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've refrained from responding because it's off-topic for this thread, but since a second poster has chimed in, I just have to say the following:
The Church has always been Catholic from its inception at Pentecost when believers from all nations were gathered and the confusion of Babel was undone.
Of course Paul and Peter knew that the Church was καθολικός. There's really no debate here.
A couple of things. The 2 posters either don't understand, or they don't care for the distinction between "Big C Catholic" and "little c catholic". As a Baptist, I believe in the "holy catholic church", but I don't believe that the Roman Catholic church is "THE CHURCH".
Your view is that Paul was an apostle, and that he was a priest in the catholic church, which later came to be known as the Catholic church, correct? Or that he and Peter may have viewed it as THE Church, but it just didn't really have the proper name of "Catholic" with a Big C? Am I correct?
A couple of things. The 2 posters either don't understand, or they don't care for the distinction between "Big C Catholic" and "little c catholic". As a Baptist, I believe in the "holy catholic church", but I don't believe that the Roman Catholic church is "THE CHURCH".
Your view is that Paul was an apostle, and that he was a priest in the catholic church, which later came to be known as the Catholic church, correct? Or that he and Peter may have viewed it as THE Church, but it just didn't really have the proper name of "Catholic" with a Big C? Am I correct?
Maybe they're just not grasping that?
I can go along with that.
It was never necessary to make a distinction between "Big C Catholic" and "little c catholic" until the Protestant Reformation, as they were one and the same. It wasn't until Christian communities came into existence that claimed to be "catholic" even though they were not "Catholic" that there was any debate about the Church being "Catholic".
It was never necessary to make a distinction between "Big C Catholic" and "little c catholic" until the Protestant Reformation, as they were one and the same. It wasn't until Christian communities came into existence that claimed to be "catholic" even though they were not "Catholic" that there was any debate about the Church being "Catholic".
Confused yet?
I get what you're saying. My view is that Paul didn't view himself as a priest. We don't read of him saying a mass. We don't see Peter claiming to be the head of the church or Bishop of Rome.
I've refrained from responding because it's off-topic for this thread, but since a second poster has chimed in, I just have to say the following:
The Church has always been Catholic from its inception at Pentecost when believers from all nations were gathered and the confusion of Babel was undone.
Of course Paul and Peter knew that the Church was καθολικός. There's really no debate here.
I appreciate your attempts to stay on topic. I agree that this is a discussion for another thread, as I do believe there is room for debate on it.
Right. You "reinterpret it".
lol...sure. Bottom line is that it's subject to what you believe about Jesus.
You are truly stubborn. It was NOT subject to what I believe about Jesus. It is subject to what JESUS unambiguously revealed about the True Nature of God's Holy Spirit of agape love and forgiveness on the Cross. How you can pretend that there is any way to believe His nature wrongly is beyond me. He loved even His torturers and murderers without even a hint of wrath or vengeance in Him!!!
You are truly stubborn. It was NOT subject to what I believe about Jesus. It is subject to what JESUS unambiguously revealed about the True Nature of God's Holy Spirit of agape love and forgiveness on the Cross. How you can pretend that there is any way to believe His nature wrongly is beyond me. He loved even His torturers and murderers without even a hint of wrath or vengeance in Him!!!
You just don't comprehend what is being said, do you? Or are you that arrogant to think that your way of seeing it is the only possible way? How do you know it was Jesus talking to you? I see no reason to believe that it was. I think you were being catfished.
You claim this agape love, then you act obnoxiously to anyone that disagrees with you. Doesn't make it very convincing. Besides the fact that you directly contradict 2000 years of Christianity with your claims.
You just don't comprehend what is being said, do you? Or are you that arrogant to think that your way of seeing it is the only possible way? How do you know it was Jesus talking to you? I see no reason to believe that it was. I think you were being catfished.
You claim this agape love, then you act obnoxiously to anyone that disagrees with you. Doesn't make it very convincing. Besides the fact that you directly contradict 2000 years of Christianity with your claims.
Despite your constant efforts to put the spotlight on ME, I am not the issue. Who Jesus Christ is and what He is truly like IS! The existence of your "flat earth" theology for over 2000 years is irrelevant. It was born in primitive human ignorance and superstitions and perpetuated by Machiavellian religious leaders for power and control over the masses. It is time that God is known for the agape loving and forgiving Father He is as demonstrated unambiguously by His Son in human flesh.
Despite your constant efforts to put the spotlight on ME, I am not the issue. Who Jesus Christ is and what He is truly like IS! The existence of your "flat earth" theology for over 2000 years is irrelevant. It was born in primitive human ignorance and superstitions and perpetuated by Machiavellian religious leaders for power and control over the masses. It is time that God is known for the agape loving and forgiving Father He is as demonstrated unambiguously by His Son in human flesh.
None of what you believe will help you in the least if you can't and don't admit to God you are a sinner in need of Grace. That you need forgiveness for your sins and acknowledge Christ as your Saviour through His sacrifice for you!
I decided to start a new thread to continue the conversation I was having with Jerwade in the Christianity and the LGBTQ Community (Part 3) thread that had veered off topic and onto the issue of male authority, or "male dominance" as Jerwade characterizes it.
I want to start by responding to this post by Jerwade:
How were women treated? It's true that in many cases, women were treated as chattel in pagan societies. However, women have, by and large, been treated with dignity in Christian societies.
There is nothing wrong with discrimination. Every time we make a choice, we discriminate against all of the other alternative choices we could have made.
There is nothing wrong with inequality, per se. Humans are not equal. Men and women are not equal.
Again I ask, how do you define "dominance"? By the way you're using the word, it seems to me that you're attempting to use it as a rhetorical cudgel against the Christian notion of male headship.
Since greater than 50% of the population of the world at any given time has always been female, I object to your using the word "dominance" to describe man in relation to woman. "Dominance" implies the flourishing of one at the expense of another. Maybe you can explain how you see that happening either historically or presently in Christian societies...
God set forth the standard Of the man having the final say on matters. This is how God set it up--- God is the head of Jesus, Jesus is the head of a man, a man is the head of the woman. But see--The Man must be doing Gods will. The Man would discuss with his wife on a matter. Think and pray on the matter And then the man has the final say. But a god fearing man knows God made the decision.( not on all matters) Humans err. Mortals no say on the matter of how it works. True followers live now to do Gods will to the best of their ability. Afterall, Jesus teaches-Those living now to do his Fathers will,( over their own) get to enter his kingdom( Matthew 7:21)--Jesus set the example-John 5:30)
Jerwade, let's picture a traditional nuclear family consisting of a husband, wife, and children. If the husband assumes the leadership role in his family, do you see that as necessarily being "domination"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
Why does it have to be the husband?
You're a tricky one, Jerwade. In re-reading some of this thread I realized that you threw up a red herring here, and I bit.
It has to be the husband because that's just how I set up the scenario. So, I ask you again:
If the husband assumes the leadership role in his family, do you see that as necessarily being "domination"?
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.
