A
arieh0310
Guest
What is belief? Is it mere intellectual assent? James 2:19 states that even demons have that type of belief.
- Status
B
Brendan
Guest
The Church accepts the concept of a just war because God Himself does.
God Himself has commanded war (agaist the Cannaites and the Bashan); if all war is unjust, God has commited an injustice, correct?
Is that the doctrine you follow? That it is possible for God to command injustice?
In addition, there is Ecc 3
Is God somehow confused?
G
Giver
Guest
No God isn’t confused, just most people. Jesus is God and He came to create a new covenant with His people, and in the new covenant He gave us many new commands. One of these new commands is:
(Matthew 5:38-39) “You have learnt how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well;”
D
Della
Guest
Jesus wasn’t discussing warfare in this verse, but being insulted–a big difference than cannot be ignored in an attempt to “prove” Jesus was some kind of pacifist–if that is what you are saying here. Let’s not read into Jesus’ saying what isn’t there or second guess the Church he established. It doesn’t promote the truth, but rather only muddies the waters.
B
Brendan
Guest
Giver,
So did God commit an injustice when He commanded the Israelites to make war on the Bashan?
For, if as you say, all war is unjust, then God commanded an unjust act, correct?
Or, if you hold that God cannot be, or command, an unjust act, then one must hold that war can be a just act under particular circumstances, then by definition, there IS such a thing a just war.
(which, I might add, is the position of the Catholic Church
)So which one of those do you hold to?
#1 - That ALL war is unjust and therefore God can command injustice
or
#2 - The that war may, under specific circumstances, serve the cause of Justice
M
MariaG
Guest
The aswer and discussion here
To be deep in the Bible: All have sinned
God Bless,
Maria
C
CindyGia
Guest
Well then you could then say that Jesus, being born of Mary, could also be a sinner. Uh-uh!
You wouldn’t put your finest jewelry in a dirty old coffee can would you? Would you hide your most valuable treasure in something filthy? No! Of course not!
Mary was specifically created by God, pure as crystal - to carry His only begotten divine Son. Mary could not have been born with sin. It is impossible. Simple common sense.
I’m sure your next argument will be:
When Mary said the Magnificat, she said "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior - meaning that She (Mary) needed a savior.
A great analogy to prove she is without sin even though She said those words is this:
a person is walking along and not seeing a huge pit, falls into it. He yells for help for someone to come get him out of the pit and of course, someone comes to the rescue. After he is pulled out of the pit he says - “thank you for saving me.”
The other way this could happen is like this:
A person is walking along on a road and just seconds before she takes that last step before plummeting into the pit, a person reaches out and grabs her from falling into the pit - to which she thankfully replies - “thank you for saving me from falling into that pit”
Do you understand?
:yup:
S
Superstar905
Guest
I’m sorry, but I think that’s riduculous. The people in my life who are from a Bible Church, are morally outstanding people. I am Catholic, and like everyone, we are all prone to sin, especially sexual sin’s given the secular influence in society. SUre, you find people in every faith who maybe make a bad name for others.
People leave the faith, because they believe they have found truth elsewhere, but this usually stems from being led using certain “proof texts” that distort the meaning of the whole of scripture. In essence, they become their own pope.
B
Brendan
Guest
A77
Let’s look at 1 Gal
Paul says he saw “James, the Brother of the Lord”
Well there were only 2 Apostles named ‘James’, James the son of Alpheus and James the son of Zebedee.
Now James the Son of Zebedee was killed prior in Acts 12, so the only Apostle named ‘James’ was the son of Alpheus.
So either one must hold that Mary commited Adultery with Alpheus, or that the term ‘brother’ describes a close relationship outside of direct fraternity.
Have you also ever wondered why this concept of Mary having other children only happened in 19th century. All Christian denomniations prior to that generally preached, either Perpetual Virginity or that the term ‘brother’ was to be taken in the general sense.
And even then, this doctrine has only taken hold in the English speaking world.
Is there some new understanding of the Bible that was unapparent to theologians prior to the 19th Century, and then only in English speaking theologians?
Or could this development in doctrine have something to do with the decline of the extended family that happened in the Industrial Revolution, our modern concept that it’s pretty much unheard of for people to actually forego the sexual act and the vagrancies of the English word ‘brother’ over how other languages use that term?
Thoughts?
G
Giver
Guest
(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said, you must love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”
(Matthew 5:44) “But I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;”
(Romans 12:18-21) “Do all you can to live at peace with everyone. Never try to get revenge; leave that, my friends, to God’s anger. As scripture says: ‘vengeance is mine – I will pay them back, the Lord promises.”
Now you don’t have to be too bright to see that Jesus was telling us not to harm people, but to love everyone. Remember His will be done on earth as well as in heaven. So if someone wants what I have and God doesn’t stop him or her from taking it, my life or anyone’s property or life, then we have no right to disobey God, by trying to stop him or her. Offer the evil man no resistance.
Giver
L
LatinCat
Guest
“To be steaped in history is to cease to be a protestant” -John Henry Newman ( Anglican convert to Catholicism).
This is an interesting thread cause the reason I am Catholic is because of the bible. The Bible Teaches, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the authority of the Pope, the ability of the priest to absolve sins in the name of Christ, the necessity of baptism for salvation and that a Christian is born again in baptism, the need for good works, the idea or purgatory, necessity of honoring the Blessed Virgin, the intercessory prayers of the saints, the idea of sanctifying grace, the need for both scripture and tradition. To read the bible and to believe its words it to become Catholic.
This is an interesting thread cause the reason I am Catholic is because of the bible. The Bible Teaches, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the authority of the Pope, the ability of the priest to absolve sins in the name of Christ, the necessity of baptism for salvation and that a Christian is born again in baptism, the need for good works, the idea or purgatory, necessity of honoring the Blessed Virgin, the intercessory prayers of the saints, the idea of sanctifying grace, the need for both scripture and tradition. To read the bible and to believe its words it to become Catholic.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Giver said:
Robert, how many times are you going to go through this routine. I’ve seen you take this approach several times in the past. You know all the tired old approaches, and you know all the tired old rebuttals.
We must love the sinner and hate the sin. And sometimes it takes warfare to prevent a greater evil. Do you remember Hitler? Should we have loved him while he slaughtered all of Europe?
Notworthy
A
Anglican77
Guest
Thanks for your reply Brendan. I agree that something must be lost in translation. One of the more puzzling scripture passages was the first one I posted from Matthew 27:56. Which Mary is Matthew speaking of when he says,
I didn’t know that this was something that was recently disputed, but that is interesting to note.
R
Reformed_Rob
Guest
As opposed to an “unjust war?” So what’s the problem with that? I don’t understand. It’s not as though Jesus was giving political advice.
Actually, He did give what could be considered good military advice in the form of a parable. Let’s see, yes, Luke 14:31. Not that the main intention is to give good military advice, but Jesus certainly doesn’t condemn war in general. That would be quiet contrary to earlier dealings of God, since He had commanded war in the past, and has “conquered enemies” all throughout history, and will continue to do so, until the last enemy, death, is conquered.
An important distinction to be made is to distinguish between the private individual’s role in society, and the role that civil government plays in society. Do nations “turn the other cheek” when they are bombed, poisoned, invaded, etc? Uh, no. At least Christian nations don’t. They pray for God to fight for them on the battlefield, and then they go fight to kill the enemy. To do otherwise would be to offer innocent lives to the mercy of the enemy. In other words, to indirectly kill your own people.
However, does every individual pull out their 9mm and injure or kill everyone that does something worthy of some physical vengeance? No, at least Christian individuals don’t behave that way.
M
mercygate
Guest
You seem to have wandered away from my original point: I was referring to ex-Catholics. I stand by my observation, which has been corroborated many times.I cannot argue with your experience.
I have seen both sides in my several evangelical affiliations. But mostly the conservative side.
Mel
Y
YADA
Guest
Giver,
You take "turn the other cheek and pacifism too far. Would you not rise up in defense of your loved ones should someone break into your home?
Jesus said:
“Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13
Even a Christian is not to stand by and allow others to be murdered or harmed by those who do evil. Nor must we “turn our cheek” and not defend ourself from harm. The early church fathers had to address this when the Church was under persecution. It was not the Christian duty to allow any and all to be martyred or sacrificed. We should stand true in faith. However, we can offer a defense from bodily harm and death, even as we fear not those who can take away this life. We fear not because we live in Christ and the hope of rising again to new life.
PAX
You take "turn the other cheek and pacifism too far. Would you not rise up in defense of your loved ones should someone break into your home?
Jesus said:
“Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13
Even a Christian is not to stand by and allow others to be murdered or harmed by those who do evil. Nor must we “turn our cheek” and not defend ourself from harm. The early church fathers had to address this when the Church was under persecution. It was not the Christian duty to allow any and all to be martyred or sacrificed. We should stand true in faith. However, we can offer a defense from bodily harm and death, even as we fear not those who can take away this life. We fear not because we live in Christ and the hope of rising again to new life.
PAX
M
maesoph
Guest
I was listening to a tape set by Scott Hahn just today who made the claim that the terms Bible Christian and Roman Catholic are synonomous…
C
cestusdei
Guest
I was once a Protestant minister. I got very deep into scripture. Now I am a Catholic priest. Makes sense since the Church gave us the Bible.
C
cheddarsox
Guest
It didn’t, it just led me out of the Catholic church. Pantheism came later.
cheddar
- Status