The Heresy of the Catholic Church

The Roman Catholic Church has long considered itself to be the true Christian Church, and believes that its Pope and its Bishops are the successors to Jesus' Twelve Apostles. However, one must ask themselves whether this is the truth or not. By comparing doctrines of the Catholic Church to teachings and predictions in the Bible, the grounds for a discussion regarding this matter shall be laid out. Keep in mind thatI'm not going to start this off by arguing whether Jesus intended for there to be Apostolic Succession (perhaps I'll bring it up later on in the thread).

Celibacy

The Catholic Church forbids its clergy members from marrying and from therefore engaging in sexual acts. In other words, its clergymen are required to be celibate. However, this ordinance is contrary to that followed by the bihops (i.e. the Apostles) of the Church during the time immediately after Jesus' ascension. Read the following:

(1)

1Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are not YOUmy work in [the] Lord?

2If I am not an apostle to others, I most certainly am to YOU, forYOUare the seal confirming my apostleship in relation to [the] Lord.

3My defense to those who examine me is as follows:

4We have authority to eat and drink, do we not?

5 WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO LEAD A SISTER AS A WIFE, EVEN AS THE REST OF THE APOSTLES AND THE LORD'S BROTHERS AND CEPHAS (Peter) , DO WE NOT?

6Or is it only Barnabas and I that do not have authority to refrain from [secular] work?

7Who is it that ever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Or who shepherds a flock and does not eat some of the milk of the flock?1 Corinthians 9

The implication of verse 5 is clear: The Apostles could and (at least some of them) did in fact have wives. Keep in mind that the Apostles are considered to be the first bishops of the Catholic Church. However, unlike the mondern day bishops, they could and did marry. Hence, celibacy among the modern day clergy of the Catholic Church is in direct contrast to what the Apostles did. Now read the following for reinforcement.

1 This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

2 A BISHOP then must be blameless, THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity...

1 Timothy 3

Now consider what the Bible predicted concerning the forbiddance of marriage:

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 FORBIDDING TO MARRY, AND COMMANDING TO ABSTAIN FROM MEATS*, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

1 Timothy 4

*During the Catholic Observance of Lent, Catholics are instructed to abstain from meat. This is an explicit fulfillment of what the Bible says in the aforementioned passage.

Engagement in World Affairs

The following Biblical passages explain the Bible's stance on how Christians should relate to the world around them.

19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

John 15

...doYOUnot know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.

James

However, numerous times throughout history the Catholic Church has been directly involved in world affairs, some of which include wars. On numerous occassions, bishops of the Catholic Church have supported wars waged by the governments of their respective countries. This is extremely antithetical to what Jesus taught. Jesus commanded his followers to seperate themselves from the world and its affairs.

Here is what a Catholic Historian by the name of E. I. Watkin wrote:

Painful as the admission must be, we cannot in the interest of false edification or dishonest loyalty deny or ignore the historical fact that Biships have consistently supported all wars waged by the government of their country. I do not know in fact of a single instance in which a national hierarchy has condemned as unjust any war...Whatever the official theory, in practice 'my country always right' has been the maxim followed in wartime by Catholic Bishops."*EI Watkin

*Quote is from Morals and Missiles (London, 1959).

Yet, this is what Jesus said:

Jesus then said, 'Put your sword back, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.'Matthew 26

NOTE: I will expand this thread.

So, are we going to get this discussion started?

We get it, you hate religion....

We get it, you hate religion....

BossPerson

You've got the wrong idea. I'm arguing in favor of the Bible.

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

We get it, you hate religion....

BluRayHiDef

You've got the wrong idea. I'm arguing in favor of the Bible.

Trolling religion again. FYI the celibacy issue came about after nepotism made the church too political. Read your history before making threads.LJS9502_basic

This doesn't change the fact that it's still non-Biblical and contrary to the teachings and practices of the Apostles? So, what's your point? The fact of the matter is that its still practiced today, proving that the Catholic Church is not the true Church. If it were, its teachings and practices would be consistent with the Bible, but they're not. In fact, its teachings and practices are exactly those predicted in the Bible as being false.

Also that is not heresy nor does it remove succession....LJS9502_basic

You have no argumentative skill whatsoever. All you do is make assertions and provide no proof. Why do you even bother? Get out of this thread; you're loitering.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Trolling religion again. FYI the celibacy issue came about after nepotism made the church too political. Read your history before making threads.BluRayHiDef

This doesn't change the fact that it's still non-Biblical and contrary to the teachings and practices of the Apostles? So, what's your point? The fact of the matter is that its still practiced today, proving that the Catholic Church is not the true Church. If it were, its teachings and practices would be consistent with the Bible, but they're not. In fact, its teachings and practices are exactly those predicted in the Bible as being false.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Also that is not heresy nor does it remove succession....BluRayHiDef

You have no argumentative skill whatsoever. All you do is make assertions and provide no proof. Why do you even bother? Get out of this thread; you're loitering.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Trolling religion again. FYI the celibacy issue came about after nepotism made the church too political. Read your history before making threads.LJS9502_basic

This doesn't change the fact that it's still non-Biblical and contrary to the teachings and practices of the Apostles? So, what's your point? The fact of the matter is that its still practiced today, proving that the Catholic Church is not the true Church. If it were, its teachings and practices would be consistent with the Bible, but they're not. In fact, its teachings and practices are exactly those predicted in the Bible as being false.

You go by your own reasoning. I go by the Word of God. The Church is supposed to base its teachings on Jesus, the Son of God. It has no authority to contradict his teachings or that of this Apostles. Furthermore, how can you explain away this prediction:

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3FORBIDDING TO MARRY,AND COMMANDING TO ABSTAIN FROM MEATS*, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.1 Timothy 4

Celibacy and the foribiddance to eat meat on Fridays during lent are fulfillments of this Biblical prediction, which says that such forbiddances are doctrines of devils. What more do you want? Go away, you doer of lawlessness.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

This doesn't change the fact that it's still non-Biblical and contrary to the teachings and practices of the Apostles? So, what's your point? The fact of the matter is that its still practiced today, proving that the Catholic Church is not the true Church. If it were, its teachings and practices would be consistent with the Bible, but they're not. In fact, its teachings and practices are exactly those predicted in the Bible as being false.

BluRayHiDef

You go by your own reasoning. I go by the Word of God. The Church is supposed to base its teachings on Jesus, the Son of God. It has no authority to contradict his teachings or that of this Apostles. Furthermore, how can you explain away this prediction:

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3FORBIDDING TO MARRY,AND COMMANDING TO ABSTAIN FROM MEATS*, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.1 Timothy 4

Celibacy and the foribiddance to eat meat on Fridays during lent are fulfillments of this Biblical prediction, which says that such forbiddances are doctrines of devils. What more do you want? Go away, you doer of lawlessness.

WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO LEAD A SISTER AS A WIFE...1 Corinthians 9

That's both hot and disturbing.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You know an institution IS permitted to make rules or does that concept confuse you? Again...what is important about Christianity is the message of Jesus as toward salvation. And if you want Biblical references that can be used for the idea of celibacy it's that the apostles left their families to follow Jesus. The more you know....;)LJS9502_basic

You go by your own reasoning. I go by the Word of God. The Church is supposed to base its teachings on Jesus, the Son of God. It has no authority to contradict his teachings or that of this Apostles. Furthermore, how can you explain away this prediction:

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3FORBIDDING TO MARRY,AND COMMANDING TO ABSTAIN FROM MEATS*, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.1 Timothy 4

Celibacy and the foribiddance to eat meat on Fridays during lent are fulfillments of this Biblical prediction, which says that such forbiddances are doctrines of devils. What more do you want? Go away, you doer of lawlessness.

You just don't understand. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION. Practices and teachings which contradict Jesus and the Apostles taught are not allowed. What part of that don't you get? The Bible explicitly says that such things are DOCTRINES OF DEVILS. What's wrong with your brain? Seriously?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You go by your own reasoning. I go by the Word of God. The Church is supposed to base its teachings on Jesus, the Son of God. It has no authority to contradict his teachings or that of this Apostles. Furthermore, how can you explain away this prediction:

[quote="1 Timothy 4"]

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3FORBIDDING TO MARRY,AND COMMANDING TO ABSTAIN FROM MEATS*, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.BluRayHiDef

Celibacy and the foribiddance to eat meat on Fridays during lent are fulfillments of this Biblical prediction, which says that such forbiddances are doctrines of devils. What more do you want? Go away, you doer of lawlessness.

You just don't understand. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION. Practices and teachings which contradict Jesus and the Apostles taught are not allowed. What part of that don't you get? The Bible explicitly says that such things are DOCTRINES OF DEVILS. What's wrong with your brain? Seriously?

Sure glad I'm not religious ;)

Cute, BRHD just pick up a Bible recently and suddenly is a Biblical expert.

Just wait until BluRayHiDef sees the Pope's chair!

In regards to Celibacy: 1. It is an ecclesiastical discipline, not a Church doctrine. In fact the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church do allow married men to be ordained to the priesthood and in certain cases protestant (mainly Anglican) priests who convert to Catholicism can be ordained as priests in the Catholic Church. On a case by case basis "personal ordinariates" may ordain married men to the priesthood if they get approval from the Holy See. 2. Scripturally speaking, Christ did say that some people would be "eunuchs" (i.e. celibate) for the sake of the kingdom. 3. The Biblical quotes you mention about a bishop being "the husband of one wife" isn't saying bishops must be married, it is saying they cannot have multiple wives (and it also means they cannot have a husband, though I don't think gay marriage was practiced in that time and place).

in regards to "abstaining from meat": The scripture here is talking about totally abstaining from meat (i.e. being a vegetarian) because people think meat is a bad thing. Catholicism does not believe meat is bad, Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays (or in the U.S. on Fridays during Lent) as a penance and a sacrifice.

As for not getting involved in worldly affairs, Christians should not be too worldly but we must also be Missionary, preaching the Gospel to all nations. Christian clerics getting overly involved in temporal politics is a result of their human failings, not of Church doctrine.

Cute, BRHD just pick up a Bible recently and suddenly is a Biblical expert.

worlock77

None of this matters because it is all fake.

My mom was Catholic... had a Martin Luther moment... and went Nondenominational and raised me like that...After I personally believed, I considered myself Nondenominational too.. that's where I stand with the Catholic church.

Religion is full of contradictions and always will be just accept that and move on

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Cute, BRHD just pick up a Bible recently and suddenly is a Biblical expert.

sSubZerOo

1 Corinthians 9:5 states Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Where did you get your Scripture? Seems to be quite different. As for 1 Timothy 3.......you are aware that some have been married at one time? This is about moderation. It does NOT state that the bishop MUST be married. Just that had he been married in the past.....only one time. Taking text out of context is silly and irresponsible.LJS9502_basic

I'm not arguing that it says that bishops must be married. I'm arguing that it says that bishops CAN be married. Apart from men who are already married when they become clergymen, the Catholic Church forbids its clergymen from marrying. That is non-biblical. The Bible asserts that marriage is a choice; it is never a mandate, nor is it ever prohibited. Period.

EDIT:

I just compared your quote of 1 Corinthians 9:5 to mine, and apart from mere stylistic differences, they both say that same thing. Hence, there is no problem. As for where I got my quote from, I got it from here. It's the best translation in English; it's the most literal and straightforward. However, I'm sure that you'll disagree. I also have a Greek Interlinear version (in my physical possession), which has the original Greek on the left side of the page (with the corresponding English word to each Greek word beneath it), and the English translation on the right side of the page.

The Catholic church has changed so many things and uses pagan rituals all of the time. I dare anyone to research their religion and see what is true or false.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]1 Corinthians 9:5 states Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Where did you get your Scripture? Seems to be quite different. As for 1 Timothy 3.......you are aware that some have been married at one time? This is about moderation. It does NOT state that the bishop MUST be married. Just that had he been married in the past.....only one time. Taking text out of context is silly and irresponsible.BluRayHiDef

I'm not arguing that it says that bishops must be married. I'm arguing that it says that bishops CAN be married. Apart from men who are already married when they become clergymen, the Catholic Church forbids its clergymen from marrying. That is non-biblical. The Bible asserts that marriage is a choice; it is never a mandate, nor is it ever prohibited. Period.

EDIT:

I just compared your quote of 1 Corinthians 9:5 to mine, and apart from mere stylistic differences, they both say that same thing. Hence, there is no problem. As for where I got my quote from, I got it from here. It's the best translation in English; it's the most literal and straightforward. However, I'm sure that you'll disagree. I also have a Greek Interlinear version (in my physical possession), which has the original Greek on the left side of the page (with the corresponding English word to each Greek word beneath it), and the English translation on the right side of the page.

The Catholic church has changed so many things and uses pagan rituals all of the time. I dare anyone to research their religion and see what is true or false.

lowkey254

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]1 Corinthians 9:5 states Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? Where did you get your Scripture? Seems to be quite different. As for 1 Timothy 3.......you are aware that some have been married at one time? This is about moderation. It does NOT state that the bishop MUST be married. Just that had he been married in the past.....only one time. Taking text out of context is silly and irresponsible.LJS9502_basic

I'm not arguing that it says that bishops must be married. I'm arguing that it says that bishops CAN be married. Apart from men who are already married when they become clergymen, the Catholic Church forbids its clergymen from marrying. That is non-biblical. The Bible asserts that marriage is a choice; it is never a mandate, nor is it ever prohibited. Period.

EDIT:

I just compared your quote of 1 Corinthians 9:5 to mine, and apart from mere stylistic differences, they both say that same thing. Hence, there is no problem. As for where I got my quote from, I got it from here. It's the best translation in English; it's the most literal and straightforward. However, I'm sure that you'll disagree. I also have a Greek Interlinear version (in my physical possession), which has the original Greek on the left side of the page (with the corresponding English word to each Greek word beneath it), and the English translation on the right side of the page.

You are a fool. There are different translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts. Overall, they are similiar, but in cases where a particular passage can be translated in multiple ways, some translations differ from others. The translations which translate such passages in a manner consistent with the ENTIRE Bible should be used. Hence, for that reason, I used the New World Translation. However, I also used other translations as well; you'd notice if you looked at the quotations in the OP. So, as long as I'm not referencing the passages which can be translated in multiple ways, it doesn't matter which translation I use. As for the differences between my quote and your quote of 1 Corinthians 9:5, there are no differences in meaning. Let us compare them:

New World Translation:

We have authority to lead about a sister as a wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the Lord?s brothers and Ce´phas, do we NOT?1 Corinthians 9

The Translation You Used:

Do we NOT have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?1 Corinthians 9

If you pay attention to both quotes, you'll notice that the only major difference is the placement of the negative-copula ("not"). However, the meaning of the sentence is exactly the same in both translations. Stop creating problems out of nothing. Where the NWT says "sister" ("We have authority to lead about a SISTER as a wife..."), it simply means sister of the congregation (i.e. a CHRISTIAN sister). Think of the term "sister" as Catholics use it in reference to nuns.

You are a fool. There are different translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts. Overall, they are similiar, but in cases where a particular passage can be translated in multiple ways, some translations differ from others. The translations which translate such passages in a manner consistent with the ENTIRE Bible should be used. Hence, for that reason, I used the New World Translation. However, I also used other translations as well; you'd notice if you looked at the quotations in the OP. So, as long as I'm not referencing the passages which can be translated in multiple ways, it doesn't matter which translation I use. As for the differences between my quote and your quote of 1 Corinthians 9:5, there are no differences in meaning. Let us compare them:

New World Translation:

[quote="1 Corinthians 9"]We have authority to lead about a sister as a wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the Lord?s brothers and Ce´phas, do we NOT?BluRayHiDef

The Translation You Used:

Do we NOT have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?1 Corinthians 9

If you pay attention to both quotes, you'll notice that the only major difference is the placement of the negative-copula ("not"). However, the meaning of the sentence is exactly the same in both translations. Stop creating problems out of nothing. Where the NWT says "sister" ("We have authority to lead about a SISTER as a wife..."), it simply means sister of the congregation (i.e. a CHRISTIAN sister). Think of the term "sister" as Catholics use it in reference to nuns.

Well no offense but I don't think you understand religion as much as you think you do Blu Ray.

Now I certainly disagree with the Catholic Church on many things, the celebecy thing is one of them, sex is a gift from God, it's meant to be enjoyed, to deny that and turn it down is a sin in my eyes, your denying something that God gave us. It's like choosing to never open a present.

Much of the Catholic view (and some other Christian sects as well) are wrong on it. I suggest they read the Songs of Solomon, it's all about sex and the enjoyment of it between a man and a woman.

Back in that time, the Songs of Solomon were considered pornagraphic literature to the ancient Israelites. I don't understand why some Christians are so against sex and see it as impure or wrong. They are most certainly wrong.

I see sex as a way to honor God. Telling people they can't do it is just stupid and wrong and it's unnatural really. There are also numerous health benefits associated with sex.

Well no offense but I don't think you understand religion as much as you think you do Blu Ray.

Now I certainly disagree with the Catholic Church on many things, the celebecy thing is one of them, sex is a gift from God, it's meant to be enjoyed, to deny that and turn it down is a sin in my eyes, your denying something that God gave us. It's like choosing to never open a present.

Much of the Catholic view (and some other Christian sects as well) are wrong on it. I suggest they read the Songs of Solomon, it's all about sex and the enjoyment of it between a man and a woman.

Back in that time, the Songs of Solomon were considered pornagraphic literature to the ancient Israelites. I don't understand why some Christians are so against sex and see it as impure or wrong. They are most certainly wrong.

I see sex as a way to honor God. Telling people they can't do it is just stupid and wrong and it's unnatural really. There are also numerous health benefits associated with sex.

ShadowMoses900

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You are a fool. There are different translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts. Overall, they are similiar, but in cases where a particular passage can be translated in multiple ways, some translations differ from others. The translations which translate such passages in a manner consistent with the ENTIRE Bible should be used. Hence, for that reason, I used the New World Translation. However, I also used other translations as well; you'd notice if you looked at the quotations in the OP. So, as long as I'm not referencing the passages which can be translated in multiple ways, it doesn't matter which translation I use. As for the differences between my quote and your quote of 1 Corinthians 9:5, there are no differences in meaning. Let us compare them:

New World Translation:

[quote="1 Corinthians 9"]We have authority to lead about a sister as a wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the Lord?s brothers and Ce´phas, do we NOT?LJS9502_basic

The Translation You Used:

Do we NOT have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?1 Corinthians 9

If you pay attention to both quotes, you'll notice that the only major difference is the placement of the negative-copula ("not"). However, the meaning of the sentence is exactly the same in both translations. Stop creating problems out of nothing. Where the NWT says "sister" ("We have authority to lead about a SISTER as a wife..."), it simply means sister of the congregation (i.e. a CHRISTIAN sister). Think of the term "sister" as Catholics use it in reference to nuns.

You don't think logically/ rationally at all. Just because nuns came after the time this was written, doesn't mean that the use of the word "sister" in reference to a nun can't be used to explain what's meant in the quote. C'mon, man. Stop this nonsense. Anyhow, just because you like jumping in circles, I'll put an end to this.

LINK TO ONLINE ENGLISH-GREEK INTERLINEAR BIBLE

LINK TO 1 CORINTHIANS 9:5

(5) Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and [as] the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?1 Corinthians 9

[QUOTE="lowkey254"]

The Catholic church has changed so many things and uses pagan rituals all of the time. I dare anyone to research their religion and see what is true or false.

LJS9502_basic

I know Catholics think Jesus founded it, but I don't think that's accurate. The Catholic Church was orgionally founded by Constatine, it was not called Catholic at that time, it was a mix of pagan Roman beliefs built upon the teachings of Jesus with the history of the Jews as it's base.

Things like the Christmas Tree for instance is a Roman Pagan symbol used for their worship during Saturnaalia, the worship of the Roman/Greek god Satres. The holiday was lasted about a week long and was about lawlessness and doing whatever one pleases, the Chrstmas Tree comes from this holiday, as does the time period of the Christmas Holiday as well.

Another one is the Virgin Mary, not saying she didn't exist but the idea of her being a Virgin Mother was taken directly from Roman Pagan ideas about their fertility goddess, who was a virgin, and they applied it to Jesus's mother. Easter is another holiday with many pagan influences as well.

Please be aware I'm not anti-Christian, nor am I saying that Jesus didn't matter or his message wasn't important. The core message is a good one and it does not matter if he was born on Christmas or not, there is nothing wrong with celebrating the holiday or believing in it.

But if you look at history you see a lot of pagan influences from the Romans, in both Christianity and the Catholic Church as well.

You don't think logically/ rationally at all. Just because nuns came after the time this was written, doesn't mean that the use of the word "sister" in reference to a nun can't be used to explain what's meant in the quote. C'mon, man. Stop this nonsense. Anyhow, just because you like jumping in circles, I'll put an end to this.

If you consult the Greek text on the left hand of the page, you'll see that the Greek word used literally means "sister". Now stop with the non-sense. Also, for your information, this Greek Interlinear Bible was not published or made by the Jehovah's Witnesses (who made the New World Translation). Yet, consider the fact that its translation is similar to that of the New World Translation? Why is that? Because it and the New World Translation are literal translations. They are much better than the one you used and most other translations.

BluRayHiDef

Not sure why you think you're continued ad hominems are valid for a discussion but you need to stop using insults in discussion. It makes any point you might have worthless.....

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lowkey254"]

The Catholic church has changed so many things and uses pagan rituals all of the time. I dare anyone to research their religion and see what is true or false.

ShadowMoses900

I know Catholics think Jesus founded it, but I don't think that's accurate. The Catholic Church was orgionally founded by Constatine, it was not called Catholic at that time, it was a mix of pagan Roman beliefs built upon the teachings of Jesus with the history of the Jews as it's base.

Things like the Christmas Tree for instance is a Roman Pagan symbol used for their worship during Saturnaalia, the worship of the Roman/Greek god Satres. The holiday was lasted about a week long and was about lawlessness and doing whatever one pleases, the Chrstmas Tree comes from this holiday, as does the time period of the Christmas Holiday as well.

Another one is the Virgin Mary, not saying she didn't exist but the idea of her being a Virgin Mother was taken directly from Roman Pagan ideas about their fertility goddess, who was a virgin, and they applied it to Jesus's mother. Easter is another holiday with many pagan influences as well.

Please be aware I'm not anti-Christian, nor am I saying that Jesus didn't matter or his message wasn't important. The core message is a good one and it does not matter if he was born on Christmas or not, there is nothing wrong with celebrating the holiday or believing in it.

But if you look at history you see a lot of pagan influences from the Romans, in both Christianity and the Catholic Church as well.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You don't think logically/ rationally at all. Just because nuns came after the time this was written, doesn't mean that the use of the word "sister" in reference to a nun can't be used to explain what's meant in the quote. C'mon, man. Stop this nonsense. Anyhow, just because you like jumping in circles, I'll put an end to this.

If you consult the Greek text on the left hand of the page, you'll see that the Greek word used literally means "sister". Now stop with the non-sense. Also, for your information, this Greek Interlinear Bible was not published or made by the Jehovah's Witnesses (who made the New World Translation). Yet, consider the fact that its translation is similar to that of the New World Translation? Why is that? Because it and the New World Translation are literal translations. They are much better than the one you used and most other translations.

LJS9502_basic

Not sure why you think you're continued ad hominems are valid for a discussion but you need to stop using insults in discussion. It makes any point you might have worthless.....

if anyone is dumb enough to dismiss the authority of the original Greek text, then they are a fool and aren't worth arguing with. Goodby, sir. Blab on, but I won't respond.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You don't think logically/ rationally at all. Just because nuns came after the time this was written, doesn't mean that the use of the word "sister" in reference to a nun can't be used to explain what's meant in the quote. C'mon, man. Stop this nonsense. Anyhow, just because you like jumping in circles, I'll put an end to this.

If you consult the Greek text on the left hand of the page, you'll see that the Greek word used literally means "sister". Now stop with the non-sense. Also, for your information, this Greek Interlinear Bible was not published or made by the Jehovah's Witnesses (who made the New World Translation). Yet, consider the fact that its translation is similar to that of the New World Translation? Why is that? Because it and the New World Translation are literal translations. They are much better than the one you used and most other translations.

BluRayHiDef

Not sure why you think you're continued ad hominems are valid for a discussion but you need to stop using insults in discussion. It makes any point you might have worthless.....

if anyone is dumb enough to dismiss the authority of the original Greek text, then they are a fool and aren't worth arguing with. Goodby, sir. Blab on, but I won't respond.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Well no offense but I don't think you understand religion as much as you think you do Blu Ray.

Now I certainly disagree with the Catholic Church on many things, the celebecy thing is one of them, sex is a gift from God, it's meant to be enjoyed, to deny that and turn it down is a sin in my eyes, your denying something that God gave us. It's like choosing to never open a present.

Much of the Catholic view (and some other Christian sects as well) are wrong on it. I suggest they read the Songs of Solomon, it's all about sex and the enjoyment of it between a man and a woman.

Back in that time, the Songs of Solomon were considered pornagraphic literature to the ancient Israelites. I don't understand why some Christians are so against sex and see it as impure or wrong. They are most certainly wrong.

I see sex as a way to honor God. Telling people they can't do it is just stupid and wrong and it's unnatural really. There are also numerous health benefits associated with sex.

LJS9502_basic

The first commandment in the Bible is actually in Genises, "Be fruitful and multiply", right there God is saying "go have sex". Also I never said sex was wrong, I said it was a gift from God meant to be enjoyed, maybe you misread that? Sex is a good thing, probably one of the best things, choosing not to do it is like slapping God in the face.

We were meant for sex, it's a good thing. Promiscuity maybe is wrong, but not sex in it'self. But the idea that your supposed to wait until marriage is crazy, it's just not possible to do so. And why would someone choose not to have sex? Because they were taught that it is wrong or makes them impure, well they need to break that idea.

People who choose not to have sex at all are going to have a very hard life, they will also become at high risk for cancers, as sex actually is healthy for the body and mind and enhances it. Sex is a good and beautiful thing and there is nothing wrogn with it, it's a way to honor God.

I don't understand why some Christains (not referring to you or anyone specifically) are so against it and think it's wrong. They don't even know their own Bible.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Well no offense but I don't think you understand religion as much as you think you do Blu Ray.

Now I certainly disagree with the Catholic Church on many things, the celebecy thing is one of them, sex is a gift from God, it's meant to be enjoyed, to deny that and turn it down is a sin in my eyes, your denying something that God gave us. It's like choosing to never open a present.

Much of the Catholic view (and some other Christian sects as well) are wrong on it. I suggest they read the Songs of Solomon, it's all about sex and the enjoyment of it between a man and a woman.

Back in that time, the Songs of Solomon were considered pornagraphic literature to the ancient Israelites. I don't understand why some Christians are so against sex and see it as impure or wrong. They are most certainly wrong.

I see sex as a way to honor God. Telling people they can't do it is just stupid and wrong and it's unnatural really. There are also numerous health benefits associated with sex.

ShadowMoses900

The first commandment in the Bible is actually in Genises, "Be fruitful and multiply", right there God is saying "go have sex". Also I never said sex was wrong, I said it was a gift from God meant to be enjoyed, maybe you misread that? Sex is a good thing, probably one of the best things, choosing not to do it is like slapping God in the face.

We were meant for sex, it's a good thing. Promiscuity maybe is wrong, but not sex in it'self. But the idea that your supposed to wait until marriage is crazy, it's just not possible to do so. And why would someone choose not to have sex? Because they were taught that it is wrong or makes them impure, well they need to break that idea.

People who choose not to have sex at all are going to have a very hard life, they will also become at high risk for cancers, as sex actually is healthy for the body and mind and enhances it. Sex is a good and beautiful thing and there is nothing wrogn with it, it's a way to honor God.

I don't understand why some Christains (not referring to you or anyone specifically) are so against it and think it's wrong. They don't even know their own Bible.