I am not seeing the heresy in the original post. Sabellianism is heresy. Socinianism is heresy. Pelagianism is heresy. Believing the Bible teaches celibacy is not heresy. I think that is a loose use of that term. maheo30BluRay misuses that term constantly....
The Heresy of the Catholic Church
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Isn't it just as wrong to tell people they must have sex? Not everyone is the same. As for sex being wrong....that's not true. However, promiscuity is wrong. Not sex though......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.
Why is it crazy? Has society benefited by the large number of children born without fathers being involved in raising them? Has society benefited by teen pregnancies?I was referring to adults, not teenage kids. And I think teen pregnancy rates would be lower if the Catholic Church wasn't so against birth control and teaching about safe sex.
In an ideal world there would be no kids having sex, but this is real life and some of them are going to do it anyway, so why not teach them how to be safe about it?There is more to sex then just pro creation, it's a spiritual thing as well. I actually consider it to be a form of meditation.
And a way to worship God and thank Him for this wonderful gift. Being against that is crazy and unnatural.
Why is it crazy? Has society benefited by the large number of children born without fathers being involved in raising them? Has society benefited by teen pregnancies?[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="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.
ShadowMoses900
I was referring to adults, not teenage kids. And I think teen pregnancy rates would be lower if the Catholic Church wasn't so against birth control and teaching about safe sex.
In an ideal world there would be no kids having sex, but this is real life and some of them are going to do it anyway, so why not teach them how to be safe about it?There is more to sex then just pro creation, it's a spiritual thing as well. I actually consider it to be a form of meditation.
And a way to worship God and thank Him for this wonderful gift. Being against that is crazy and unnatural.
Not sure where you get your information but the days of large Catholic families are over. They don't have any more children than other groups. Why do you continue to think that someone CHOOSING celibacy is against sex? Some people don't really have sex drives you know. Seems you are more intolerant of their choice than they are by making that choice.[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Why is it crazy? Has society benefited by the large number of children born without fathers being involved in raising them? Has society benefited by teen pregnancies? LJS9502_basic
I was referring to adults, not teenage kids. And I think teen pregnancy rates would be lower if the Catholic Church wasn't so against birth control and teaching about safe sex.
In an ideal world there would be no kids having sex, but this is real life and some of them are going to do it anyway, so why not teach them how to be safe about it?There is more to sex then just pro creation, it's a spiritual thing as well. I actually consider it to be a form of meditation.
And a way to worship God and thank Him for this wonderful gift. Being against that is crazy and unnatural.
Not sure where you get your information but the days of large Catholic families are over. They don't have any more children than other groups. Why do you continue to think that someone CHOOSING celibacy is against sex? Some people don't really have sex drives you know. Seems you are more intolerant of their choice than they are by making that choice.I never said they had large families, but they are partly responsible for teen pregnancies in areas with heavy Catholic influence because they teach against birth control and safe sex.
Choosing celibacy is wrong, plain and simple. It's choosing to refuse one of God's gifts and it's unhealthy and unnatural. Celebicay goes against scrpiture entirely.
Not sure where you get your information but the days of large Catholic families are over. They don't have any more children than other groups. Why do you continue to think that someone CHOOSING celibacy is against sex? Some people don't really have sex drives you know. Seems you are more intolerant of their choice than they are by making that choice.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]
I was referring to adults, not teenage kids. And I think teen pregnancy rates would be lower if the Catholic Church wasn't so against birth control and teaching about safe sex.
In an ideal world there would be no kids having sex, but this is real life and some of them are going to do it anyway, so why not teach them how to be safe about it?There is more to sex then just pro creation, it's a spiritual thing as well. I actually consider it to be a form of meditation.
And a way to worship God and thank Him for this wonderful gift. Being against that is crazy and unnatural.
ShadowMoses900
I never said they had large families, but they are partly responsible for teen pregnancies in areas with heavy Catholic influence because they teach against birth control and safe sex.
Choosing celibacy is wrong, plain and simple. It's choosing to refuse one of God's gifts and it's unhealthy and unnatural. Celebicay goes against scrpiture entirely.
So you don't think Catholics use birth control? That's not true either. Actually it doesn't go against scripture entirely. I posted several texts from that call for celibacy. You can't say scripture is an expert and then disregard it. And again....some people have no interest in sex. It IS quite natural for them to not engage in that activity. What do you define as natural? Heterosexuality only?
BRHD, you never proved the teaching of celibacy to be heretical. You assumed it and went on your way. Can you cite sources that show the church has viewed this doctrine to be heresy? That term is not one to be thrown around so lightly. To be a heretic is to be outside the faith. The church has always held certain doctrines to be essential and others nonessential. What makes holding a biblical view of sex and marriage essential? I am referring to this particular discussion when I ask that question since sex and marriage is such a broad topic. maheo30
This post is a perfect example of how Catholics think. You guys have been brainwashed very well. I do not hold any "church" to be the final authority; I consider the Bible to be the final authority. Furthermore, I do not believe that it was the Catholic Church that decided what books went into the Bible, nor do I believe that the Catholic Church is derived directly from Peter and Jesus himself (as it falsely claims). Subsequently, I do not define heresy as a teaching that contradicts or differs from what the Catholic Church teaches, but define it as a teaching that contradicts what the Bible teaches. The Bible was written by Prophets and the original Apostles, hence it is the FINAL authority.
With that said, when I use the word "heresy", I have definition 2b in mind, which states:
an opinion, doctrine, or practice CONTRARY TO THE TRUTH or to generally accepted beliefs or standardsMerriam-Webster
The truth is what the Bible says, and though the Bible espouses celibacy, it does not prohibit marriage and even says that the prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils. Period.
[QUOTE="maheo30"]BRHD, you never proved the teaching of celibacy to be heretical. You assumed it and went on your way. Can you cite sources that show the church has viewed this doctrine to be heresy? That term is not one to be thrown around so lightly. To be a heretic is to be outside the faith. The church has always held certain doctrines to be essential and others nonessential. What makes holding a biblical view of sex and marriage essential? I am referring to this particular discussion when I ask that question since sex and marriage is such a broad topic. BluRayHiDef
This post is a perfect example of how Catholics think. You guys have been brainwashed very well. I do not hold any "church" to be the final authority; I consider the Bible to be the final authority. Furthermore, I do not believe that it was the Catholic Church that decided what books went into the Bible, nor do I believe that the Catholic Church is derived directly from Peter and Jesus himself (as it falsely claims). Subsequently, I do not define heresy as a teaching that contradicts or differs from what the Catholic Church teaches, but define it as a teaching that contradicts what the Bible teaches. The Bible was written by Prophets and the original Apostles, hence it is the FINAL authority.
With that said, when I use the word "heresy", I have definition 2b in mind, which states:
an opinion, doctrine, or practice CONTRARY TO THE TRUTH or to generally accepted beliefs or standardsMerriam-Webster
The truth is what the Bible says, and though the Bible espouses celibacy, it does not prohibit marriage and even says that the prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils. Period.
I don't think maheo is Catholic. You really need to stop assuming Period.By the way...using your definition.....your OP is false. You owned yourself.
This post is a perfect example of how Catholics think. You guys have been brainwashed very well. I do not hold any "church" to be the final authority; I consider the Bible to be the final authority. Furthermore, I do not believe that it was the Catholic Church that decided what books went into the Bible, nor do I believe that the Catholic Church is derived directly from Peter and Jesus himself (as it falsely claims). Subsequently, I do not define heresy as a teaching that contradicts or differs from what the Catholic Church teaches, but define it as a teaching that contradicts what the Bible teaches. The Bible was written by Prophets and the original Apostles, hence it is the FINAL authority.With that said, when I use the word "heresy", I have definition 2b in mind, which states:
[quote="Merriam-Webster"]an opinion, doctrine, or practice CONTRARY TO THE TRUTH or to generally accepted beliefs or standardsBluRayHiDef
The truth is what the Bible says, and though the Bible espouses celibacy, it does not prohibit marriage and even says that the prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils. Period.
Maheo30 is no more a part of the Roman Catholic church as I am.Typically speaking, when Christians speak of the term heresy they are speaking of doctrinal problems that would cause a person to be no longer considered a part of the Christian faith. Not being married is a secondary issue and is not an issue worth seperating over. Denying the Trinity would be an example of a more central issue.
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]This post is a perfect example of how Catholics think. You guys have been brainwashed very well. I do not hold any "church" to be the final authority; I consider the Bible to be the final authority. Furthermore, I do not believe that it was the Catholic Church that decided what books went into the Bible, nor do I believe that the Catholic Church is derived directly from Peter and Jesus himself (as it falsely claims). Subsequently, I do not define heresy as a teaching that contradicts or differs from what the Catholic Church teaches, but define it as a teaching that contradicts what the Bible teaches. The Bible was written by Prophets and the original Apostles, hence it is the FINAL authority.
With that said, when I use the word "heresy", I have definition 2b in mind, which states:
[quote="Merriam-Webster"]an opinion, doctrine, or practice CONTRARY TO THE TRUTH or to generally accepted beliefs or standardsmindstorm
The truth is what the Bible says, and though the Bible espouses celibacy, it does not prohibit marriage and even says that the prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils. Period.
Maheo30 is no more a part of the Roman Catholic church as I am.Typically speaking, when Christians speak of the term heresy they are speaking of doctrinal problems that would cause a person to be no longer considered a part of the Christian faith. Not being married is a secondary issue and is not an issue worth seperating over. Denying the Trinity would be an example of a more central issue.
The Trinity is not Biblical. What part of that don't you understand? Denying it would be the exact opposite of heresy. Where in the Bible does it say that God is three persons? Where in the Bible is Jesus referred to as God or God the Son? Why is it that the Trinity doctrine isn't explicity mentioned in the Bible? Because it's not Biblical. Your sin is on your own head. I will pray that you learn the truth.
[QUOTE="mindstorm"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]This post is a perfect example of how Catholics think. You guys have been brainwashed very well. I do not hold any "church" to be the final authority; I consider the Bible to be the final authority. Furthermore, I do not believe that it was the Catholic Church that decided what books went into the Bible, nor do I believe that the Catholic Church is derived directly from Peter and Jesus himself (as it falsely claims). Subsequently, I do not define heresy as a teaching that contradicts or differs from what the Catholic Church teaches, but define it as a teaching that contradicts what the Bible teaches. The Bible was written by Prophets and the original Apostles, hence it is the FINAL authority.
With that said, when I use the word "heresy", I have definition 2b in mind, which states:
[quote="Merriam-Webster"]an opinion, doctrine, or practice CONTRARY TO THE TRUTH or to generally accepted beliefs or standardsBluRayHiDef
The truth is what the Bible says, and though the Bible espouses celibacy, it does not prohibit marriage and even says that the prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils. Period.
Maheo30 is no more a part of the Roman Catholic church as I am.Typically speaking, when Christians speak of the term heresy they are speaking of doctrinal problems that would cause a person to be no longer considered a part of the Christian faith. Not being married is a secondary issue and is not an issue worth seperating over. Denying the Trinity would be an example of a more central issue.
The Trinity is not Biblical. What part of that don't you understand? Denying it would be the exact opposite of heresy. Where in the Bible does it say that God is three persons? Where in the Bible is Jesus referred to as God or God the Son? Why is it that the Trinity doctrine isn't explicity mentioned in the Bible? Because it's not Biblical. Your sin is on your own head. I will pray that you learn the truth.
lol... You do realize the site you referenced is from Jehovah's Witnesses, yes?[QUOTE="mindstorm"]
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]This post is a perfect example of how Catholics think. You guys have been brainwashed very well. I do not hold any "church" to be the final authority; I consider the Bible to be the final authority. Furthermore, I do not believe that it was the Catholic Church that decided what books went into the Bible, nor do I believe that the Catholic Church is derived directly from Peter and Jesus himself (as it falsely claims). Subsequently, I do not define heresy as a teaching that contradicts or differs from what the Catholic Church teaches, but define it as a teaching that contradicts what the Bible teaches. The Bible was written by Prophets and the original Apostles, hence it is the FINAL authority.
With that said, when I use the word "heresy", I have definition 2b in mind, which states:
[quote="Merriam-Webster"]an opinion, doctrine, or practice CONTRARY TO THE TRUTH or to generally accepted beliefs or standardsBluRayHiDef
The truth is what the Bible says, and though the Bible espouses celibacy, it does not prohibit marriage and even says that the prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils. Period.
Maheo30 is no more a part of the Roman Catholic church as I am.Typically speaking, when Christians speak of the term heresy they are speaking of doctrinal problems that would cause a person to be no longer considered a part of the Christian faith. Not being married is a secondary issue and is not an issue worth seperating over. Denying the Trinity would be an example of a more central issue.
The Trinity is not Biblical. What part of that don't you understand? Denying it would be the exact opposite of heresy. Where in the Bible does it say that God is three persons? Where in the Bible is Jesus referred to as God or God the Son? Why is it that the Trinity doctrine isn't explicity mentioned in the Bible? watchtower.orgBecause it's not Biblical. Your sin is on your own head. I will pray that you learn the truth.
First using the Jehovah Witnesses as experts on Christianity isn't the proper way to do it. They aren't exactly Christian by the common definition of the word and their interpretations are often at odds with everyone else. Nonetheless read... Just a quick google will give your the information you wish....[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"][QUOTE="mindstorm"] Maheo30 is no more a part of the Roman Catholic church as I am.
Typically speaking, when Christians speak of the term heresy they are speaking of doctrinal problems that would cause a person to be no longer considered a part of the Christian faith. Not being married is a secondary issue and is not an issue worth seperating over. Denying the Trinity would be an example of a more central issue.
mindstorm
The Trinity is not Biblical. What part of that don't you understand? Denying it would be the exact opposite of heresy. Where in the Bible does it say that God is three persons? Where in the Bible is Jesus referred to as God or God the Son? Why is it that the Trinity doctrine isn't explicity mentioned in the Bible? Because it's not Biblical. Your sin is on your own head. I will pray that you learn the truth.
lol... You do realize the site you referenced is from Jehovah's Witnesses, yes?You do realize that the Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs are correct, right? On a serious note, read the article with an objective mind. It disproves the doctrine.
lol... You do realize the site you referenced is from Jehovah's Witnesses, yes?[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
The Trinity is not Biblical. What part of that don't you understand? Denying it would be the exact opposite of heresy. Where in the Bible does it say that God is three persons? Where in the Bible is Jesus referred to as God or God the Son? Why is it that the Trinity doctrine isn't explicity mentioned in the Bible? Because it's not Biblical. Your sin is on your own head. I will pray that you learn the truth.
BluRayHiDef
You do realize that the Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs are correct, right? On a serious note, read the article with an objective mind. It disproves the doctrine.
Are they? Or do you just choose their INTERPRETATION?lol... You do realize the site you referenced is from Jehovah's Witnesses, yes?[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
The Trinity is not Biblical. What part of that don't you understand? Denying it would be the exact opposite of heresy. Where in the Bible does it say that God is three persons? Where in the Bible is Jesus referred to as God or God the Son? Why is it that the Trinity doctrine isn't explicity mentioned in the Bible? Because it's not Biblical. Your sin is on your own head. I will pray that you learn the truth.
BluRayHiDef
You do realize that the Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs are correct, right? On a serious note, read the article with an objective mind. It disproves the doctrine.
I must say I disagree with their views that Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel, Jesus had an "invisible return" in 1914, that people are saved from not hell but annihilationism because of their good works, that Jesus was crucified on a post rather than a cross, and even that the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH is pronounced Jehovah rather than Yahweh for which their name derives. I simply cannot view their doctrine as biblical in the slightest.[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"][QUOTE="mindstorm"] lol... You do realize the site you referenced is from Jehovah's Witnesses, yes?mindstorm
You do realize that the Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs are correct, right? On a serious note, read the article with an objective mind. It disproves the doctrine.
I must say I disagree with their views that Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel, Jesus had an "invisible return" in 1914, that people are saved from not hell but annihilationism because of their good works, that Jesus was crucified on a post rather than a cross, and even that the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH is pronounced Jehovah rather than Yahweh for which their name derives. I simply cannot view their doctrine as biblical in the slightest. And they continue to predict the end and have been wrong every time...you'd think if they had the correct interpretation they'd be right.:lol:And I find this thread completely ironic considered the common thought in regard to Christians about the belief BRHD is pushing is that they are heretical.LJS9502_basicWhile I hope to not come across as poking fun at BRHD, I do agree that it is ironic. In order to find out what is biblical and what is not, the New World Translation of the Bible is simply not a great source. As they will not even release the academic credentials of their translators, I have doubts as to whether or not their "translators" had more than a semester of Greek and Hebrew. All it seems to be is a culmination of English translations with some bad Greek translations on the side in order to put forth their biased views. They are biblical as according to their faulty translation, yes, but not according to every other existing translation and historic Christian views.
lmaoYou do realize that the Jehovah's Witnesses' beliefs are correct, right?
BluRayHiDef
yeah, obviously
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And I find this thread completely ironic considered the common thought in regard to Christians about the belief BRHD is pushing is that they are heretical.mindstormWhile I hope to not come across as poking fun at BRHD, I do agree that it is ironic. In order to find out what is biblical and what is not, the New World Translation of the Bible is simply not a great source. As they will not even release the academic credentials of their translators, I have doubts as to whether or not their "translators" had more than a semester of Greek and Hebrew. c They are biblical as according to their faulty translation, yes, but not according to every other existing translation and historic Christian views.
You reasoning is faulty. They don't release the identity of the translators because they want the translation to stand on its own meritis. Why is the identity of the translators even relevant when you can examine the translation for yourself? It's a literal translation and isn't stylized like others. I also love the fact that you spout pure conjecture as a means of dismissing the translation ("All it seems to be is a culmination of English translations with some bad Greek translations on the side in order to put forth their biased views."). How do you know it's a bad Greek translation on the side? All one needs to do is learn how to at least read the Greek text on the right phonetically and then look up the meanings of the Greek words themselves to see if they're mistranslated or not. C'mon, man. The fact is that you're biased toward JWs and won't even consider assessing them or their publications objectively.
Furthermore, if you're going to question the JWs translation, why not question any other? Let me guess, so as long as a translation is consistent with YOUR dogma, you'll accept it right? But if its one done by an organization that you don't agree with, it must be faulty, right?
While I hope to not come across as poking fun at BRHD, I do agree that it is ironic. In order to find out what is biblical and what is not, the New World Translation of the Bible is simply not a great source. As they will not even release the academic credentials of their translators, I have doubts as to whether or not their "translators" had more than a semester of Greek and Hebrew. c They are biblical as according to their faulty translation, yes, but not according to every other existing translation and historic Christian views.[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And I find this thread completely ironic considered the common thought in regard to Christians about the belief BRHD is pushing is that they are heretical.BluRayHiDef
You reasoning is faulty. They don't release the identity of the translators because they want the translation to stand on its own meritis. Why is the identity of the translators even relevant when you can examine the translation for yourself? It's a literal translation and isn't stylized like others. I also love the fact that you spout pure conjecture as means of dismissing the translation ("All it seems to be is a culmination of English translations with some bad Greek translations on the side in order to put forth their biased views."). How do you know it's a bad Greek translation on the side? All one needs to do is learn how to at least read the Greek text on the right phonetically and then look up the meanings of the Greek words themselves to see if they're mistranslated or not. C'mon, man. The fact is that you're biased toward JWs and won't even consider assessing them or their publications objectively.
You do know Jehovah's Witnesses have deviated from Christianity and thus changed some Scripture....right? Or is your only experience with the NT through this one religion which isn't considered Christian by the way.....which should tell you how far off they are.
:lol:No offense, BluRay, but your religion threads are pretty fvcking terrible.
GreySeal9
[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"][QUOTE="mindstorm"] While I hope to not come across as poking fun at BRHD, I do agree that it is ironic. In order to find out what is biblical and what is not, the New World Translation of the Bible is simply not a great source. As they will not even release the academic credentials of their translators, I have doubts as to whether or not their "translators" had more than a semester of Greek and Hebrew. c They are biblical as according to their faulty translation, yes, but not according to every other existing translation and historic Christian views.LJS9502_basic
You reasoning is faulty. They don't release the identity of the translators because they want the translation to stand on its own meritis. Why is the identity of the translators even relevant when you can examine the translation for yourself? It's a literal translation and isn't stylized like others. I also love the fact that you spout pure conjecture as means of dismissing the translation ("All it seems to be is a culmination of English translations with some bad Greek translations on the side in order to put forth their biased views."). How do you know it's a bad Greek translation on the side? All one needs to do is learn how to at least read the Greek text on the right phonetically and then look up the meanings of the Greek words themselves to see if they're mistranslated or not. C'mon, man. The fact is that you're biased toward JWs and won't even consider assessing them or their publications objectively.
You do know Jehovah's Witnesses have deviated from Christianity and thus changed some Scripture....right? Or is your only experience with the NT through this one religion which isn't considered Christian by the way.....which should tell you how far off they are.Your problem is that your biased. You can't look at anything objectively. In your mind, true Christianity is the form followed by the majority of Christians (and, more specifically Catholicism?). However, if you would put that belief aside for one second and objectively assess what and why the JWs teach what they teach, you'd have a better understanding. Also, you have no proof that they changed any scripture. They use the same Hewbrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts as the basis for their translation as other translation committees use. Hence, if there are any major differences between their translation and others, it may not necessarily be because they're wrong, but perhaps the others are wrong. That's what you can't understand. In your mind, JW automaticaly = wrong. There is no reasoning that comes into play when you think of JWs. Now, begone.
the catholic leadership is in the middle of a huge revamp to make their image a bit better.
they are now raping little girls too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-vatican-legion-idUSBRE84L0Y920120522
the catholic leadership is in the middle of a huge revamp to make their image a bit better.
they are now raping little girls too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-vatican-legion-idUSBRE84L0Y920120522
Riverwolf007
To think that some dare argue that it is the true Church. Yes, the true Church is house of pedophiles.:roll:
Ironically you follow the Jehovah's Witnesses version which was created much later by one individual and thus are biased. I know what the JWs teach...and it's not grounded in the reality of the Bible.Your problem is that your biased. You can't look at anything objectively. In your mind, true Christianity is the form followed by the majority of Christians (and, more specifically Catholicism?). However, if you would put that belief aside for one second and objectively assess what and why the JWs teach what they teach, you'd have a better understanding. Also, you have no proof that they changed any scripture. They use the same Hewbrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts as the basis for their translation as other translation committees use. Hence, if there are any major differences between their translation and others, it may not necessarily be because they're wrong, but perhaps the others are wrong. That's what you can't understand. In your mind, JW automaticaly = wrong. There is no reasoning that comes into play when you think of JWs. Now, begone.
BluRayHiDef
Appeal to authority DOES NOT work for the reasons I stated previously. Anyone can hold a manuscript in another language and say they translated it as written. But when just the one sect varies...how accurate do you really believe they are?
I gave you several passages to bolster my side of the discussion. You have not read them in the least. In addition....what the JWs did with their translation would be the heresy you preach against. The lack of divinity is a big heretical belief dude. What do you call heresy? Saying Jesus' mother was a special person or that priests should remain celibate. Neither of which is.
You'll find the JW frequently make attacks against churches when their tenets are disputed by the Bible. And your responses in this thread are much the same. You want to discuss Biblical Scripture be my guest. But that far you have not.
To think that some dare argue that it is the true Church. Yes, the true Church is house of pedophiles.:roll:BluRayHiDefStatistically and factually the Catholic Church does not have higher instances of this occurring. While it's horrendous that it happens...it doesn't ONLY happen in the Catholic Church. It just gets all the publicity. Did you know Protestant denominations carry insurance for it? Did you know that secular society has instances of it?
Here.... read how wonderfully the JWs handle the issue.:roll:
[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]
the catholic leadership is in the middle of a huge revamp to make their image a bit better.
they are now raping little girls too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-vatican-legion-idUSBRE84L0Y920120522
BluRayHiDef
To think that some dare argue that it is the true Church. Yes, the true Church is house of pedophiles.:roll:
they can't help it they are all the popes bytches.they need to get back to traditional catholic values. like worshipping dogs.
He failed miserably and he's a hypocrite.Can we all just remind ourselves that this thread is a non-Christian trying to educate us on the principles of the Christian faith?
J-man45
[QUOTE="J-man45"]
Can we all just remind ourselves that this thread is a non-Christian trying to educate us on the principles of the Christian faith?
Iszdope
Yeah, and then..?
It's just, reading the thread it seems obvious that this guy has no business calling the Bible the "final authority," telling people what doctrines to believe, and other such nonsense. So I don't see the need to try to argue with him at all.Can we all just remind ourselves that this thread is a non-Christian trying to educate us on the principles of the Christian faith?
J-man45
It's possible for a non-Christian to as well-versed on the principles of the Christian faith as a Christian.
That being said, Bluray clearly has no idea what he is talking about.
[QUOTE="J-man45"]
Can we all just remind ourselves that this thread is a non-Christian trying to educate us on the principles of the Christian faith?
GreySeal9
It's possible for a non-Christian to as well-versed on the principles of the Christian faith as a Christian.
That being said, Bluray clearly has no idea what he is talking about.
Explain to me in detail how I have no idea what I'm talking about. I provided passages from the Bible which explicitly say that there will be a time when some will forbid marriage and the consumption of meats, and that such prohibitions will be from devils. Guess what? The Catholic Church forbids its clergymen from marrying (unless they are already married when they come ordained). It also forbids the consumption of meat on Fridays during Lent. Hence, where is the problem? What am I getting wrong here? Go away.
It's just, reading the thread it seems obvious that this guy has no business calling the Bible the "final authority," telling people what doctrines to believe, and other such nonsense. So I don't see the need to try to argue with him at all.[QUOTE="J-man45"][QUOTE="Iszdope"]
Yeah, and then..?
Iszdope
Yeah, he loco, but there are many "non-Christians" who can bury your words every time.
It's too easy.
I have yet to see you, for instance, bury anyone's words......It's just, reading the thread it seems obvious that this guy has no business calling the Bible the "final authority," telling people what doctrines to believe, and other such nonsense. So I don't see the need to try to argue with him at all.[QUOTE="J-man45"][QUOTE="Iszdope"]
Yeah, and then..?
Iszdope
Yeah, he loco, but there are many "non-Christians" who can bury your words every time.
It's too easy.
Edit: Crap! Post 87. Cursed again!
Perhaps I was not wording my thoughts clearly enough then. I don't know, it's just weird to me...
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="J-man45"]
Can we all just remind ourselves that this thread is a non-Christian trying to educate us on the principles of the Christian faith?
BluRayHiDef
It's possible for a non-Christian to as well-versed on the principles of the Christian faith as a Christian.
That being said, Bluray clearly has no idea what he is talking about.
Explain to me in detail how I have no idea what I'm talking about. I provided passages from the Bible which explicitly say that there will be a time when some will forbid marriage and the consumption of meats, and that such prohibitions will be from devils. Guess what? The Catholic Church forbids its clergymen from marrying (unless they are already married when they come ordained). It also forbids the consumption of meat on Fridays during Lent. Hence, where is the problem? What am I getting wrong here? Go away.
Make me.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="J-man45"]
Can we all just remind ourselves that this thread is a non-Christian trying to educate us on the principles of the Christian faith?
BluRayHiDef
It's possible for a non-Christian to as well-versed on the principles of the Christian faith as a Christian.
That being said, Bluray clearly has no idea what he is talking about.
Explain to me in detail how I have no idea what I'm talking about. I provided passages from the Bible which explicitly say that there will be a time when some will forbid marriage and the consumption of meats, and that such prohibitions will be from devils. Guess what? The Catholic Church forbids its clergymen from marrying (unless they are already married when they come ordained). It also forbids the consumption of meat on Fridays during Lent. Hence, where is the problem? What am I getting wrong here? Go away.
Where did you show this?Can we all just remind ourselves that this thread is a non-Christian trying to educate us on the principles of the Christian faith?
J-man45
I've already said that I'm moving toward the faith. Is that not good enough?
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
[QUOTE="J-man45"]
Can we all just remind ourselves that this thread is a non-Christian trying to educate us on the principles of the Christian faith?
BluRayHiDef
It's possible for a non-Christian to as well-versed on the principles of the Christian faith as a Christian.
That being said, Bluray clearly has no idea what he is talking about.
Explain to me in detail how I have no idea what I'm talking about. I provided passages from the Bible which explicitly say that there will be a time when some will forbid marriage and the consumption of meats, and that such prohibitions will be from devils. Guess what? The Catholic Church forbids its clergymen from marrying (unless they are already married when they come ordained). It also forbids the consumption of meat on Fridays during Lent. Hence, where is the problem? What am I getting wrong here? Go away.
Not gonna lie, but that passage from 1 Timothy that you seem to be referencing seems to be talking about some things much, much worse than anything the Catholic church has established.
[QUOTE="J-man45"]
[QUOTE="Iszdope"]
Yeah, he loco, but there are many "non-Christians" who can bury your words every time.
It's too easy.
Edit: Crap! Post 87. Cursed again!
Iszdope
Perhaps I was not wording my thoughts clearly enough then. I don't know, it's just weird to me...
How old you?
I see no reason to answer that question.[QUOTE="J-man45"]
Can we all just remind ourselves that this thread is a non-Christian trying to educate us on the principles of the Christian faith?
BluRayHiDef
I've already said that I'm moving toward the faith. Is that not good enough?
JW isn't exactly Christian....so you're not.[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]
It's possible for a non-Christian to as well-versed on the principles of the Christian faith as a Christian.
That being said, Bluray clearly has no idea what he is talking about.
J-man45
Explain to me in detail how I have no idea what I'm talking about. I provided passages from the Bible which explicitly say that there will be a time when some will forbid marriage and the consumption of meats, and that such prohibitions will be from devils. Guess what? The Catholic Church forbids its clergymen from marrying (unless they are already married when they come ordained). It also forbids the consumption of meat on Fridays during Lent. Hence, where is the problem? What am I getting wrong here? Go away.
Not gonna lie, but that passage from 1 Timothy that you seem to be referencing seems to be talking about some things much, much worse than anything the Catholic church has established.
Which one? I have no clue what he thinks he proved.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment