Building High-Performance Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
Catholic Q&A Continues
 

Mr. Chen
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 867

Brother Chris wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
I came into this thread because you wanted to move our conversation here. Now you're stuck with me.


Yes, and you didn't want to actually have our conversation. You just presented non-sequitors. My question still stands:

How do we know which books are in the Bible?


If my answers had no relevance, why bother going on for pages? I don't plan on going back to the subject of the canon with you. I offered you 30+ links if you wanted to study it from a protestant viewpoint.

  Report
 

Mr. Chen
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 867

Brother Chris wrote:


If we're going to have strange rules so that we can't make things up (because you know only using the Bible really stopped all those heresies), I say we use the longest used vocabulary and language the Bible has used, theological Latin.


Heresy is primarily about how you use the words. I could just as easily use your RC vocabulary and make heresy.

Use Latin? Then everyone would have to study Latin before they could learn any bible doctrine. The beauty of Scripture is it's own vocabulary is largely adequate to teach anything.

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:Catholic Drinking: http://www.crisismagazine.com/...tholic-drinking
That is biblical drinking Chris. Like most stereotypes, there is some truth here about SOME protestants, but there are zillions who drink in peaceful drama free moderation.


Yes, yes we know. Narrow statement about Catholics overlays all Catholics, narrow statement about Protestants stays narrow. We know the rules of the game.

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

Mr. Chen wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:


You asked me why we use the term Holy Father, I explained why. That is not skirting your question. That is a lack of reading comprehension on y your part.


You mean, how dare do Jesus' sheep use it? Because it's an honorary title. I just said this, you seemed to skip over it.

Your answer is pat in the sense that you did not address the specifics of my question. Unless you actually mean to say it has no significance that the term "Holy" being attached to "Father" as an address only ONE TIME in Scripture has no significance. Did you not know I was referring to this special usage?


It's not used in the same way, now I know you're equivocating. There is a distinction between the title the Pope is given and the title for God the Father.

Who cares if it is used one time in scripture, what does that have to do with anything? Yes, I know exactly why you bring this up. It's been a few days since my Calvinist days, but I remember. :)

Yes, for a man to appropriate the title Jesus used for His heavenly Father, and then adding "Most" to the front, certainly would be claiming an honor.


Still equivocating, the Pope didn't give, or appropriate, himself the title, Catholics did in honor of him being our Most Holy Father (as in priests are our spiritual fathers, and bishops are greater fathers then them, and the pope being first among equals over the entire church is the most holy father).

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

Mr. Chen wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
I came into this thread because you wanted to move our conversation here. Now you're stuck with me.


Yes, and you didn't want to actually have our conversation. You just presented non-sequitors. My question still stands:

How do we know which books are in the Bible?


If my answers had no relevance, why bother going on for pages? I don't plan on going back to the subject of the canon with you. I offered you 30+ links if you wanted to study it from a protestant viewpoint.


So you admit you never answered the question. Because you don't have a valid and sound answer.

Regards,

P.S. The point of debate is not to load the other person with something to study, that is your burden. Your burden is to give a sound answer, which you failed. So I can only come to the conclusion that I won be default: you never gave an answer. Sad when your opponent forfeits. Guess I must be to intellectual for you. Too above your capabilities.

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

Mr. Chen wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:


If we're going to have strange rules so that we can't make things up (because you know only using the Bible really stopped all those heresies), I say we use the longest used vocabulary and language the Bible has used, theological Latin.


Heresy is primarily about how you use the words. I could just as easily use your RC vocabulary and make heresy.

Use Latin? Then everyone would have to study Latin before they could learn any bible doctrine. The beauty of Scripture is it's own vocabulary is largely adequate to teach anything.


Yes, so stop making ridiculous rules. Define your definitions, make distinctions and move on. Doctrine is not the same thing as a systematic teaching of biblical truth.

  Report
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 16800

Mr. Chen wrote:
Brother Chris wrote: Lol, LAWL! This is great stuff. Who hired this guy?

I was educated for a time at a Jesuit institution, but I now disavow that association.

Brother Chris wrote: Please for all our sakes. Ask a question or get out. That's what this thread is about, or did Tirib have alterior motives?

I came into this thread because you wanted to move our conversation here. Now you're stuck with me.


Brother Chris wrote: Anyway, curious. Can you name or even describe one RC doctrine, properly? We can make it interesting: explain one piece of doctrine that you disagree with, describe it properly, then explain why you don't agree with it.

Both you and Pat have implied I know nothing of your doctrine, yet we have discussed Peter, as well as Paul's teaching on the law and justification. We will get back to Mt 16:18, so study up. Although KingKai has already taken it past your capabilities. It's interesting I state RC doctrine of salvation is "another gospel", and Pat immediately gives me a verse on works. I guess he knows I know what the issue is. I guess I know something huh?

But let's just do a short one in the interim:

I don't think the pope should allow himself to be addressed as "Holy Father", let alone Most Holy Father, because it is a term used to address my Heavenly Father, and NEVER used to refer to any man. How does your papa have the audacity to appropriate it for himself?


That is not a Catholic doctrine. Seems like your hung up on minutia. You said you have issues with Catholic doctrine. BC asked you to name one, explain it correctly and then explain your issue with it.
The pope cannot control how he is referred. The name he chose for himself is Pope Benedict XVI. Seems like you don't know any Catholic doctrine.

Put up or shut up, Chen.

  Report
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 16800

Mr. Chen wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
So, you're saying you don't make distinctions between different things. Sounds like modernism.

The vast majority of the time, the vocabulary already contained in the bible is adequate. Doing it this way helps to keep people from making up stuff.

Brother Chris wrote:However, if you wish to know why we call the Pope (which means Holy Father) Holy Father it's because it's a term of endearment from His sheep that he feeds (John 21:16-17). If you wish to find something in the Bible to confirm it, St. Paul says, "I became your father in Christ Jesus," in 1 Cor. 4:15.

Plus, I'm sure you got upset at Jesus when he called Abraham father. And, the Christians when they called King David father.

Other References:


You have given the pat answer which can be easily found on the net in many places. However, you have skirted my question. Only ONE place in Scripture is the term "Holy Father" used. And you know why it's capitalized too. How does he dare use it? You know Jesus is NOT referring to His father in the faith, or an ancestral father.


No place in scripture uses that term in a proper translation. There over 800 major errors in the KJV.
The term 'Father' is used in many places in life. Never the less, it's not a Catholic Doctrine. I am waiting on a Catholic doctrine. Not the many ways the pope can be referred too.
Seriously, is this all you got?

  Report
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 16800

Mr. Chen wrote:
Although KingKai has already taken it past your capabilities. It's interesting I state RC doctrine of salvation is "another gospel", and Pat immediately gives me a verse on works.


Yep, KingKai definitely handed you your own ass. And apparently you have no answer to my admonitions....
Faith alone can't save you. For even satan beleives.

  Report
 

pat
Level 3

Join date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 16800

Mr. Chen wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:


If we're going to have strange rules so that we can't make things up (because you know only using the Bible really stopped all those heresies), I say we use the longest used vocabulary and language the Bible has used, theological Latin.


Heresy is primarily about how you use the words. I could just as easily use your RC vocabulary and make heresy.

Use Latin? Then everyone would have to study Latin before they could learn any bible doctrine. The beauty of Scripture is it's own vocabulary is largely adequate to teach anything.


Well, do you know any doctrine or not? Apparently, not.

  Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 16188

Brother Chris wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:Catholic Drinking: http://www.crisismagazine.com/...tholic-drinking
That is biblical drinking Chris. Like most stereotypes, there is some truth here about SOME protestants, but there are zillions who drink in peaceful drama free moderation.


Yes, yes we know. Narrow statement about Catholics overlays all Catholics, narrow statement about Protestants stays narrow. We know the rules of the game.
It is, as with everything else, no accident that I have monumentally important personal responsibilities to deal with right now which are limiting my time here Christopher. Once we get into the topics of ecclesiology and authority it will be clear. I was agreeing with this guy's view of alcohol btw. You are being short and snippy with me for a few weeks now. You hate what I believe that much Chris?

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:Catholic Drinking: http://www.crisismagazine.com/...tholic-drinking
That is biblical drinking Chris. Like most stereotypes, there is some truth here about SOME protestants, but there are zillions who drink in peaceful drama free moderation.


Yes, yes we know. Narrow statement about Catholics overlays all Catholics, narrow statement about Protestants stays narrow. We know the rules of the game.
It is, as with everything else, no accident that I have monumentally important personal responsibilities to deal with right now which are limiting my time here Christopher. Once we get into the topics of ecclesiology and authority it will be clear. I was agreeing with this guy's view of alcohol btw. You are being short and snippy with me for a few weeks now. You hate what I believe that much Chris?


No, but I do find it interesting that your avatar is a Templar (or is that just a generalization of all Crusaders?), a monk-knight.

And, as Bernard put it, that a knight "glories in the death of the pagan."

  Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 16188

Brother Chris wrote:<<< No, but I do find it interesting that your avatar is a Templar (or is that just a generalization of all Crusaders?), a monk-knight.

And, as Bernard put it, that a knight "glories in the death of the pagan."

You don't hate schismatic heresy Chris? I would have thought love for the Lord would be practically synonymous with hatred for such things.

Here is what my avatar means to me. http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...85&pageNo=1
okage wrote:<<< I believe Tiribulus has a badass profile picture!>>>
Thank you. Ever seen the bumper sticker that says "real men fight on their knees"? That's what that is. (Ephesians 6:10-20) Witness the vanquishing of the hordes of hell. =] I didn't draw it btw.

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:<<< No, but I do find it interesting that your avatar is a Templar (or is that just a generalization of all Crusaders?), a monk-knight.

And, as Bernard put it, that a knight "glories in the death of the pagan."

You don't hate schismatic heresy Chris? I would have thought love for the Lord would be practically synonymous with hatred for such things.


Too bad that's not the subject of conversation in which I answered. You were on the subject of me being "snippy." You feign that I am angry at you for some reason. When no such thing is true. I am utterly dispassionate in this debate. If anything Mr. Chen is enough "snippy" for the both of him and I, ten times over. I don't really need to be snippy.

Here is what my avatar means to me.


Couldn't find it, it's still a Templar, a Catholic monk who won back the Holy Lands, protected pilgrims, and slaughtered the infidels in their duty to Christ and his Church and who was part of the second wealthiest and second most powerful force in Christendom.

  Report
 

Mr. Chen
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 867

Brother Chris wrote:
Catholic Drinking:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/...tholic-drinking


I had a few minutes and read this. What a joke. I went to a catholic highschool. Those years REGULARLY I observed my classmates parents, upstanding adult members of the catholic community, bouncing off the walls because they were sloshed.

Why in the world did you post this link? Do you actually think it's representitive?

  Report
 

Leanna
Level

Join date: Jan 2004
Location:
Posts: 25

Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:<<< No, but I do find it interesting that your avatar is a Templar (or is that just a generalization of all Crusaders?), a monk-knight.

And, as Bernard put it, that a knight "glories in the death of the pagan."

You don't hate schismatic heresy Chris? I would have thought love for the Lord would be practically synonymous with hatred for such things.

Here is what my avatar means to me. http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...85&pageNo=1
okage wrote:<<< I believe Tiribulus has a badass profile picture!>>>
Thank you. Ever seen the bumper sticker that says "real men fight on their knees"? That's what that is. (Ephesians 6:10-20) Witness the vanquishing of the hordes of hell. =] I didn't draw it btw.


Tiribulus....it is a beautiful piece of artwork. Lovely in the context of the armour of God fighting spiritual warfare.

However, Brother Chris is right in that it also conjures images of one of Christianiy's aggressive, bloody and intolerant periods. It's an image that makes me very sad and ashamed as a Christian.

  Report
 

Tiribulus
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2006
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 16188

Brother Chris wrote:<<< Couldn't find it, it's still a Templar, a Catholic monk who won back the Holy Lands, protected pilgrims, and slaughtered the infidels in their duty to Christ and his Church and who was part of the second wealthiest and second most powerful force in Christendom. >>>
Fine. I used it because it graphically represents the prayer lives of the brotherhood of my spiritual family. Sisterhood too =] Shout out to Sister Deborah who will singlehandedly put a legion to flight in the name of Jesus I'll tell ya.

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

Mr. Chen wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Catholic Drinking:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/...tholic-drinking


I had a few minutes and read this. What a joke.


Yes, I assume you would think so, as a teetotaler you probably hate God's gift to man, or as a habitual drunkard you'd rather chug whiskey until you can't even crawl to bed.

I went to a catholic highschool. Those years REGULARLY I observed my classmates parents, upstanding adult members of the catholic community, bouncing off the walls because they were sloshed.


Congratulations, I guess you missed the part of the title that said, "The Lost Art..."

Why in the world did you post this link? Do you actually think it's representitive?


I'm sorry that you had to witness such scandal, but do you really think your anecdotal evidence is a representative of the whole? Are all Catholics perpetual drunks? Maybe that's why we kneel so much in Mass...maybe because we can't stand up because we're all drunkards!

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

Leanna wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:<<< No, but I do find it interesting that your avatar is a Templar (or is that just a generalization of all Crusaders?), a monk-knight.

And, as Bernard put it, that a knight "glories in the death of the pagan."

You don't hate schismatic heresy Chris? I would have thought love for the Lord would be practically synonymous with hatred for such things.

Here is what my avatar means to me. http://tnation.T-Nation.com/...85&pageNo=1
okage wrote:<<< I believe Tiribulus has a badass profile picture!>>>
Thank you. Ever seen the bumper sticker that says "real men fight on their knees"? That's what that is. (Ephesians 6:10-20) Witness the vanquishing of the hordes of hell. =] I didn't draw it btw.


Tiribulus....it is a beautiful piece of artwork. Lovely in the context of the armour of God fighting spiritual warfare.

However, Brother Chris is right in that it also conjures images of one of Christianiy's aggressive, bloody and intolerant periods. It's an image that makes me very sad and ashamed as a Christian.


Eh, maybe. Templar's weren't known for their brutality against non-combatants. After the first crusade, which could be considered a Just War, the Templars did one of two things, only killed those who were armed infidels or at least spared the women and children of the infidels. I'm sure it happened, but mostly they took back Christian lands, protected Christian pilgrims, &c.

  Report
 

Mr. Chen
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 867

Brother Chris wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Catholic Drinking:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/...tholic-drinking


I had a few minutes and read this. What a joke.


Yes, I assume you would think so, as a teetotaler you probably hate God's gift to man, or as a habitual drunkard you'd rather chug whiskey until you can't even crawl to bed.

I went to a catholic highschool. Those years REGULARLY I observed my classmates parents, upstanding adult members of the catholic community, bouncing off the walls because they were sloshed.


Congratulations, I guess you missed the part of the title that said, "The Lost Art..."

Why in the world did you post this link? Do you actually think it's representative?


I'm sorry that you had to witness such scandal, but do you really think your anecdotal evidence is a representative of the whole? Are all Catholics perpetual drunks? Maybe that's why we kneel so much in Mass...maybe because we can't stand up because we're all drunkards!

The loss of the art was referring the current extreme practice of them protestants. However catholics practice the middle way:

"Avoid each extreme- thats how you drink like a Catholic. This is the art of Catholic drinking."

The author also was using anecdotal evidence, yet he seemed to think it worth a whole article. I still don't understand why you bothered posting it. It wasn't of any more real value then my comment on the subject.

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

Mr. Chen wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
Catholic Drinking:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/...tholic-drinking


I had a few minutes and read this. What a joke.


Yes, I assume you would think so, as a teetotaler you probably hate God's gift to man, or as a habitual drunkard you'd rather chug whiskey until you can't even crawl to bed.

I went to a catholic highschool. Those years REGULARLY I observed my classmates parents, upstanding adult members of the catholic community, bouncing off the walls because they were sloshed.


Congratulations, I guess you missed the part of the title that said, "The Lost Art..."

Why in the world did you post this link? Do you actually think it's representative?


I'm sorry that you had to witness such scandal, but do you really think your anecdotal evidence is a representative of the whole? Are all Catholics perpetual drunks? Maybe that's why we kneel so much in Mass...maybe because we can't stand up because we're all drunkards!

The loss of the art was referring the current extreme practice of them protestants. However catholics practice the middle way:

"Avoid each extreme- thats how you drink like a Catholic. This is the art of Catholic drinking."

The author also was using anecdotal evidence, yet he seemed to think it worth a whole article. I still don't understand why you bothered posting it. It wasn't of any more real value then my comment on the subject.


Because a member of this site has indicated that he wonders if I imbibe in strong drink too much. I posted it for said member's sake.

  Report
 

Brother Chris
Level 2

Join date: May 2005
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 16910

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I'm sorry that you had to witness such scandal, but do you really think your anecdotal evidence is a representative of the whole? Are all Catholics perpetual drunks? Maybe that's why we kneel so much in Mass...maybe because we can't stand up because we're all drunkards![/quote]
The loss of the art was referring the current extreme practice of them protestants. However catholics practice the middle way:

"Avoid each extreme- thats how you drink like a Catholic. This is the art of Catholic drinking."

The author also was using anecdotal evidence, yet he seemed to think it worth a whole article. I still don't understand why you bothered posting it. It wasn't of any more real value then my comment on the subject.[/quote]

Yes, like a Catholic. As in ought. Not how all Catholics drink, but how people ought to drink.

  Report
 

Mr. Chen
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 867

Brother Chris wrote:
Because a member of this site has indicated that he wonders if I imbibe in strong drink too much. I posted it for said member's sake.

Clarified.

So you are one of "the third way"?

  Report
 

Mr. Chen
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 867

Brother Chris wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:


If we're going to have strange rules so that we can't make things up (because you know only using the Bible really stopped all those heresies), I say we use the longest used vocabulary and language the Bible has used, theological Latin.


Heresy is primarily about how you use the words. I could just as easily use your RC vocabulary and make heresy.

Use Latin? Then everyone would have to study Latin before they could learn any bible doctrine. The beauty of Scripture is it's own vocabulary is largely adequate to teach anything.


Yes, so stop making ridiculous rules. Define your definitions, make distinctions and move on. Doctrine is not the same thing as a systematic teaching of biblical truth.

So are you wanting to explain the RC systematic teaching on humility? I don't know how you could make one.

  Report
 

Mr. Chen
Level 5

Join date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 867

pat wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Brother Chris wrote: Lol, LAWL! This is great stuff. Who hired this guy?

I was educated for a time at a Jesuit institution, but I now disavow that association.

Brother Chris wrote: Please for all our sakes. Ask a question or get out. That's what this thread is about, or did Tirib have alterior motives?

I came into this thread because you wanted to move our conversation here. Now you're stuck with me.


Brother Chris wrote: Anyway, curious. Can you name or even describe one RC doctrine, properly? We can make it interesting: explain one piece of doctrine that you disagree with, describe it properly, then explain why you don't agree with it.

Both you and Pat have implied I know nothing of your doctrine, yet we have discussed Peter, as well as Paul's teaching on the law and justification. We will get back to Mt 16:18, so study up. Although KingKai has already taken it past your capabilities. It's interesting I state RC doctrine of salvation is "another gospel", and Pat immediately gives me a verse on works. I guess he knows I know what the issue is. I guess I know something huh?

But let's just do a short one in the interim:

I don't think the pope should allow himself to be addressed as "Holy Father", let alone Most Holy Father, because it is a term used to address my Heavenly Father, and NEVER used to refer to any man. How does your papa have the audacity to appropriate it for himself?


That is not a Catholic doctrine. Seems like your hung up on minutia. You said you have issues with Catholic doctrine. BC asked you to name one, explain it correctly and then explain your issue with it.
The pope cannot control how he is referred. The name he chose for himself is Pope Benedict XVI. Seems like you don't know any Catholic doctrine.

Put up or shut up, Chen.

As you should have already noted from above, what exactly a Catholic doctrine is needed some clarification.

As far as your claim the pope is not able to control what people call him, absolutely ridiculous.

His habit of taking a name like a king is peculiar. Does this have some precedent in Scripture that I've missed, or perhaps during the early decades of church life?

  Report
Topic is Locked
This thread has reached its maximum number of replies. Click HERE to start a new topic.