, but lacking in truth.

Do you see where the fallacy lies? Simply put, you are ascribing the nature of specific small subsets to the whole umbrella. I question the logic of this. Members of the faithful came together (even if representively) as a whole to discuss biblical cannon - we call this unity ‘the church’; unless you specifically point out where in the magisterium child molestation is encouraged, individual actions by priests do not constitute ‘the church’ directly causing this scandal.

But this is not just individual actions by priests. This is individual actions by priests (and cardinals) done while representing the church. It is one thing for a priest after hours to pick up a hooker. It is another thing for a priest or a cardinal (in covering this up) doing these things as officers of the church representing the church.

Yes, the church is responsible for the scandals, and many believe that although nothing can come close to compensating the victims, the church is doing its best to help (though you might have a different view on this).

And that is all that I really wanted to hear. Seriously.

Instead I heard on your Sola Scriptura thread “the church gave us the Bible” while on the other threads ‘the church did not do the inquisition’. While both cases involved officers of the church working on behalf of the church. That made and continues to make no sense to me.

That aside, you are now applying a different argument (from a legal viewpoint). You might be familiar with the concept of representation in the eyes of the law, and yes because bad priests represent the church in the eyes of the law, the church has to make restitution to victims. However, this is not a legal forum. The law views representation from a specific viewpoint (which is difficult to apply to the episode of compilation of the bible); one which if I may point out, is quite different when viewing the same event through a religious viewpoint.

A key issue is that notably, members of a church are self professed (including tax collectors, harlots, basically sinners… as long as they profess faith); whereas you may not be circumscribed by the law by choice.

Also, the Catholic church professes to be guided by the Holy Spirit. This means that it may defend a moral stand at odds with the law, and yet be morally right (eg abortion). Arguing from a legal perspective does not a persuasive argument make. Legally, being inspired by the Holy Spirit does not mean anything.

The post that I was responding to had a natural instance as an analogy. But the problem with that example was that the officers of the organization were not acting in a role of representing the organization. So I came up with a counteranalogy.

As with all analogies, they eventually break down. Even the comparison of the church giving us the Bible versus the church giving us the priest sex abuse scandals and the inquisition breaks down at some point. However the similarities between the two are such that I was getting a big time disconnect between these two streams.

I hope that I have given you something to think about. I can’t be sure, but I notice that there seems to be a biased slant in your OP (i didn’t read the next 6 or 7 pages after but…). Does it matter who claims credit for what?I urge you not to look at the church from the exacting eyes of the law, a man made construct. (Let him without sin cast the first stone.) Why not look at it another way… the church is not purposefully proud that she compiled the bible; rather, it just needed to be done. Jesus mentioned that to one that is given more talents, much more is expected… the good work was just starting with the compilation of the bible, and the church has much more good to do in this world.

Perhaps the church is not purposefully proud that she compiled the Bible.

But there are several posters here who are purposefully proud that she compiled the Bible and then rub it into the defective and heretical Sola Scriptura protestants noses.

One caveat. I still have issues with the early apostolic church being Catholic to the exclusion of everybody else. That time period is common history to all of us. But for now that is a separate issue.

 

[Hisalone]

The two councils where the Scriptural Canon was compiled were official Church Councils, hence the statement, “The Catholic Church gave us the Bible.” Men certainly did the physical work of compiling the list (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit), but it was “the Church” through the Council that approved of the lists and distributed it to churches all over the world.

The Catholic OT cannon was settled at Trent to say otherwise is fallacy.