Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think it is necessarily wrong, but in the short time I've been posting on this forum legitimate questions quickly seem to devolve and digress into off topic areas, often leading to what appears to be a wrong spirit of defensiveness and divisiveness. Whenever there are strong emotions this is apt to happen and in an anonymous medium one may be less inhibited to be respectful. What one person views as an ugly stepmother, someone else views as a beautiful bride.
As I said: The Church is not based on Sola Scriptura and is therefore able to grow (even if it takes more than a thousand years to make a change).
The religious philosophical concept of hell is simply "absence of God".
From the catechism:
Eternal flames, et al are just figures of speech.
You did not answer the question. Why are you a Universalist when the Roman Catholic church which you hold in such high esteem teaches eternal punishment? You are in opposition to what the Roman Catholic church teaches. Why do you not accept the teaching of the Roman Catholic church on this matter?
And I will point out that your church 'declared that they are the only true church. In fact, my beliefs were anathematized by your church several centuries ago.
That's so pre-Vatican II. We do believe, however, that Catholicism brings you in full communion with Christ.
I dont think you should bash a Catholic as a person, but anything that goes against the bible needs to be addressed if it does against scripture. Life is not about being a Christian or believing in and following any creeds, it is about believing Jesus died for your sins, repenting and trying to live your life like he did and how he commanded us to. If someone or something goes against what the bible teaches, it needs to be pointed out and corrected in Love, without name calling, or condemning someone to hell, or calling it the Beast/Anti-Christ worship.
Does the bible command us to have a Pope?
Does the bible speak against graven images?
Does the bible speak against idolatry and bowing to statues?
Doesnt the bible say only God(YHWH) can forgive sins?
Doesnt the bible say to only pray to the Father, NOT Mary?
Does the bible speak against substituting what God commands and replacing it with human traditions?
Again this is not a Catholic basing, but to really question is Catholicism (mainly RCC) following and teaching what the bible commands or making up its own rules.
People have every right to bash away if they disagree, but when those bashing clearly have an erroneous understanding of Catholic theology, it's gets annoying. Ultimately, we all operate out of faith, which I generally define as belief without proof. None of us have spoken directly to God. The are several biblical translations available, and they don't always agree on every point (e.g. Mary's perpetual virginity). I'm a proud returning Catholic. I believe in and defend my faith. I do not see it as supreme, and don't see it as the only way to heaven. I'm the product of a mixed marriage (Catholic mother, Luthern father). For me to see the RCC as the only path to heaven would be condemning half of my family to hell, which would be preposterous.
I didn't vote, but I figure it's up to each of us to speak up for the truth as we see it. If you're a Protestant and believe Catholic doctrines are in error, go ahead and say so. If you're a Catholic and believe Protestant doctrines are in error, go ahead and say so. If you're a Catholic or a Protestant and believe Mormon doctrines are in error, go ahead and say so. Just keep these two rules in mind:
1. Make sure you know what you're talking about. Don't exaggerate or parody a different religion's beliefs in an attempt to turn people away from them. Stick to the facts.
2. Don't make it personal. Regardless of what someone else believes, you are not in a position to be able to see into his heart. Only God can do that. So when you start telling people that God is going to condemn them to an eternity of torment for something they believe, keep in mind that you're not His right hand man, and you've no business passing judgment on anybody else.
Well since it was the Catholic Church that compiled the NT under the guidance of the Holy Spirit then it would be them that are mistaken. I guess you would need to take it up with the Holy Spirit that something is wrong.
The church fathers never put into the bible anything that the early apostles or disciples didn't teach. They were very meticulous having church councils to study and either agree on the scriptures or not. Many were not included since it did not agree with what the apostles taught.
It would be a good thing to study Catholic church history. I don't think many here know how the bible came to be.
I dont think you should bash a Catholic as a person, but anything that goes against the bible needs to be addressed if it does against scripture. Life is not about being a Christian or believing in and following any creeds, it is about believing Jesus died for your sins, repenting and trying to live your life like he did and how he commanded us to. If someone or something goes against what the bible teaches, it needs to be pointed out and corrected in Love, without name calling, or condemning someone to hell, or calling it the Beast/Anti-Christ worship.
Does the bible command us to have a Pope?
Does the bible speak against graven images?
Does the bible speak against idolatry and bowing to statues?
Doesnt the bible say only God(YHWH) can forgive sins?
Doesnt the bible say to only pray to the Father, NOT Mary?
Does the bible speak against substituting what God commands and replacing it with human traditions?
Again this is not a Catholic basing, but to really question is Catholicism (mainly RCC) following and teaching what the bible commands or making up its own rules.
Whether you like it or not, the Catholic Church's position is that the Bible is not the only source of our understanding and knowledge of God.
Catholics also give great weight to the sacred oral traditions of the church.
Think about it...from the time of Jesus's death/resurrection to the first "bible" there was a time lapse of decades and decades.
But those who actually walked with Jesus, some of whose writings later appear in the Bible, had to rely on the actual sharing of all Jesus taught by teaching it - through word of mouth.
These "unwritten" portions of Jesus's life and teachings are no less valid just because they did not get written down. And it is important to note, that no sacred tradition has ever contradicted scripture.
So while you don't have to agree, or like what Catholics believe about sacred oral traditions, there is no denying that everything Jesus ever said or did could not possibly have been all written down or the Bible would be as big as a car.
People have every right to bash away if they disagree, but when those bashing clearly have an erroneous understanding of Catholic theology, it's gets annoying. Ultimately, we all operate out of faith, which I generally define as belief without proof. None of us have spoken directly to God. The are several biblical translations available, and they don't always agree on every point (e.g. Mary's perpetual virginity). I'm a proud returning Catholic. I believe in and defend my faith. I do not see it as supreme, and don't see it as the only way to heaven. I'm the product of a mixed marriage (Catholic mother, Luthern father). For me to see the RCC as the only path to heaven would be condemning half of my family to hell, which would be preposterous.
I agree!
Catholics seem to have common sense and accept other religions. We already fought the Crusades and had our Inquisition (been there done that).
Well since it was the Catholic Church that compiled the NT under the guidance of the Holy Spirit then it would be them that are mistaken. I guess you would need to take it up with the Holy Spirit that something is wrong.
Hi Janelle144,
Another view, not unique by any means:
Quote:
The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the New Testament canon (nor did Constantine). Nicea was concerned with how Christians should articulate their beliefs about the divinity of Jesus. Thus it was the birthplace of the Nicean creed.
When people discover that Nicea did not decide the canon, the follow up question is usually, “Which council did decide the canon?” Surely we could not have a canon without some sort of authoritative, official act of the church by which it was decided. Surely we have a canon because some group of men somewhere voted on it. Right?
This whole line of reasoning reveals a fundamental assumption about the New Testament canon that needs to be corrected, namely that it was (or had to be) decided by a church council. The fact of the matter is that when we look into early church history there is no such council. Sure, there are regional church councils that made declarations about the canon (Laodicea, Hippo, Carthage). But these regional councils did not just “pick” books they happened to like, but affirmed the books they believed had functioned as foundational documents for the Christian faith. In other words, these councils were declaring the way things had been, not the way they wanted them to be.-Michael J Kruger, Ten Basic Facts about the NT Canon that Every Christian Should Memorize: #8:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
