The Catholic Church’s contemptuous attitude towards its “flock”

Your forgot money + sex .


While a good drink is sure to unite us.

Cheers.




..


.

 

Why ? As we consider ourselves as rational beings , why not conduct our lives accordingly . instead of blind faith ? THose young men who flew the planes into twin towers also thought they chose FAITH .

I'm afraid , that might have continued being believable , by largely , superstitious masses , but the masses in 20-21 st century have voted with their feet , hence so many derelict + half empty churches throughout industrialised Western countries.

O-D , If you're happy to believe as you do, fine - but please do NOT expect everyone else to believe as you do.

I use to believe in Santa Clause , until I found out , no other adult did .

Tata ...

 

Why are you still insisting on this discredited standard that if Catholics commited violence, therefore the Church committed violence, and therefore the Church is untrue? As I already said, numerically more people have died in the name of democracy alone: 100,000 in the bombing of Tokyo alone; twenty times more than in the whole 300 years of the Spanish Inquisition.

So why aren't you off posting threads about how discredited democracy is? The answer, so it seems to me, is bald-faced hypocrisy.

 

So who says Christianity is true? Are you saying that the Bible proves Christianity and Christianity proves the Bible? For that matter, what makes you think Scripture is common to all? Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and protestants all have different scriptural canons. Mormons have the Book of Mormon. And St. Paul, of course, had no New Testament, since it hadn't been written yet.

 

The Mormon's Book of Mormon is a supplement to the Bible that they also use. As far as other denominations, they have no major differences in the basic tenets of the Christian faith: Google the Apostles & Nicene Creed...the only point of contention would be the words "....one holy apostolic catholic church..." which would be universally accepted if referred to all those who follow Christ as "...one universal Body of Christ..." Paul was a Jewish Pharisee of Pharisees and knew the OT. And he and the other early church fathers/apostles received divine inspiration or had heard the words of Jesus as on the earth, and provided the texts that are now part of the NT.

Again, you are spinning your wheels is this discussion, as not really being interested but rather prefer participating in vain arguments...have fun, as folly is best accomplished by ones self.

 

Well, was it true or was it false and how do we know?

Obviously, you think there are major differences between your belief and that of "Romanism." That's what you've been saying from the start.

But you still haven't provided any logical justification for anything you believe. Why should anyone accept that the Bible has any kind of divine authority? Why should anyone accept that the church fathers were divinely inspired?

 

You are but a 'black hole' of conversation---I gave you the basis of one's faith post a couple of posts back. Moving on........

 

You mean when you said: "Men must choose what is their baseline. What is their faith built upon." Ooookay...well, obviously, they should choose for the faith to be built on logic as opposed to absurdity. So by what logic have you built your faith on the Bible as divine truth?

 

My questions for you:

Who is the man in your avatar? Was he a believer in any doctrine? What did he do? Why didnt he shave off his beard B4 the pic was taken? Why do you use the words 'the, and, & was' in your postings? Do you have a life? Why do you rely upon other ppl for your knowledge? Cant you get it for yourself? And why do you ask so many questions while not looking for answers? Have you ever thought about Banning yourself? What do you do in your private closet when no one is looking? Do women find you attractive? Do men find you attractive? Is coming on this forum and badgering ppl the only way that you can get ppl to talk with you? Am I but wasting my time in interacting with you at any level?

EDIT: Plz dissect this post, line-by-line, and get back to me with the answers....

 

The Protestants don't have an answer to this. They say they believe in the Bible, but they don't acknowledge that the Catholic Church is the source of the Bible, the entity that decided what books were part of the Bible, and what books were to be excluded.

 

Where the reformists split was due to the corrupt practices of the leadership et al in Rome. The reformists use the same original foundational scriptures as the 'authority' of God, not looking to a corrupt office of man (Pope, Bishops, etc.). Rome did many corrupt things, such as for ex.: selling Indulgences (reduced sentences in Purgatory) to European feudal lords for $$$ to finance St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.

But the amount of unscriptural practices got to be too much for many monks, like Martin Luther (monks were the educated of the time) and they rebelled against the seat in Rome. The Roman Catholics have added to the reformist's scriptures, who canonized due to consistency of the total of scripture (James almost didnt make it in), with those books that supported Mary, and others which were suspect by the reformists. Much of the add-ons sound more mythological than apostolic in origin.


BTW, AV:
Once you complete responding to my previous 'questions,' I have more, so plz Standby after submitting>>>>>>>>>


Good nite, all...OD

 

All I asked was what was the logical basis for your belief in the Bible. If you can't answer--and you obviously can't--don't lecture Catholics for following the "doctrines of men." Who are you to say whose doctrines they're following, when you don't even know why you follow the doctrines you follow?

 

Everyone knows that there was corruption within the Church at the time. But the sins of men don't disprove the tenets of the Church. More than that, they don't prove the tenets of protestantism: sola fide, sola scripture, etc.

In other words, the "reformers" removed books that implied doctrines they didn't like. They they turned around and claimed that Catholics had no scriptural justification for those doctrines! Well, that's convenient.

 

It's a bit like someone accepting the legitimacy of the US Constitution but rejecting the legitimacy of the thirteen state legislations whose delegates voted to approve it.

 

Any organization is only as good as its Leadership + its members .
However good Catholism might sound in theory " throughout its history , it proved to be bloody awful in practice.

I do not believe the war with Japan was in the name of "democracy " more like , e Capitalism or revamped Imperialism /economic interests.

, I'd say. the word " democracy " means different things to different people at different times.

USSR/ Deutsche Demokratische Republik DDR (east Germany) , The Democratic Republic of the Congo , Democratic People's Republic of Korea etc. all claim to be democracies , even racist states like Sth Africa also once claimed to be a democracy , same goes for Israel (a flawed -democracy )

Its also debateabl;e whether USA is a true democracy or in fact ust a plutocracy .


AFAI can tell - No democracy of any shade , has ever burnt anyone alive at stake for herey or made ridiculous claims that it represents God on earth and your soul will be d-amned to eternal hell if you do not do as commanded .


Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum.


tata.

 

I hear the Pope has once again consulted god . It seems God would rather thousands HIV/Aids sufferers die, than elent . Use of condoms remains a grave sin.

Africans are waking up to the fact that the Church is to blame for HIV spread .
This is how they see it .

Tata.

....

 

Actually, the value claimed by the Church doesn't lie in its people but in the truth of its doctrines. The only question the matters is whether or not the doctrines are truthful. If they aren't, Catholicism is false and should be opposed. If they are, Catholicism is true and should be supported. The personal actions of the individuals within the Church neither prove nor disprove the doctrines.

It was done explicitly in the name of democracy, just as heretic-burning was done explicitly in the name of Catholicism. You can claim that was a poor conception of democracy and I can claim the other was a poor conception of Catholicism. Nonetheless, that was the ideal they were appealing to.

No, democracies burn people alive with incendiary bombs for not kowtowing to the their proffered conceptions of democracy.

Who are all these Catholics Africans who caught HIV because they bizarrely chose to obey the Church's teaching on contraception while flouting her teaching on fornication? Where are they? Can you name me some of these people who thought, "I'll fornicate all I like no matter what the Church says, but I'll rigidly stick to her contraception teaching while I do it!"

 

Truth,? truth ? If true , then why , in F's name , has so many, over the centuries , turned their backs on that Church. ? Leaving the Catholic Church with such a bad record in respect for basic human rights . ?

According to your logic , then the personal actions of individuals within National Socialism (Nazi) , neither proves nor disproves their DOCTRINES . Hmmm.


Could that be the reason who the Pope remained silent while the Nazis was rapeing Europe. ?


....

 

I'll drink to that!

 

Oh ! so , now you're pathetically trying to justify the Church burning heretics , are you ? I like you concept of morality , is that what your priest told you > ? Two wrongs makes a right . I hear you.

y.


Incendiary bombs ? Where's your evidence

it

Fornicate ? WOW . I give up.

Its obvious you're living in another world and have no idea of the real world.


Go learn.

tata .

 

Here's a simple thought. How about concerning yourselves with getting your own house in order instead of demonstrating false righteousness.

I take it not many of today's worldly people have the ability to understand the parable, especially in light of Jesus choice to address the simplistic life of ancient people in day-to-day examples with which they could relate.

Carry on.

 

Why do so many people disagree with whatever you believe if it's true?

True. The doctrines of National Socialism disprove National Socialism.

He didn't. But just keep repeating the myth over and over again like it's an undisputed fact.

 

I agree with you when you state "how insulting it is for religious leaders to describe themselves as “shepherds” leading a “flock,” since the metaphor which implies their followers are sheep," it is insulting and unworthy of this stage in mankind's development in knowledge and independent thinking.

But, unfortunately, it is correct! Those who follow the teachings of the man made Church so blindly that they reject common sense and free will are obviously "sheep!"

 

Yes. . .he did!

 

No, he did not. He condemned the ideas of Nazism several times, as had his predecessor. Meanwhile, he privately instructed monasteries and convents to hide Jews, with several hundred being hidden in the Vatican itself. He was, of course, walking on a tightrope, with millions of Catholics under the thrall of Hitler and the Vatican itself in the center of Mussolini's Italy. Indeed, when Dutch Church leaders publicly condemned Nazism from the pulpit, it only drove the Nazis in Holland to round up ethnically Jewish converts and ship them to the camps. You can claim Pius miscalculated in weighing how forceful he might have been against the potential consequences to Catholics and Jews, but it's simply more propaganda to suggest he was apathetically twiddling his thumbs throughout the persecution.