1
1holycatholic
Guest
You are quite correct.
The question is…is that a good thing?
Is what a good thing? That the Bible proceeds from the Catholic Church, or that I am correct in stating that fact?
You are quite correct.
The question is…is that a good thing?
dear 1unholycatholic,
I don’t beleive that I have seen a more vain, pueril, self congratulatory, self-abusive, misleading, anti-Catholic thread on here. The first religion to debunk might very well be your self absorption in the immature need to prove your self right. In my opinion, what a degrading thing to put on here as a purported Catholic. In the face of attitudes that allow posting such threads as this, no wonder Lenny Bruce said that “people are leaving their church every day to find God.”
I wouldn’t worry about that post.
That’s an interesting point…but even though the church may have compiled the writings making up the Bible they were *not * the author. We don’t assume the publisher of a book had anything to do with its writing.The Bible proceeds from the Church, not the other way around.
So 11 men(Apostles) who hid immediately after the crucifiction had the same dream, and then hallucenated at the same time even though they were not all together, Got tortured and killed not from something they believe but but something they saw?
That Paul a latter Apostle who hunted down Christians, was well off financially, a pillar in the Jewish commujnity, and a Roman also hallucenated, became a Christian, and went to his death.
It is harder to not believe my friend than to believe.
The first. You do realize that this is a statement that could cause some controversy–if, that is, you are talking to one of those sola scriptura folks who seem to think that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us.
Is what a good thing? That the Bible proceeds from the Catholic Church, or that I am correct in stating that fact?
That’s an interesting point…but even though the church may have compiled the writings making up the Bible they were *not *the author. We don’t assume the publisher of a book had anything to do with its writing.
Its actually quite logical…
If a person does *not believe *the Bible is God’s Word then why would they bother putting any faith in the Gospel which is written in the Bible?
However, if a religion claims to *believe *the Bible contains God’s Word and then does contrary to it, they should be easy to debunk whether Protestant or Catholic.
I guess it It boils down to is whether a person is going to accept salvation from Jesus Christ or from Jesus Christ ‘through the Catholic church’ or ‘through the so&so religion’. I’ve never heard Jesus saying believe in Me through any church or religion.
If you believe the Bible does contain God’s Word and you’ve done the research into what the Bible says and are content that your church (whatever that is) is aligned with God’s Word then that’s wise…but at least do the research (with a somewhat open mind willing to hear God’s will).
By the way, here’s a link to an article on apostolic succession which I haven’t read but it looked interesting
bible.ca/cath-apostolic-succession.htm#ApostolicS
Why does your profile say ‘Catholic’. You are not stating the facts accurately.You don’t seem to know your own holy book - what dream after the resurrection are you talking about ? None is mentioned.
More to the point: all we have is a Christian account of matters - so it can’t be trusted implicitly. And even if it could, that is no excuse for Christianity itself.Even if the Apostles were lily-white, Christianity is not. On the contrary Christianity is a foul movement, so it is reasonable to suppose that it was founded by liars. Religious fraud has always been a mark of Christianity - so why should this not be an early example ? It’s built on lies & violence, Protestantism as much as Catholicism - & as for the brutalities & massacres by the Orthodox, you won’t hear them mention these.
Christians have no regard for those put to death for their Communist faith or their Muslim faith: they are usually very disrepectful to any version of Christianity other than their own. Nor do they have any respexct for Jews whodied for being Jews. So why should anyone care two hoots about dead Christians ? The argument from martyrs is one of the weakest a Christian can possibly find. Every cause has its martyrs & heros - not just the Christian monstrosity.
Could you please change your profile as obviously you are not a member of the Catholic Church?Christianity.
As for reasons:
Christianity might be beneficial among those without power to do much harm, & as the small Jewish sect it was at first; but as a politically strong & geographically extensive religion it has great power to do great evil.
- Its historical record gives the lie to its propaganda nonsense about love
- It uses people for its own selfish purposes
- Christians have treated each other with revolting cruelty that would put an atheist to shame
- it makes enormous claims, which it fails abysmally to fulfil
- It has prized doctrinal shibboleths above moral behaviour
- It is hypocritical to the core, as is shown by the contrast between the modern smarminess toward the Jews as contrasted with 1600 years of persecution, legalised injustices, lies & slanders against them
- It is incapable of looking honestly at its history - instead, it is for ever trying to show how it was right all the time
- It has no conscience
- Hitlerism & Communism arose from Christian ideas & within Christian countries
- It is cowardly, becvaiuse it lacks the moral courage to admit its guilt - its very refusal to take responsibility is morally irresponsible, yet this something everyone has to to do
- Which strongly suggests that Christianity is morally pernicious - which is indeed the case.
- …and that is just scraping the surface
Judged by its fruits, it is just another tyranny; except that it is arguably worse than some of its competitors. Hitler did at least not claim to be & good & holy - so Christianity is in that respect less honest than he was; therefore, it is morally worse. It is no use pointing to the artistic value of some things it has produced - other religions have done likewise, but that plea has not recommended them. Why should it recommend Christianity ? If people were not prepossessed in favour of Christianity, & endlessly ingenious at excusing & justifying it, they would be as severe against Christianity as they are against Islam. If Islam is not divine then of course it is not going to be very pleasant - so its critics are reasoning absurdly when they criticise in it the very things it must be & do if it is not Divine. So that is not a problem: the problem is that despite its supposed Divine character Christianity has borne fruits which suggest it comes from a quite different origin.
Jesus established one and only one Church, the Catholic Church.The first. You do realize that this is a statement that could cause some controversy–if, that is, you are talking to one of those sola scriptura folks who seem to think that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us.
It also leaves wide open the chicken and egg question of what came first…the bible or the church…
Could also cause some discussion.
Don’t get me wrong here; I agree with you. We have the bible now because the writings that comprise it were saved and gathered by some very faithful and educated men, doing their level best. That there was a whole lot of inspiration going on there seems fairly obvious.
Hi Sam, I’m wondering what you mean by this?
- Only understandable in Arabic language (which is not for all nations).
R_not;4716550]Why does your profile say ‘Catholic’. You are not stating the facts accurately.
As a percent of population, the religious wars of the Crusades and the reformation killed the same or larger percent of the European population as Stalin or Mao. Estimates of the deaths due to religious wars between Catholics and Protestants range from 30,000,000 to 50,000,000.communism/atheism has killed more people in the 20th century than any other. Stalin killed way more than Hitler - about 45,000,000 (the numbers are staggering), and Mao did the same. The Chinese are still persecuting people who want to have some sort of faith. They are sent to ‘relearning’ camps. Kim Jong il’s communism is also a slaughterhouse.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4717260&postcount=100That’s an interesting point…but even though the church may have compiled the writings making up the Bible they were *not * the author. We don’t assume the publisher of a book had anything to do with its writing.
Its actually quite logical…
If a person does *not believe * the Bible is God’s Word then why would they bother putting any faith in the Gospel which is written in the Bible?
However, if a religion claims to *believe * the Bible contains God’s Word and then does contrary to it, they should be easy to debunk whether Protestant or Catholic.
I guess it It boils down to is whether a person is going to accept salvation from Jesus Christ or from Jesus Christ ‘through the Catholic church’ or ‘through the so&so religion’. I’ve never heard Jesus saying believe in Me through any church or religion.
If you believe the Bible does contain God’s Word and you’ve done the research into what the Bible says and are content that your church (whatever that is) is aligned with God’s Word then that’s wise…but at least do the research (with a somewhat open mind willing to hear God’s will).
By the way, here’s a link to an article on apostolic succession which I haven’t read but it looked interesting
bible.ca/cath-apostolic-succession.htm#ApostolicS
Are you quoting yourself to support your own opinion? How truly interesting! Will you continue to build on this in future by referring to your post #103 on this thread which then refers to post #100? I can see a long, long chain of references to yourself by yourself. It will be fascinating to watch.forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4717260&postcount=100
The Church is Christ’s body. Outside the Church there is no salvation. Christ established one, and only one Church, the Catholic Church.
My response to rebecca12345 is, in part, contained in the linked post which was a response to another poster.Are you quoting yourself to support your own opinion? How truly interesting! Will you continue to build on this in future by referring to your post #103 on this thread which then refers to post #100? I can see a long, long chain of references to yourself by yourself. It will be fascinating to watch.![]()