The Eucharist

mica

Well-known member
It's not the best evidence in this case because we are discussing it precisely. Both parties can pull up scriptural support for their positions and so that might not settle the matter. That's why I want to know what other evidence there is. If the practically universal testimony of the Church throughout history is that water baptism is part of salvation, then that speaks very strongly in its favour.
the RCC testimony is all about itself and its own made up beliefs. it isn't about Christ or God's word. It doesn't even teach the basics taught by Jesus or the apostles.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
You have already said Paul does not stand up to your institution's discipline. So Paul is tossed aside for you institution's discipline even though it goes against scripture. You ask what scripture I am referring to, yet, you constantly bring up areas where your institution throws out the Word for its own declarations.
What are some examples of where scripture says something and the Catholic Church ignores it?
You can say what you like the bulk of scripture is simple and not debated. Let me see do not kill - is clear and simple. Jesus is the way - simple and clear. In the beginning - clear and simple. There are a handful of passages that are complex and that can be read in a number of ways. The problem is more with Western thinkin, because in Eastern thinking there is room for more than one view. The areas of debate do not affect salvation, unless one wants to add to the simple salvation message. This is the problem for your institution it keeps adding to what is a simple message.
Okay, let's look at your examples:
1) Do not kill - does that apply simply to murder or all instances of human killing?
2) Jesus is the way - in what sense is he the way? Does it mean someone to "access" Jesus as the way has to have explicit knowledge of him? Or does it mean that he is the way for people who don't have explicit knowledge of him?
3) The beginning - what is clear and simple about that?

By Eastern thinking, do you mean Eastern Christian thinking or Eastern (Asian) thinking?

Well, here's an obvious area of debate that isn't simple and impacts on salvation: Is water baptism necessary for salvation?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
the RCC testimony is all about itself and its own made up beliefs. it isn't about Christ or God's word. It doesn't even teach the basics taught by Jesus or the apostles.
I mean the testimony of anyone claiming to be Christian for the last 2,000 years.

Can you show me any church that rejected water baptism as the means of salvation before the 1700s?
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
you need to go back and read what that was a reply to - your post.
Do you mean your response, Mica (where you said it's debated between Christians and many who claim to be Christians)?

If you mean that response, are you saying that real Christians wouldn't debate this issue amongst themselves???
 

balshan

Well-known member
What are some examples of where scripture says something and the Catholic Church ignores it?

Okay, let's look at your examples:
1) Do not kill - does that apply simply to murder or all instances of human killing?
2) Jesus is the way - in what sense is he the way? Does it mean someone to "access" Jesus as the way has to have explicit knowledge of him? Or does it mean that he is the way for people who don't have explicit knowledge of him?
3) The beginning - what is clear and simple about that?

By Eastern thinking, do you mean Eastern Christian thinking or Eastern (Asian) thinking?

Well, here's an obvious area of debate that isn't simple and impacts on salvation: Is water baptism necessary for salvation?
Eastern Christian thinking are you referring to how it has become westernized?

Do not kill anyone at all, it is wrong. You can legitimizing killing but it affects the people who do it. So I think do not kill means it is wrong to do, otherwise you suffer consequences. Just look at what soldiers returning from war suffer. It is not good for the soul to kill, even when it is a necessary evil.

God never put and if or a but after saying do not kill. But we have seen the extent to which some RCs justify stealing and lying. Just toss out God's word and replace it with what you want it to say.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
Eastern Christian thinking are you referring to how it has become westernized?
I'm not sure, I'm just wondering what you meant by it?
Do not kill anyone at all, it is wrong. You can legitimizing killing but it affects the people who do it. So I think do not kill means it is wrong to do, otherwise you suffer consequences. Just look at what soldiers returning from war suffer. It is not good for the soul to kill, even when it is a necessary evil.
If that's the case - a general ordinance against all human killing - why did God order the Israelites to kill a bunch of Canaanites (some innocent children, maybe) to take their land?
God never put and if or a but after saying do not kill. But we have seen the extent to which some RCs justify stealing and lying. Just toss out God's word and replace it with what you want it to say.
Do you think stealing is never justified?
 

mica

Well-known member
mica said:
the RCC testimony is all about itself and its own made up beliefs. it isn't about Christ or God's word. It doesn't even teach the basics taught by Jesus or the apostles.

I mean the testimony of anyone claiming to be Christian for the last 2,000 years.
no apostle had a testimony of the RCC. claiming to be a Christian does not make one a Christian. like catholics, most don't know what makes someone a Christian.

Can you show me any church that rejected water baptism as the means of salvation before the 1700s?
His church in NT time and since then.
 

balshan

Well-known member
I'm not sure, I'm just wondering what you meant by it?

If that's the case - a general ordinance against all human killing - why did God order the Israelites to kill a bunch of Canaanites (some innocent children, maybe) to take their land?

Do you think stealing is never justified?
No there is no justification for stealing. There maybe needs but God says do not steal, He does not say it is okay if... I mean He gave instructions about feeding the poor and how the crops were to be gathered so that there was food for those who were less fortunate. But I know you will find excuses and feel justified in those. That is how the RCC justifies divorces. That is how the RCC justifies not defrocking their priests who do evil. But then some RCs demand that all commands be obeyed. There is not pretence is there because it is so transparent that the RCC just tries to get around the word of God by whatever means possible.

God makes His commands and God can punish. Those were God punishing sin. But maybe you would like this version of events better:

Personally I would not question God at all. I would just obey God but I would never just obey a man. Major difference.

The main thing one must do in all situation is:

Proverbs 3

5Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.

The problems for most RCs is they replace the Lord with the Pope and his cronies.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
No there is no justification for stealing. There maybe needs but God says do not steal, He does not say it is okay if... I mean He gave instructions about feeding the poor and how the crops were to be gathered so that there was food for those who were less fortunate. But I know you will find excuses and feel justified in those.
I think the problem here is absolutising a commandment even if it harms another person. Jesus said the whole of the Law and prophets was summed up in loving God and loving neighbour. That means that these two commandments take precedence. Jesus showed this in the way he violated sabbath laws (the third/fourth commandment) to save life. Likewise, the law prohibiting stealing doesn't apply when following it directly violates loving God and neighbour. An example might be if someone is destitute and about to starve to death, then they would be justified in stealing from their rich neighbour under certain circumstances. As Aquinas puts it:

Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., Article 2, Objection 3] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): "It is the hungry man's bread that you withhold, the naked man's cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man's ransom and freedom."
God makes His commands and God can punish. Those were God punishing sin. But maybe you would like this version of events better:
That may be so but it doesn't really answer the question - if all killing of human beings is wrong (even in self-defence or the death penalty), how could God command the Israelites to do something wrong?
Personally I would not question God at all. I would just obey God but I would never just obey a man. Major difference.
I think that's very unwise. God wants us to struggle with Him, especially in areas of moral quandary. If God commanded me to do something highly immoral, I'd definitely argue back.
 

balshan

Well-known member
I think the problem here is absolutising a commandment even if it harms another person. Jesus said the whole of the Law and prophets was summed up in loving God and loving neighbour. That means that these two commandments take precedence. Jesus showed this in the way he violated sabbath laws (the third/fourth commandment) to save life. Likewise, the law prohibiting stealing doesn't apply when following it directly violates loving God and neighbour. An example might be if someone is destitute and about to starve to death, then they would be justified in stealing from their rich neighbour under certain circumstances. As Aquinas puts it:

Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., Article 2, Objection 3] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): "It is the hungry man's bread that you withhold, the naked man's cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man's ransom and freedom."

That may be so but it doesn't really answer the question - if all killing of human beings is wrong (even in self-defence or the death penalty), how could God command the Israelites to do something wrong?

I think that's very unwise. God wants us to struggle with Him, especially in areas of moral quandary. If God commanded me to do something highly immoral, I'd definitely argue back.
So killing someone would help the person. Gotcha. So you don't believe in trusting God. Maybe your institution should stop witholding from the poor, as it has superabundance. God wants us to struggle with Him, is that in scripture or is it from a man.
 

mica

Well-known member
So killing someone would help the person. Gotcha. So you don't believe in trusting God. Maybe your institution should stop witholding from the poor, as it has superabundance. God wants us to struggle with Him, is that in scripture or is it from a man.
He doesn't want us to struggle against Him or without Him, and that is what catholics do. that is what the RCC teaches them.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
So killing someone would help the person. Gotcha.
No... it's when you absolutise a commandment without regard to love. E.g. to not defend an innocent person from an aggressor (even if that means killing the aggressor) does not violate the commandment.
So you don't believe in trusting God. Maybe your institution should stop witholding from the poor, as it has superabundance. God wants us to struggle with Him, is that in scripture or is it from a man.
Yes, I believe in trusting God. But I also know God would not command something inherently immoral and wants us to stand up for what is right, e.g. Abraham with Sodom.
 

balshan

Well-known member
No... it's when you absolutise a commandment without regard to love. E.g. to not defend an innocent person from an aggressor (even if that means killing the aggressor) does not violate the commandment.

Yes, I believe in trusting God. But I also know God would not command something inherently immoral and wants us to stand up for what is right, e.g. Abraham with Sodom.
And what did Abraham do with Sodom? Nothing. He did not kill or steal which you seem to think can be justified. He just asked for good people to be saved at the heart of the matter was Lot.
Yes I agree, but to struggle with Him.
Interesting is that your way of justifying the crusades etc.
 

jonathan_hili

Well-known member
And what did Abraham do with Sodom? Nothing. He did not kill or steal which you seem to think can be justified. He just asked for good people to be saved at the heart of the matter was Lot.
Abraham bargained with God because he realised that innocent people shouldn't be killed. God didn't condemn Abraham for that because he (Abraham) was following right morality, and that's how God wants us to live even if He seems to command otherwise. That's why if God commanded me to kill an innocent person, I'd hopefully have the courage to dispute it.
Interesting is that your way of justifying the crusades etc.
Umm no.
 

balshan

Well-known member
Abraham bargained with God because he realised that innocent people shouldn't be killed. God didn't condemn Abraham for that because he (Abraham) was following right morality, and that's how God wants us to live even if He seems to command otherwise. That's why if God commanded me to kill an innocent person, I'd hopefully have the courage to dispute it.

Umm no.
God would never command you to do such a thing. That is blaspheme. Oh yes the RCC justifies everything it does that is against the Word of God, and has done many things that are against God, as well as encouraging others to do things against God as well.
 
Top