What are some of the main reasons that people are attracted to the Protestant faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rjg99a
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
I’ve learned never to presume folks here know certain things about Catholicism.
Click to expand...
PRmerger–In my opinion, your parenthetical explanations to Sy Noe are coming across as deliberately patronizing.
 
PRmerger said:
Perhaps it will make you feel better to know that most Catholics (esp. ex-Catholics) can’t even identify what the Immaculate Conception is.

It’s irrelevant, really, how many are–if they’re in the Parish Office, or even if they are in positions of catechizing our children. At least as it applies to our discussion.

You have been proven wrong in your dismissal of my premise that Catholics leave the Church when they have no idea what their Church teaches.

Clearly, you were poorly catechized. HH was poorly catechized.

Irrelevant how many others were, at least as it applies to our discussion.

Unless you want to prove me wrong? Can you articulate in 1 paragraph some apologia for the Church’s teaching on birth control without recourse to Fr. Google?
Click to expand...
I’ve lost my appetite but I feel just fine thanks.
 
PRmerger said:
Could you show me the adultery exception in Matthew 5, Mark, Luke and 1 Corinthians?
Click to expand...
Sure, I can, but… how adventurous are you? To see it I’ll have to take you by horseback to the very southernmost beach of the sounthernmost island of Tierra del Fuego, where, on a night with a brilliant display of the Aurora Australis, we’ll be able to hold the pages of our Bibles up to the solar wind and see the famed Adultery Exception. But it only works if you have a Bible written on genuine vellum and with gilt-edged leaves.

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.
 
PRmerger said:
I can only assume that this is because you cannot offer a coherent synopsis of the Catholic Church’s teachings.

QED.
Click to expand...
So Sy’s own explanation of why he’s lost his appetite means nothing, then.

…the lost art of listening…
 
AbideWithMe said:
Sure, I can, but… how adventurous are you? To see it I’ll have to take you by horseback to the very southernmost beach of the sounthernmost island of Tierra del Fuego, where, on a night with a brilliant display of the Aurora Australis, we’ll be able to hold the pages of our Bibles up to the solar wind and see the famed Adultery Exception. But it only works if you have a Bible written on genuine vellum and with gilt-edged leaves.

Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.
Click to expand...
I will tell you the answer, AWM.

There are no adultery exceptions in any of the verses you offered, save for that one verse in Matthew 19.

You have been duped into believing that there is an adultery exception in all those verses.

Except that when you actually read them, they’re not there.

Kind of like the verse that some Protestant folks like to quote regarding proving that purgatory doesn’t exist, “To be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord.”

Except that this verse is not found in a single page of the Bible.

It’s ironic to have people using a man-made tradition–quoting the Bible even!–when it’s not there.
 
SteveVH said:
Very well, for the benefit of the reader here are the verses you reference:

*3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’**? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”*** (Mathew 19: 3-8)

No one has said that divorce, in and of itself, is not a sin, unless one is the innocent victim of a civil divorce (i.e. they did not wish to divorce). Here is what the Church has to say:

*2384 Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery: (1650)

If a husband, separated from his wife, approaches another woman, he is an adulterer because he makes that woman commit adultery; and the woman who lives with him is an adulteress, because she has drawn another’s husband to herself.178

2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.* (CCC)

But as with all sin, it can be forgiven. In the case of a second marriage, one is persisting in the sin of adultery and cannot be forgiven until sexual relations stop.

Steve, thanks for the quote from the CCC. It’s very well written.

My problem is that it still seems to me that, in the real world, people embark on getting a divorce with the presumption that they’ll be forgiven after it’s all over. If someone truly repented of being the person who started divorce proceedings, shouldn’t they do everything possible to reconcile if they sincerely repent?—repent, not just regret the sordidness and ugliness of it? But it appears to me that rarely happens. Most people move on, regretting the pain but not the divorce itself, which they can do something about if both parties are still alive and unmarried.

I’m not ignoring the very real pain and anguish, and even ambivalence and confusion that can be felt by both parties in a divorce. I don’t mean to sound condemning of people who get divorced. But I still think no churches except for some fundamentalist churches actually take Jesus’ words in a bare bones way.
Click to expand...
 
AbideWithMe said:
Hi Steve–Thanks for the reply.

I’m puzzled— it seems that you’re just looking at one verse,
Click to expand...
And it appears that you’re just looking at one verse, too?

There’s just one verse–actually, it’s just one word–that you are using to support the adultery loophole.

Matthew 19:9
 
PRmerger said:
I will tell you the answer, AWM.

There are no adultery exceptions in any of the verses you offered, save for that one verse in Matthew 19.

You have been duped into believing that there is an adultery exception in all those verses.

Except that when you actually read them, they’re not there.

Kind of like the verse that some Protestant folks like to quote regarding proving that purgatory doesn’t exist, “To be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord.”

Except that this verse is not found in a single page of the Bible.

It’s ironic to have people using a man-made tradition–quoting the Bible even!–when it’s not there.
Click to expand...
Oh for goodness, sake, of course I know that the adultery exception is only in Matt. 19. I assumed other people did as well, or that they could easily see for themselves by reading the passages I named.

You know, I thought as I was writing the sentence of mine to which you’re referring, " Hmm…maybe I should take even more time and rewrite this sentence in a longer way to be absolutely crystal clear…Naw, people can see it for themselves when they read them…I did tell PRmerger that I’m preoccupied with my mom and other family members, so I’ll hope she can remember that and charitably cut me some slack for writing sloppily…"

Apparently I was naive as well as tired. Note to self: Spend all your time making sure you write utterly clear sentences to PRmerger. Neglect your family, neglect your own need for rest, just don’t write anything in a hurry that PRmerger might be able to bash you with. :rolleyes:
 
PRmerger said:
And it appears that you’re just looking at one verse, too?

There’s just one verse–actually, it’s just one word–that you are using to support the adultery loophole.

Matthew 19:9
Click to expand...
No. Just no. I’m looking at the bigger picture of OT, NT, and extra-Biblical Jewish writings about divorce.

As for the “one word”–the word porneia itself is there, it’s not invisible, and we can presume its inclusion was not an accident. If you read the Jewish Encyclopedia entry on divorce you could see the background of the Pharisee’s question to Jesus.
 
PRmerger said:
Kind of like the verse that some Protestant folks like to quote regarding proving that purgatory doesn’t exist, “To be absent from the body is to be at home with the Lord.”

Except that this verse is not found in a single page of the Bible.

It’s ironic to have people using a man-made tradition–quoting the Bible even!–when it’s not there.
Click to expand...
What’s wrong with 2 Corinthians 5:8? “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” “To be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord.”
 
AbideWithMe said:
Steve, thanks for the quote from the CCC. It’s very well written.

My problem is that it still seems to me that, in the real world, people embark on getting a divorce with the presumption that they’ll be forgiven after it’s all over.
Click to expand...
And presumption, concerning one’s salvation, is a sin in itself. But I would agree with your assessment.
AbideWithMe said:
If someone truly repented of being the person who started divorce proceedings, shouldn’t they do everything possible to reconcile if they sincerely repent?—repent, not just regret the sordidness and ugliness of it? But it appears to me that rarely happens.
Click to expand...
Yes, they should reconcile, seeing as they are really still married in the eyes of God. But again you are correct, very few actually do.
AbideWithMe said:
Most people move on, regretting the pain but not the divorce itself, which they can do something about if both parties are still alive and unmarried.

I’m not ignoring the very real pain and anguish, and even ambivalence and confusion that can be felt by both parties in a divorce. I don’t mean to sound condemning of people who get divorced. But I still think no churches except for some fundamentalist churches actually take Jesus’ words in a bare bones way.
Click to expand...
Depends upon what you mean by “bare bones way”. The Catholic Church approves no divorce. But it carries on the work of Christ; forgiving the repentant sinner. The only sin it does not forgive is the one a person has no intention of stopping.

Blessings.

Steve
 
AbideWithMe said:
What’s wrong with 2 Corinthians 5:8? “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” " To be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord."
Click to expand...
Can you actually provide the Bible verse site?

And then you’ll see what it really says.

You’ve been duped into believing that’s in the Bible.

But it’s not.

One could be* wishing* to be absent from the body and present to the Lord. As in willing that it were so.

But that’s quite different from saying, “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord”.
 
AbideWithMe said:
Oh for goodness, sake, of course I know that the adultery exception is only in Matt. 19. I assumed other people did as well, or that they could easily see for themselves by reading the passages I named.
Click to expand...
Then what, exactly, was your point again? :confused:

Are you trying to point out how your church abides by the Scriptures and only re-marries folks who have been cuckholded?

Or are you trying to say that the CC is doing something contrary to those verses?

Because, at this point, I am utterly perplexed at your bringing up those verses.

I think, perhaps, you have forgotten what you have written? This is what you said, and it certainly did seem like you were referencing all those verses as supporting the adultery loophole.
AbideWithMe said:
But, I want to ask you about something since it’s come up again. You keep saying, “Not our words. But His.” Okay, well, His words in regard to divorce (in Matthew 19, Matthew 5, Mark and Luke, and then through Paul in 1 Corinthians 7) say, to men, that they may not divorce their wives, except for marital infidelity*.
Click to expand...
Why did you add the “except for marital infidelity” in a discussion with all those verses if you didn’t mean it to apply to all those verse.

Perhaps what you should have said is, “There is only one verse that gives the adultery loophole, and it uses the word porneia. But the actual Greek word for adultery is moicheia, so I’m not sure why porneia was used if it’s really supposed to mean adultery.”
 
AbideWithMe said:
You have acknowledged that the CC allows divorce, including men divorcing their wives, for reasons other than marital infidelity. If you’re going to keep saying, “Not our words. But His” how do you account for that?
Click to expand...
sigh

It is not divorce that Jesus forbids. But divorce AND RE-MARRIAGE.

That is adultery.

Even if you are civilly divorced (something that is permitted by Christ), what God has joined, no man can separate, and you are still married in His eyes.

Do you not see how it is the Catholic Church that is being obedient to the Scriptures?

Everyone else doesn’t like it that Jesus said that divorce and re-marriage is adultery.

So all of you folks have joined churches which changed the Word of God.

If you divorce and re-marry, you commit adultery.
Not our words. But Christ’s.

Now, unless you belong to a church that won’t marry someone who’s been divorced UNLESS she’s been cuckholded, then you are creating your own word of god.

But you are certainly NOT ABIDING in His Word.
 
AbideWithMe said:
What’s wrong with 2 Corinthians 5:8? “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” “To be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord.”
Click to expand...
AbideWithMe, who am I to say but nothing is wrong with it that I can see. I actually like the words so well I chose to have 2 Cor 5 read at my mother’s funeral. But they’re not my words. They bring me great comfort in any case. So did the Catholic deacon when he spoke of our earthly tents and my mother being absent from hers and welcomed into heaven. But then maybe his understanding was lacking. I’m not the one to say. Anyway if people back up 2 verses to verse 6 in Douay Rheims assuming it’s not in error, I know it says 'Therefore having always confidence, knowing that, while we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord." So verse 6 says we can with confidence know that while we are in the body, we are absent from Him., It doesn’t seem all that off then to me if you then want to say to be absent from the body is to present with Him.
 
AbideWithMe said:
Oh for goodness, sake, of course I know that the adultery exception is only in Matt. 19. I assumed other people did as well, or that they could easily see for themselves by reading the passages I named.

You know, I thought as I was writing the sentence of mine to which you’re referring, " Hmm…maybe I should take even more time and rewrite this sentence in a longer way to be absolutely crystal clear…Naw, people can see it for themselves when they read them…I did tell PRmerger that I’m preoccupied with my mom and other family members, so I’ll hope she can remember that and charitably cut me some slack for writing sloppily…"

Apparently I was naive as well as tired. Note to self: Spend all your time making sure you write utterly clear sentences to PRmerger. Neglect your family, neglect your own need for rest, just don’t write anything in a hurry that PRmerger might be able to bash you with. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
🙂 I do hope your mom is getting better and your family. Don’t neglect her or them or your own rest.
 
AbideWithMe said:
What’s wrong with 2 Corinthians 5:8? “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” “To be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord.”
Click to expand...
There are a couple factors to consider here. Purgation, or the experience through which we are made fit to be in heaven (all the “soil” of living in a fallen world and body removed) can be accomplished before death. Paul worked very hard every day on cleansing himself of any attachments to sin, and expiating the temporal consequences of sin. It is very possible that he was in a such a state so as not to be in need of further purging after leaving the body.

2 Cor 6
"So we are always of good courage; we know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord, 7 for we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord. 9 So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. "

There is some sense in which our being in these bodies afflicted by original sin does separate us from complete communion with the Lord.

God’s intention for us is to be united with our bodies and himself. There is nothing innately corrupted about the human body, because if there was, Jesus would not have been able to take his human body into heaven, where nothing unclean can exist.

To be “asleep” in the Lord is “at home with” him, yet it is also not the end plan for us.

The bottom line is that this verse does not in any way dispute the state of purgation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top