Using the sexual abuse scandal as a backdrop, a dissident former bishop from Australia, Geoffrey Robinson, has penned a book on the Catholic Church. As a Statement from the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference clearly articulates, Robinson's book is riddled with serious theological and doctrinal concerns. The Conference also concluded that Robinson's book ultimately questions a number of Catholic fundamentals, including:
- the nature of Tradition;
- the inspiration of the Holy Scripture;
- the infallibility of the Councils and the Pope;
- the authority of the Creeds;
- the teaching authority of the Church;
- the nature of the ministerial priesthood; and
- central elements of the Church’s teaching of faith and morals.
In other words, Bishop Robinson's book stands in stark opposition to the most fundamental tenets of the Catholic faith. So when the lowly Robinson wrote to Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony to inform him that his book tour would include a stop in his diocese, it was the duty of the Cardinal to deny Robinson permission to speak. Canon 763 of the Code of Canon Law and paragraph 85 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church make it the obligation of bishops to protect the the sacred deposit of the faith.
Yet it a brute display of dishonesty - or flat-out ignorance - two articles in the Los Angeles Times have given the utterly false and misleading impression that Cardinal Mahony denied Robinson permission to speak in an effort to silence the former bishop because of his views on the sexual abuse scandal. The Times's reporting is incredibly erroneous - and dishonest. The culprits are "Times Staff Writer" Duke Helfand and opinion writer Karin Klein.
Helfand's article states:
In his book, "Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church: Reclaiming the Spirit of Jesus," Robinson argues that the church's celibacy requirement has contributed to the sex abuse crisis. He openly criticizes the papacy for failing to provide leadership. And he wonders whether the Catholic Church has been more concerned with managing the scandal than confronting it.
Those positions have put Robinson squarely at odds with church leaders on three continents.
WRONG. Helfand is either being dishonest or dim in his reporting. As noted above, it is because of Robinson's doctrinal positions, not his positions on the handling of the scandal, that have put Robinson "squarely at odds" with church leaders. In fact, as their release clearly states, the Australian Conference PRAISED Bishop Robinson for his work during the abuse scandal. Helfand saw this and reported this. So why does he mislead his readers?
Helfand's agenda in the article is clear. He and the Times clearly want their readers to believe that the abuse scandal is the real reason that Cardinal Mahony denied Robinson permission to speak. And by all indications, Helfand's scurrilous goal was achieved. Days later, the Times published a number of indignant letters to the editor (6/14/08). One letter cried how "Mahony is trying to stop Robinson from speaking on the mishandling of the clergy sexual abuse scandal by the hierarchy." See how Helfand's dishonesty was interpreted? For Helfand and the Times, this is "mission accomplished."
The Times is clearly dedicated to going out of its way to portray the Catholic Church in the most unflattering way possible whenever it can. We've cited the Times several times before for its anti-Catholic tilt. (See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this.)
+_+_+_+_+
In the interest of space and brevity, this is only a portion of my full article at my personal blog, TheMediaReport.com.
+_+_+_+_+
Previous:
Clueless on Catholicism (III): Errors, Poor Information Mar L.A. Times Op-Ed On Condoms
Clueless on Catholicism (Again): LA Times Touts Women 'Ordination'
Clueless on Catholicism (and More) at the Los Angeles Times
—Dave Pierre is the creator of TheMediaReport.com and a contributor to NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
»→ I promise
June 16, 2008 - 23:34 ET by Cool ArrowIf you can keep futbolisgreat1 and Thermistocles out of this thread, I'll let it ride.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Why Cool? It's their faith they should be able to defend it
June 17, 2008 - 01:34 ET by Dee BunkIt shouldn't affect yours. Can't you agree that this is horrible? Why should the media be able to misrepresent the situation?
»→ Dee
June 17, 2008 - 01:42 ET by Cool ArrowI'm content with not hijacking this thread.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool
June 17, 2008 - 01:49 ET by Dee BunkCool Arrow - glad to hear it. You have been cracking me up tonight. I loved how you were going to take the car away from that troll. I'm off to bed - way past my bed time.
»→ Good Night Dee
June 17, 2008 - 01:51 ET by Cool ArrowI'm about ready to see what's on DVR.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
»→ I promise June 17,
June 17, 2008 - 09:00 ET by futbolisgreat1»→ I promise June 17, 2008 - 00:34 ET
by Cool Arrow
If you can keep futbolisgreat1 and Thermistocles out of this thread, I'll let it ride.
Wow Cool Arrow, you should be utterly ashamed of yourself.
So, as long as someone stifles our freedom of speech and our right to defend our Faith, then you will talk? WOW!!
just WOW!!
Of course you do not want us here because we will call you out on your right out lies and distortions that you love to spread as so called truths of the Roman Catholic Church.
I'll make you a deal, if you do not lie, slander, exagerate, distort, Roman Catholic history and Theology like you always do, I'll leave you alone. If you can't do this, well you know...I will, as always, show how much of a liar and Catholic hater you are.....
deal?
»→ Oh futbol
June 17, 2008 - 10:59 ET by Cool ArrowMy point was that we already have two threads on this very subject. And you ran from it squealing and screaming after making the same nonsensical clams you do here.
Bye now..
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
I thought this thread was
June 17, 2008 - 14:02 ET by ThermistoclesI thought this thread was on the lies and distortions of the MSM article from the LAT.
Your reluctance to denounce these tactics speaks volumns.
dude trach's been looking
June 17, 2008 - 14:37 ET by TruthMongerdude trach's been looking all over for ya - and he's drooling pretty bad:(
keep yer eyes peeled...
Thanks for the heads up.
June 17, 2008 - 16:08 ET by ThermistoclesThanks for the heads up. Life has a funny way of asserting itself sometimes. Suffice it to say, I've been otherwise occupied. I'm certainly not intending this thread to be a giant rehash of the goings on in the woodshed.
Thermistocles,
June 17, 2008 - 16:19 ET by tracheostomyTherm: I'm certainly not intending this thread to be a giant rehash of the goings on in the woodshed.
Me neither. I'm still working out the details on the OP here myself. Learning a lot.
BTW Therm, I know you've been ignoring the Infallibility 2 thread, and I honestly wouldn't blame you if you kept on doing it. I was just hoping for a straight up answer to our questions without all the peripheral static and hijacking.
Whenever you can find the time I hope.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Cool Arrow, Well, if your
June 17, 2008 - 14:31 ET by futbolisgreat1Cool Arrow,
Well, if your point is for this thread not to be high jacked into oblivion, I would urge you to state as much and leave the silly attacks at the door.
As for your comment, "...squealing and screaming..." comment, honestly Cool Arrow, how old are you? grow up.
I think both Dee and Therm have a point, the fact that you have not denounced this pathetic, uneducated, hateful attack from the media and the ex-Bishop speaks volumes about you.
The fact is, and you and I both know this, that you agree with the attacks.
it would do you a volume of good if you would stop your hate, or whatever it is that you have for the Roman Catholic Church.
We can disagree about Christian theology, but I believe Dee and others on The Woodshed all brought up a good point.
We should all be united as Christians and defend each other when we see such blalant, dishonest, hateful, ignorant attacks against any Christian denomination.
At the end of the day these attacks harm ALL Christian denominations, not just Catholicism.
wouldn't you agree?
fut Cool really is a good guy
June 17, 2008 - 15:34 ET by Dee BunkYou guys are just off on the wrong foot with this stuff. I think he mentioned he's an ex-Catholic and that's why I can see where he's coming from because I am too. It's kind of how they say ex-smokers are worse on smokers than people who never smoked. I used to be very hard on the Catholic faith myself until I did more searching.
I met this guy who was born again and Catholic. He went faithfully to Mass and attended born again services. I'm sure both of you would take issue with him. I did. I asked him lots of different questions about how the two were completely incompatible and he was able to have a good answer for every question I had. I realized that even though I was raised Catholic, I really didn't know that much about Catholicism. I was just going through motions and never really tried to understand it. I think many people have done the same. I can tell that you truly understand it and because of that I'd consider you "born again". You believe that Jesus is your personal Saviour just like they do.
I think it was a great step on Cools part to agree to just stay out of this one. It's hard to defend something you don't believe in. Maybe over time he could get to that point. You guys would probably really like each other if it weren't for these religious arguments. If both of you can realize that the other is just as passionate about their religion and the best you can do is try to understand the others. I think it's admirable of both of you (as well as others involved in these discussions).
The only thing I wish is that people could somehow approach it more from the perspective of "here is what's great and wonderful about my religion" instead of "here's what's wrong about yours". When people are completely comfortable in their religion, you can't change their mind. I've done lots of spiritual searching because I never have been comfortable in one and I realized that the more you try to understand them, the more they are all the same (in their core teaching ). The differences are mostly in structure and rituals, not core beliefs.
Dee,
June 17, 2008 - 16:00 ET by tracheostomyDee: I've done lots of spiritual searching because I never have been comfortable in one and I realized that the more you try to understand them, the more they are all the same (in their core teaching ).
All religions have their point of exclusion. All of them. What, you don't believe me? Okay, nothing up my sleeve. . .
http://www.rzim.org/GlobalElements/GFV/tabid/449/ArticleID/9005/CBModuleId/1133/Default.aspx
Dee: The differences are mostly in structure and rituals, not core beliefs.
Hold up and re-read what you wrote thyar. Isn't it really the other way around?
Don't the "structure and rituals" actually stem from the core beliefs? How would the "structure and rituals" come first?
Hm?
Maybe because that's all you see personally and maybe (just maybe) you think that's all that matters is the ritual exterior and not the truth claims the symbols are actually pointing to.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
PJ - I agree that all religons have their point of exclusion
June 17, 2008 - 16:38 ET by Dee BunkI don't think I said anything that contradicts that.
I used to think like you do that the structure and rituals stem from the core beliefs but I don't anymore. The core belief to every different church I've been to (I've been to a lot) is that Jesus is your personal savior. Everything else is is aimed at seeing that you understand that. They all have different ways of getting to the same truth. The different rituals are part of "seeking" that truth. Some people at every church are saved and some at every church are not. All churches have people at different points of spiritual development. Many people who are members of a Church don't completely understand their faith. Fut seems to have a pretty good grasp of his.
In addition to the core belief that Jesus is your personal Saviour, most churches share the same moral beliefs. The churches that veer off from core moral beliefs are the ones that are dangerous in my opinion. Most of the others are fine. So if a church advocates adultery or pre marital sex or murder or idol worship or hate toward others or any other "sins" then there may be a problem.
DB,
June 17, 2008 - 17:16 ET by tracheostomyDB: PJ - I agree that all religions have their point of exclusion. I don't think I said anything that contradicts that.
If what I say about the rituals that stem from the core teachings are true, then. . .
DB: I've done lots of spiritual searching because I never have been comfortable in one and I realized that the more you try to understand them, the more they are all the same (in their core teaching ).
. . .they are not all the same then, correct?
DB: I used to think like you do that the structure and rituals stem from the core beliefs but I don't anymore. The core belief to every different church I've been to (I've been to a lot) is that Jesus is your personal savior.
Too broad. Which Jesus are we speaking of here? Savior in what sense? Saved from what? Saved how? What does "personal" savior mean within the context of intercessors who act on your behalf? Your core belief is in actuality a generalized watered-down version of everything that has ever claimed to be Christianity.
Yet at the same time, even Jesus Himself warned of false Christs. So then did He instruct us on how to tell the difference? I believe He did. Both Himself and through His apostles.
DB: Everything else is is aimed at seeing that you understand that. They all have different ways of getting to the same truth.
That would assume then that all these "different ways" do indeed lead to the same truth. But when looking at the variant forms of Jesus represented, plus the methodology of salvation, it breaks down into three camps:
- Jesus saves you completely.
- Jesus saves you along with some merit on your part.
- Jesus saves you by providing the wisdom of saving yourself completely.
DB: The different rituals are part of "seeking" that truth.
"Seeking" or "obtaining"? What does the Bible say about those who seek after God?
DB: Some people at every church are saved and some at every church are not. All churches have people at different points of spiritual development. Many people who are members of a Church don't completely understand their faith. Fut seems to have a pretty good grasp of his.
You're placing a mystical spin on faith in this context.
True believers do not have faith in faith. That's a mystical circularism that atheists love to exploit.
True faith absolutely always requires a faith object. While it's true that one cannot exhaustively know everything about the object of faith, you can understand your own faith and failure to do so is a weak faith on your part. That which is not done in faith is sin.
DB: In addition to the core belief that Jesus is your personal Saviour, most churches share the same moral beliefs.
Morals = merit = works. Then it becomes a question of priority in light of salvation. Which are then either tacked to salvation on the front-end, the back end, or done away with in some manner altogether.
DB: The churches that veer off from core moral beliefs are the ones that are dangerous in my opinion.
By what standard?
DB: Most of the others are fine. So if a church advocates adultery or pre marital sex or murder or idol worship or hate toward others or any other "sins" then there may be a problem.
But that's obvious. If it were that cut and dried it wouldn't deceive anyone, let alone, "if possible, even the elect." Matt 24:24
At one point you were on the right track, but then someone told you all paths lead to the same place. Yet you also agree that all religions have their point of exclusion.
???
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
PJ - You may disagree with me
June 17, 2008 - 21:33 ET by Dee Bunkbut I don't necessarily disagree with you. There are many places in the bible in the Old and New Testaments both that say those who seek God will find him.
Here's one list - of course there are even more
Seekers
Not all paths lead to the same place. All paths that are truly seeking do. Paths that don't interfere with the free will of others are the only true paths. You can't seek for others you can only seek for yourself. There is always room for better understanding in everyone until the day they die. No one is perfect some are just farther along than others. You can share what you learn but you can't force it on anyone.
I don't usually get into
June 17, 2008 - 21:37 ET by bigtimerI don't usually get into this...and I won't any further...but you said it all for me Dee.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
BT - I try not to get into it either
June 17, 2008 - 21:45 ET by Dee BunkI just hate when I see people who would normally like each other get so upset about it as to become enemies. I'm only trying to be non judgmental to everyone involved and hoping that they can find some kind of common ground. I hate taking this risk because it can cause people to misinterpret my meaning or motives and I just hope no one has taken offense. I'm not taking anyones side and I hope it doesn't appear that way.
Oh evening Dee..it wasn't
June 17, 2008 - 21:51 ET by bigtimerOh evening Dee..it wasn't even meant towards anyone...although I agree with your sentiments in you post...I just wanted to say I agreed with the way you summed it up.
Nothing more...nothing less.
I to wished all the fighting going on within some here would stop with religion...especially since I see from all of our posts over time are basically on the same tune of the right side of life.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Wilson
I didn't see yours as taking sides at all BT
June 17, 2008 - 22:18 ET by Dee BunkYours seemed totally neutral to me, except that it seems you agree with being neutral.
I'll take sides on the issues (abortion, Gay Marriage,school prayer,ID, etc...) Most religious people should come down on the same side of those whether they are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist,or Hindu. In addition, I'll take sides against people who try and equate modern Judaism or Christianity with modern radical Islam.
I'll also take sides when it comes to people who say that Science explains everything.
Other than that, I try my hardest to stay out of it.
Dee. . .
June 17, 2008 - 23:02 ET by tracheostomyDee: . . .but I don't necessarily disagree with you. There are many places in the bible in the Old and New Testaments both that say those who seek God will find him.
All of your verses cited assume that this "seeking behavior" must necessarily apply to everyone. However, this is not the case. None of these verses apply to the lost except as a warning of their own unrighteousness. Because if one is not prone to "seek" God, does it mean they were capable of doing so to begin with? And if they were, then why the atonement?
Who initiates the heart to seek after God? The self? If "yes," then you deny a complete separation from righteousness at Eden. If "yes," then you also believe that everyone is born with some righteousness within them. Look at the verses you cited here.
For example, here in Deut 4:29 - The necessary conditional clause here is "with all your heart and all your soul." King David, Jerimiah (17:29), and Paul (Rom 3:11) confirm that humanity has a heart condition that does not guarantee that it is capable of seeking when left to its own motives!
Note Psalm 24:1-6. Is the one cited with a "pure heart" one who is pure from their own merit? Look at verse 6. Is this "generation" according to the flesh? Paul says that it is not (Romans 4 and Galatians 3:15-17). This is how the Gentiles can become part of the remnant prophesied along with the Jews.
Look at Psalm 25:10. Do those that keep the covenant earn the mercy, or do those that have received mercy keep the covenant? Who's running the engines of redemption here? Look at verse 12! "Him shall He teach in the way. . ." in what? In the way He chooses! <-- God.
Is there any one of these verses that is not written by someone who isn't a believer already? See your Ps 34:9! How can you seek Him without the Holy Spirit regenerating you first? We're building on a theology that ignores God's revealed POV in all of this. We're only paying attention to what man does here. Yet the Bible has more to say on it.
Remember the list you cited again. See Isaiah 45:22 there? Is the "looking" towards your salvation here a work that you can boast of?
Dee: Not all paths lead to the same place. All paths that are truly seeking do.
Your use of the qualifier "truly" here, denotes a heart that only God knows. Who knows for sure whether it's "true" or not? Can you be born of a true heart that will seek God? Again, Jeremiah, David, and Paul threaten to make this all a massive contradiction if it is not reconciled with scripture supporting scripture. God is not the author of confusion, and the Word of God does not contradict itself (else, it can be completely rejected altogether)!
You're only presenting man's side of the argument from a results-centered POV. What about the rest of it, Dee?
Dee: Paths that don't interfere with the free will of others are the only true paths.
Now where is that written? Where is your comprehensive list for this assertion? Free will to do what?
Dee: You can't seek for others you can only seek for yourself.
Then why share the gospel to begin with?
Dee: There is always room for better understanding in everyone until the day they die. No one is perfect some are just farther along than others. You can share what you learn but you can't force it on anyone.
Where is this "force" that I continually hear of being enacted upon others on an internet forum?
Dee: I just hate when I see people who would normally like each other get so upset about it as to become enemies.
I'm only (angrily) opposed to those who claim Christianity that also freely, willingly, and with no remorse attempt to pervert the Word of God.
Dee: I'm only trying to be non judgmental to everyone involved and hoping that they can find some kind of common ground.
Then please, tell us what that common ground is.
Dee: I hate taking this risk because it can cause people to misinterpret my meaning or motives and I just hope no one has taken offense. I'm not taking anyones side and I hope it doesn't appear that way.
Are you afraid of taking sides Dee? Why would that be?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
PJ - I don't take sides because it's personal
June 17, 2008 - 23:30 ET by Dee BunkYou can share your faith and it's admirable to do so. Tell people what's right about yours not what's wrong about theirs. You'll have much better success that way. Religion isn't a gotcha game.
»→ But Dee
June 17, 2008 - 23:33 ET by Cool ArrowSeems to me the 10 Commandments are chock full of "Thou shalt nots"
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Agreed cool - and all the major Christian denominations
June 17, 2008 - 23:41 ET by Dee Bunk(not to mention Judaism and Islam) believe in those as well as other morals and sins. You guys don't argue about "Thou shalt nots" you argue about differences in rituals. You all believe that Jesus is your personal savior.
Are you sure about this?
June 17, 2008 - 23:50 ET by tracheostomyDee: You all believe that Jesus is your personal savior.
No. . .we don't all believe this as you assert. I already answered this above.
I have no idea what kind of ecumenical Kool-Aid you've been drinking, but you seem to think for example, that if I preach and teach the Pleiadian Jesus then I'm your brother in Christ.
Well sorry, but you got another think coming. It doesn't matter how minimal the divergence is, either. I can agree with you if you're saying that someone is honestly trying to learn and ask questions. . .but not when they're peddling it as truth.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
»→ We do not agree.
June 17, 2008 - 23:52 ET by Cool ArrowWe do argue about "Thou shalt not".
Suppse you rearrange the commandments so you don't ave to recite that one?
Suppose Jesus returns while you're praying before a statue of a long dead person?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Not really Cool - Catholics don't interpret what they do
June 18, 2008 - 00:16 ET by Dee Bunkthe way you do. You think they pray and bow to Mary and Saints but they don't see it that way. They still pray to Jesus they just use Mary and Saints as a sort of helper or medium kind of. The hail Mary's are meant to obtain a meditative state that brings you closer to Jesus. They don't worship Mary or the Saints they only ask for their assistance. It's similar to asking advise from a Priest or Pastor or other spiritual teacher like all Christians do. They are just asking someone who knows more than they do for help. They don't worship anyone but Jesus.
»→ Dee
June 18, 2008 - 00:26 ET by Cool ArrowHaving lived under that doctrine for many years, I totally understand the excuse given for the practice.
I understand why women have abortions. Since they argue it's not killing innocent human life, I should accept it as good?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
You don't understand it if you think it's an excuse
June 18, 2008 - 00:32 ET by Dee BunkWhy do you get to decide it's an excuse? It's not an excuse to them. Is your listening to your Pastor or other spiritual teacher and excuse for not understanding on your own?
Dee,
June 18, 2008 - 02:59 ET by tracheostomyCool's "decision" isn't as arbitrary as you may think. That's the common assumption perpetuated around here.
Which is funny, because you wouldn't think a conservative would fall for such a classic liberal tactic.
Anyway, I used to swallow the same excuse myself. . .and didn't think it was a big deal either, until I learned the word for worship in Greek, proskuneo, which means "to kiss toward" as if your bowing before.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/05/30/ap-vatican-slamming-door-female-priests#comment-626880 <--- Note especially #1-8.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
PJ - Chiristians believe in eternal life
June 18, 2008 - 08:13 ET by Dee Bunktheir asking Mary for help is no different than you asking a Pastor or other religious figure for help. Mary is alive. The Saints are alive. Loved ones who have left this world are still alive. Catholics prey to Jesus. You don't get to twist their faith just because you don't understand it.
By your standards, no one could go to any church, they would all need to sit home with their bible and figure everything out on their own. They also shouldn't listen to you (by your standards not mine) because Mary is alive and she is surely more holy and knowing and understanding of what Jesus said than you.
I'm sure you must forbid people to visit gravestones of loved ones or keep ashes from them also.
I'll take your own advise when it comes to you. I won't listen to you or try to reach Jesus through you. I'll show you that respect if you demand it.
Dee,
June 18, 2008 - 14:21 ET by tracheostomyDee: PJ- Christians believe in eternal life. . .
Can't argue that. So the ends justify the means?
Dee: . . .their asking Mary for help is no different than you asking a Pastor or other religious figure for help.
It is different. That's why I posted my links and quotes. I find it deeply hurtful when I quote my own links and then you come in with an argument as if I'd never considered what you're floating. You're obviously blowing me off at this point and assuming I don't have the info on this. You're blatantly ignoring what I have already written in favor of your arguments. What you don't realize is that I did indeed address that very same question awhile ago already.
Dee: Mary is alive. The Saints are alive. Loved ones who have left this world are still alive. Catholics prey to Jesus. You don't get to twist their faith just because you don't understand it.
All correct, but with one glaring flaw. There is only one spiritual intercessor and only one spiritual mediator as explicitly stated in scripture (Gal 3:19, 1 Tim 2:5, Heb 7:25).
Mary and the saints do not and can not "field the pass" because the Holy Spirit of God Himself always gets there first (Romans 8:26 and 27). <-- Note also an intercessor "for the saints" hello!
The Holy Spirit of God, being God Himself, is omnipresent. Dead saints are not omnipresent. Therefore substituting saints for the place of God Himself not only limits God, but it is logically praying to the created rather than to the creator (Romans 1). For in order to pray through you must necessarily begin by praying to. The saint cannot take the pass unless you go to them first.
Hence, idolatry. Not much of a leap when you look at this faux heavenly bureaucracy cooked up in direct defiance of God's Word.
Dee: By your standards, no one could go to any church, they would all need to sit home with their bible and figure everything out on their own. They also shouldn't listen to you (by your standards not mine) because Mary is alive and she is surely more holy and knowing and understanding of what Jesus said than you.
This then walks all over the divine revelation of scripture itself. You're also equating the spiritual and physical. There's an obvious problem with that though.
While we are still alive, we are limited from seeing into the spiritual realm apart from personal revelation from God. Sure, we can go to a minister or to another Christian seeking help, but I hope to God he or she pulls out a Bible to point the way, rather than make a claim based on their own individual opinion. God forbid they ever tell you, "Well, I'm glad you asked. Because God personally told me, " _____." By, your logic sure we could figure everything out from the Bible on our own. . .but some problems have more urgency and require someone who has already been through that trial and seen the scripture they can refer to in that very moment of need.
Therefore, we cannot trust any spiritual revelation apart from comparing it with God's word. John urged us to test the spirits. This is the manner in which we do so. The spirits can fool us. How do you know you can trust a spirit claiming to be Mary without God's help? How do you know you can trust a spirit speaking through a flesh-and-blood minister? What does God's own providence give us for that support?
Dee: I'm sure you must forbid people to visit gravestones of loved ones or keep ashes from them also.
Why or why not? If they're not truly alive as you assert. . .? Let the dead bury their own dead. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Dee: I'll take your own advise when it comes to you. I won't listen to you or try to reach Jesus through you.
I am pointing to something you should see. Stop staring at the finger. You're arguing to the person. Look at what my finger is pointing toward.
Dee: I'll show you that respect if you demand it.
I demand no respect apart from the objective verification that backs my statements up. I will not be fooled into making an argument based on my own authority. Quite tempting the way you phrased it though.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
PJ - You just don't understand the Catholic faith
June 18, 2008 - 14:28 ET by Dee Bunkand you don't want to. That's okay. I don't completely understand it either.
Wow.
June 18, 2008 - 14:34 ET by tracheostomyQuick response to say the least. I find your self-imposed ignorance pretty insulting.
You only read what you want to read and ignore the rest.
-PJ
Dee, It is the biggest
June 18, 2008 - 14:39 ET by futbolisgreat1Dee,
It is the biggest understament on planet Earth to claim that Trach doesn't not understand Roman Catholic Theology, Religion, Faith, etc.
Remember, Trach is NOT here to get at the Truth, he is here to smack you around, and tell you how evil and wrong you are and how right he is.
The man has great zeolotry(if such a word exists), even though he is wrong.
Individuals like Trach can never be proven wrong in their mind. He is right and nothing you say will convince the man other wise, despite his claims.
He, like you and I is a son of God, let us respect him for this and this alone.
But believe me, you are not doing him or the RCC any favors by getting baited into his pointless and meaningless debates.
The Truth is not what he seeks, just remember that.
The man is also a very angry person.
My advice to you, Dee Bunk, is the same one I gave you about cool arrow, let Trach be. It is NOT worth it. It took me away too long to realize this about him, but I finally learned.
See here DB? Two truths
June 18, 2008 - 14:57 ET by tracheostomySee here DB? Two truths here vying for attention.
Fut's and mine.
Take your pick.
Just remember that he's got a whole laundry list of questions on infallibility to answer on another thread that he's too scared to deal with. Maybe you can answer for him?
Furthermore, this is the same guy that lectures gays on what makes for a functional and orderly society while at the same time openly endorsing vigilantism.
"how can a society function if morality is thrown out the window? Do we not constantly decide to take away the rights of a murderer? rapist? based on what? the personal beliefs of Americans on what is moral and amoral. are you suggesting anarchy? and then who decides what is right and wrong?"
The rank stench of hypocrisy is galling to say the least.
Dee, you're no longer riding the fence on this one.
-PJ
Dee,
June 18, 2008 - 14:33 ET by tracheostomyBTW, your "just don't" argument is nothing more than a "just so" fallacy. You have nothing else to substantiate it.
-PJ
»→ Dee
June 18, 2008 - 03:15 ET by Cool ArrowHave I not quoted directly from Scripture, and you reject the plain text as an interpretation of a preacher?
Can I also be cute and say
Sure, I can mince words with God. . . to my own peril.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
Cool - it's not parcing words it's understanding
June 18, 2008 - 09:16 ET by Dee Bunkanother person's faith. You certainly are not required to try and understand someone else's if you are comfortable with your own.
No one is asking you to worship Mary. Catholics (who understand their religion) don't worship Mary. They only worship Jesus. Idol worship is forbidden in the Catholic church just as it is in all (mainstream) Christian Churches.
By your standards you wouldn't be allowed to keep photographs of deceased loved ones. All movies about historical people would be blasphemous and all news footage of historical people would be blasphemous. Books are images too so writing or reading about Mary or any other dead person (besides Jesus) would be blasphemous too.
No one is asking you to follow the Catholic church especially if you see what they do as idol worship. For you to participate (while you believed that) would be blasphemous. Catholics who do understand, don't worship anyone but Jesus. You don't get to interpret what they do, God Does. I'm sure there are some Catholics who don't get it right and do worship Mary just as some in your Church don't get everything right either. God knows what is in peoples hearts. People don't. They only know what is in their own.
The Catholic church is just more visual where as Protestant one's are generally more auditory. Some people are reached easier through site and others more easily through sound. It also follows that some are more easily corrupted by imagery and others more easily corrupted through sounds. For those who would easily succumb to Idol worship through images, they should stay away from Catholicism. It would be too dangerous for them.
Dee
June 18, 2008 - 09:25 ET by lotrFor what it's worth, I'm pretty visual, being a guy and all..... :-)
A line has been crossed. Memorials are not idols.
June 18, 2008 - 14:29 ET by tracheostomyDee, you are deliberately shifting prayer to the dead and veneration of the dead in to the realm of memorials. Memory is not prayer.
This is not only a forced comparison, but it is truly an offensive one. The loved ones I take fond memory of are not worshiped. I do not pray to their photographs.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
It's as offensive to you as your claiming to know what Catholics
June 18, 2008 - 14:53 ET by Dee Bunkdo. They only worship God/Jesus, they don't worship Mary or Saints. They don't pray to them in the same sense that they pray to God/Jesus. They talk to them as if they are living because they believe they are still living.
No matter how much YOU want to say they Worship things other than God/Jesus doesn't make it true. It only shows your lack of understanding of their faith. You see their faith in the eyes of trying to prove it wrong rather than trying to really understand it.
You don't have to agree with them or follow their rituals. God knows what is in their hearts. He's the judge. Not you. A Catholic who feels that they are worshiping, doesn't understand their faith and should either try to understand it better or find a new one because the Catholic Church forbids worshiping anyone but God/Jesus.
Dee, Do you expect that
June 18, 2008 - 15:09 ET by futbolisgreat1Dee,
Do you expect that Trach will read your posts and understand them? Don't. He won't.
No matter how many times you tell him how wrong he is about the Roman Catholic Church, he will repeat the same old, tirying arguments, spewed out for centuries now by some Protestant and atheists.
In one hand, he will admit that he is not a Roman Catholic and that he has never studied Roman Catholic Theology and Faith. Then he will turn around and lecture you on RCC Faith and beliefs, eh?
Let him be. The guy is a very angry individual. I am guessing, like Cool Arrow, he had a bad experience within the Church.
We do not do him or the RCC any favors by getting baited into meaningless debates.
For what is worth, you have done a pretty good job stating the fact that we Catholics do not worship the Virgin Mary or any Saint. That we only worship God and God alone.
but just watch Trach, he will repeat mindlessly that this is not the case.
Love him for being a son of God, love Trach because he is a human being, but reject his debating style, his zealotry, which borders on the obssesed and insane (and I mean this word in the medical term, not insult).
We do Trach a bigger favor by praying for his soul, praying that he finds God.
Let us pray for PJs soul and his salvation.
PJ, you are my bretheren in Christ, as such, I respect you.
Answered -PJ
June 18, 2008 - 15:14 ET by tracheostomyAnswered
-PJ
So, I take it that, in your
June 18, 2008 - 14:53 ET by lotrSo, I take it that, in your "memory" of loved ones who have passed away you just consider them stone-cold dead, 6 feet under, rotting, decaying, decomposing? I take it also that you don't visit the grave of loved ones either? The tomb stone, a symbol of the beloved, is a "graven idol"?
"Memory" is to think of them as alive -- you conjur up your own images, and they are not images of the corpse in the coffin. Perhaps I'm mentally ill (as liberals would say), but I have found myself "communing" with loved ones who have passed away. Not as in "hearing voices," but as in feeling a presence, knowing they are still alive, that their spirit endures. When one looks at a photograph of a loved one, one conjurs up mentally various aspects of the relationship one has with that loved one, including emotional and spiritual dimensions. You wouldn't call it "prayer" per se, given that prayer is a two-way communication with a spiritual entity, but all the same, it is quite commonplace for one to live out various aspects of a relationship using symbols of the beloved.
good post lotr
June 18, 2008 - 15:22 ET by Dee BunkI don't think they want to understand though. I'm going to stop discussing any religious issues with them.
Rather, it is you who does
June 18, 2008 - 15:31 ET by tracheostomyRather, it is you who does not want to discuss it any further.
You are right PJ
June 18, 2008 - 15:39 ET by Dee BunkI don't want to discuss it any further.
WHY NOT DEE? Why are you
June 18, 2008 - 15:47 ET by tracheostomyWHY NOT DEE?
Why are you abandoning the orders of Jesus and the saints in scripture and deferring to the peer pressure of a bunch of pagan mystics who hobble the Holy Spirit and put a gag on Mary herself?
-PJ
Dee,
June 18, 2008 - 15:29 ET by tracheostomy1. If you claim to understand another person's faith, then you are also capable of articulating it to me as well. Therefore I am capable of understanding it also. If I am not, then you are claiming a superior understanding that I can not have. I don't believe you're capable of being that conceited. Therefore, I can then comprehend your articulation of that faith on a reasonable level in order to make valid comparisons.
2. However, if you do not claim to understand another person's faith, then you cannot speak on behalf of them. Period. Nor are you even capable of defending them.
3. In light of 1 and 2, you cannot claim the religion you're defending is genuine Christianity. Because either you understand Christianity yourself or you don't. If you do, then a valid comparison can be made on the basis of true Christianity and anything else that claims to be the same.
Therefore, I can either make valid comparisons based on your understanding of it, or else you don't understand the RCC either. In which case it is a mystery religion.
-PJ
I agree that it's a mystery to you PJ
June 18, 2008 - 15:37 ET by Dee Bunkparts of it are a mystery to me, but not the fact that they only worship God/Jesus. I know that for certain. I've talked to Priests about it. If you really want to understand the Catholic Religion then you need to talk to some Priests.
I don't believe that everyone can accurately articulate their faith. That is the whole reason all churches have Priests and Pastors or other religious teachers. All people in all churches are at different levels of spiritual development. No one can be perfect and everyone needs to keep praying for more understanding until the day they die.
Answered -PJ
June 18, 2008 - 15:56 ET by tracheostomyAnswered
-PJ
A "gotcha game"? Is that how you think I see it?
June 17, 2008 - 23:41 ET by tracheostomyDee: You can share your faith and it's admirable to do so. Tell people what's right about yours not what's wrong about theirs. You'll have much better success that way.
Do you define "success" by the applause you get, the excitement you stir, and the pews you fill?
Dee: Religion isn't a gotcha game.
Tell that to Stephen after his last sermon.
Tell that to John in his struggle with the Gnostics.
Tell that to Paul in his struggle with false apostles.
Tell it to Jude and the late autumn trees.
Tell it to Augustine and Pelagius.
Tell it to yourself in the mirror when you ask yourself if you really want the real Jesus to be seen to begin with.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
No that's not my definition of success
June 17, 2008 - 23:50 ET by Dee BunkSuccess would be getting people to understand what you are saying.
I wouldn't tell anything to any of the people you mentioned and you need to ask yourself your own last question.
DB,
June 17, 2008 - 23:59 ET by tracheostomyDee: Success would be getting people to understand what you are saying.
Do you think you can truly reason someone into the kingdom? What if my opponents aren't merely foils meant to contrast true truth (as Schaeffer would call it) with error?
Dee: I wouldn't tell anything to any of the people you mentioned. . .
Then it's not gotcha.
Dee: . . .and you need to ask yourself your own last question.
Are you assuming that I haven't?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
LMAO - religious debates
June 18, 2008 - 16:02 ET by mofosesameLMAO - religious debates are fun to watch.
It's sometimes like watching "the View"
Kingdom - LOL
amen to this
June 17, 2008 - 17:19 ET by TruthMongeramen to this dee:)
the church is "the body" of Christ - and the body has many different parts - but only one heart
When TM agrees with you. . .
June 17, 2008 - 17:35 ET by tracheostomyTM: amen to this dee:)
. . .then you know you've got a problem somewhere.
TM: the church is "the body" of Christ - and the body has many different parts - but only one heart
I know you actually meant to say "head" instead of "heart". . .because then I'll cite Eph 5:23, Col 1:18; 2:19, and then you'll swear you've read them a thousand times (without investigating what I'm referring to) and so that's what you really meant all along. . .right?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
thanks but I'm JC problem
June 17, 2008 - 18:02 ET by TruthMongerthanks but I'm JC problem free over 20 years running now:)
I meant to say heart of course - and what do you know...I did! Wow...
I say what I mean and mean what I say...maybe you could give it a try sometime:)!
and you actually think the body of Christ has two hearts...?
well frankly trach I'm not surprised...
is that Calvanist or something? </