I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics1 min ago
Advice Please.........
39 Answers
If a female wants to become a Catholic and knows she will still be sinning i.e. will still take contraception, would this be truly bad? Thank-you
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Sonak. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Fingerprint - Mary is the same as every other person, as in she is a sinner. In Luke she said she 'rejoiced in God my Saviour', showing that she too needed salvation.
Yes you can ask your friends to pray for you, to remember you in prayer, but Mary cannot pray for you in the way you're suggesting.
Firstly, she is dead, and though in heaven has no ability to do anything for you. Only God is omniscient, so how could she hear all those that pray to her at the same time?
Secondly, the Bible forbids attempting to contact the dead, it as an abominable sin.
Thirdly, she is never once mentioned in the Bible with relation to prayer.
And finally, as shown in the verses I quoted previously, Jesus is the only way to God.
Why would you even want to go a secondary route, when if you have accepted Christ as your Saviour you have direct access to God through Him.
Would you pass a message to the butler when you can have one to one fellowship with the king!
(See Hebrews 4:14-16)
The Catholic Church was not founded by the apostles. Firstly, the Christian church is founded by the Lord Jesus Christ, Christ is the 'chief cornerstone', and it is Christ Who is the head of the church.
Peter was not the first pope.
You quoted Matt 16:18 "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."
Peter was just after stating that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. It is this Rock that Jesus says He will build His church upon.
(In the Greek the word Peter used here is 'petros', meaning a stone, then the word 'rock' is the Greek word 'petra', which means immovable rock) i.e Thou art a stone, and upon the immovable rock of Christ I will build my church.
Peter, like all who are saved, is a stone, a pebble in God's church, but Christ is the foundation.
Amen, that salvation is based on God, and not sinful men like ourselves !
Yes you can ask your friends to pray for you, to remember you in prayer, but Mary cannot pray for you in the way you're suggesting.
Firstly, she is dead, and though in heaven has no ability to do anything for you. Only God is omniscient, so how could she hear all those that pray to her at the same time?
Secondly, the Bible forbids attempting to contact the dead, it as an abominable sin.
Thirdly, she is never once mentioned in the Bible with relation to prayer.
And finally, as shown in the verses I quoted previously, Jesus is the only way to God.
Why would you even want to go a secondary route, when if you have accepted Christ as your Saviour you have direct access to God through Him.
Would you pass a message to the butler when you can have one to one fellowship with the king!
(See Hebrews 4:14-16)
The Catholic Church was not founded by the apostles. Firstly, the Christian church is founded by the Lord Jesus Christ, Christ is the 'chief cornerstone', and it is Christ Who is the head of the church.
Peter was not the first pope.
You quoted Matt 16:18 "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church."
Peter was just after stating that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. It is this Rock that Jesus says He will build His church upon.
(In the Greek the word Peter used here is 'petros', meaning a stone, then the word 'rock' is the Greek word 'petra', which means immovable rock) i.e Thou art a stone, and upon the immovable rock of Christ I will build my church.
Peter, like all who are saved, is a stone, a pebble in God's church, but Christ is the foundation.
Amen, that salvation is based on God, and not sinful men like ourselves !
Fingerprint -
The point about the apostles being able to forgive sins.
I would understand John 20:23 as how I believe the disciples understood them, that they were in regard to people's response to the preaching of the Gospel.
No where in Scripture did they forgive any man or woman their sins, but rather they pointed them to Christ, as He only Who is able to save.
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12
"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" Acts 13:38-39.
Fingerprint, I hope I haven't offended you, or seem to have 'trampled' on your beliefs. But I believe that the Roman church places a lot of stumbling blocks, obstacles and man made inventions between God and man that simply are not in the Bible. It saddens me to think of the sincere and devout people who are being mis-directed in this way.
The point about the apostles being able to forgive sins.
I would understand John 20:23 as how I believe the disciples understood them, that they were in regard to people's response to the preaching of the Gospel.
No where in Scripture did they forgive any man or woman their sins, but rather they pointed them to Christ, as He only Who is able to save.
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12
"Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses" Acts 13:38-39.
Fingerprint, I hope I haven't offended you, or seem to have 'trampled' on your beliefs. But I believe that the Roman church places a lot of stumbling blocks, obstacles and man made inventions between God and man that simply are not in the Bible. It saddens me to think of the sincere and devout people who are being mis-directed in this way.
Lighter, thanks for your response and no you have not offended me, it's interesting to see your perspective.
I don't really agree with your interpretations and I think alot of your views about Catholic practices are due to a lack of understanding about Catholic theology, especially the concept of Pergatory which is closely linked to the contacting Mary issues. I don't really feel like debating it out any more at this hour, you are obviously from a different Christian background to me and I respect what you are saying.
Although I do feel that sacraments such as 'reconcilliation' are a tool that actually bring people closer to Christ, the physical act of confession creates a greater consciousness of what you are doing?
I'm also really suprised that you don't accept that Paul was the first Pope, I thought this was accepted by Christians of all backgrounds. Do you accept that the early Christians were Catholics?
I don't really agree with your interpretations and I think alot of your views about Catholic practices are due to a lack of understanding about Catholic theology, especially the concept of Pergatory which is closely linked to the contacting Mary issues. I don't really feel like debating it out any more at this hour, you are obviously from a different Christian background to me and I respect what you are saying.
Although I do feel that sacraments such as 'reconcilliation' are a tool that actually bring people closer to Christ, the physical act of confession creates a greater consciousness of what you are doing?
I'm also really suprised that you don't accept that Paul was the first Pope, I thought this was accepted by Christians of all backgrounds. Do you accept that the early Christians were Catholics?
I would also say Lighter that rather than misdorecting people the Roman Catholic Church has a deeper and more powerful spirituality than other Christian Churches.
We have nearly 2000 years of theology and as Fingerprint said, many of the most respected Christians in history are from the Catholic Church.
We have nearly 2000 years of theology and as Fingerprint said, many of the most respected Christians in history are from the Catholic Church.
If idolatory is sinful, then why does the R.C. church go in for worshipping statues, particularly of Mary? (eg Fatima?)
I don't doubt the huge numbers of devout R.C.'s who have won the respect of men for their unswerving service to humankind, but that can also be said of secular humanists or people of other religions entirely, and detracts from the assertion that the R.C. church gives equal weight to the authority of its traditions as it does to scripture.
How can it claim papal infallibility, and be responsible for the crusades and the inquisition?
Has Richard Bennett really got nothing to say that is valid?
http://bereanbeacon.org/
I don't doubt the huge numbers of devout R.C.'s who have won the respect of men for their unswerving service to humankind, but that can also be said of secular humanists or people of other religions entirely, and detracts from the assertion that the R.C. church gives equal weight to the authority of its traditions as it does to scripture.
How can it claim papal infallibility, and be responsible for the crusades and the inquisition?
Has Richard Bennett really got nothing to say that is valid?
http://bereanbeacon.org/
Sorry meant to say Peter not Paul. The claim about worshiping statues has to be the most common and ridiculous criticism of Catholics.
Just because Catholics have statues in their churches this does not mean they are violating God�s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4�5);
Yes idolatry is a sin but to accuse Catholics of this is a complete misunderstanding of scripture. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually promoted their use in religious contexts! What about the numerous texts where God commands the making of statues??
Statues are also an important teaching tool in the Catholic Church, especially in countries where many are illiterate. The story of Moses and the bronze serpent makes it clear that God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.
Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas using statues, so why do you not judge Protestants by the same rule as Catholics by which they would also be committing idoltary?
Just because Catholics have statues in their churches this does not mean they are violating God�s commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a graven image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: you shall not bow down to them or serve them" (Ex. 20:4�5);
Yes idolatry is a sin but to accuse Catholics of this is a complete misunderstanding of scripture. God forbade the worship of statues, but he did not forbid the religious use of statues. Instead, he actually promoted their use in religious contexts! What about the numerous texts where God commands the making of statues??
Statues are also an important teaching tool in the Catholic Church, especially in countries where many are illiterate. The story of Moses and the bronze serpent makes it clear that God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.
Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas using statues, so why do you not judge Protestants by the same rule as Catholics by which they would also be committing idoltary?
Theland, I don't think any Catholic is going to deny that the Church has made mistakes in the past for example the crusades, the same way that the British Empire have done things in the past they are not proud of.
Yes, people from all backgrounds and persuasions have done great things for human kind, but you say that the Catholic Church leads people away from God, my point was that many of the most respected Christians in history who have done great deeds in the name of God have been from the Catholic Church.
Richard Bennett's article just plays up to the worst prejudices of people outside of the Catholic Church, in the same way that the Daily Mail plays up to the worst prejudices of Middle Class White people.
Yes, people from all backgrounds and persuasions have done great things for human kind, but you say that the Catholic Church leads people away from God, my point was that many of the most respected Christians in history who have done great deeds in the name of God have been from the Catholic Church.
Richard Bennett's article just plays up to the worst prejudices of people outside of the Catholic Church, in the same way that the Daily Mail plays up to the worst prejudices of Middle Class White people.
Philanthro - The point I'm making is, that Richard Bennett had a hunger for God, and went into the RC priesthood to serve God. I'm sure he is far more authoritative than I when comapring the scriptures to the practices of the RC church.
I am not trying to do anything except to say that there is a difference between scripture and RC church tradition, which is given equal authority.
If protestants worship their three dimensional nativity scenes, then that is clearly wrong also.
I am not trying to do anything except to say that there is a difference between scripture and RC church tradition, which is given equal authority.
If protestants worship their three dimensional nativity scenes, then that is clearly wrong also.
Theland - I asked you how you dealt with the fact that there is such a huge degree of difference in theological interpretation and practice between different Christian organisations. Your answer was that you do not judge and that it is up to each of us to prayerfully make a decision about the strand of theology we wish to follow.
But in this thread all you have done is judge!! and criticise Catholics for the theology they have decided to follow!! Your first answer about someone becoming a Catholic was "why would she want to do that", do you seriously not see that as judging?
But in this thread all you have done is judge!! and criticise Catholics for the theology they have decided to follow!! Your first answer about someone becoming a Catholic was "why would she want to do that", do you seriously not see that as judging?
Fingerprint - O.K. I take your point.
But my point is that I am not making a judgement, that is, using some imaginary authority of my own, I have none. The bible is for me the only authority in these matters, and its authority is by virtue of being Gods word, therefore, there is the standard to be upheld.
So, if I see the pope and the magisterium of the RC church, presiding over doctrine that is blatantly unbiblical, then I express my view accordingly.
That is me being objective, and not subjectively judgemental. Isn't it?
But my point is that I am not making a judgement, that is, using some imaginary authority of my own, I have none. The bible is for me the only authority in these matters, and its authority is by virtue of being Gods word, therefore, there is the standard to be upheld.
So, if I see the pope and the magisterium of the RC church, presiding over doctrine that is blatantly unbiblical, then I express my view accordingly.
That is me being objective, and not subjectively judgemental. Isn't it?
Fingerprint - First may I say that I don't believe such an office as that of the pope is ever mentioned in the Bible. Christ is the sole head of His church, and has not placed any human being as being supreme over it. He is the Head, and we are the members of His Body.
Peter could not have been the first pope.
Christ taught that all His apostles were equal, (Matt 23:1-12, Mark 10:35-45).
Peter never alludes to himself as having supremacy over the church.
Peter was sent to Samaria to preach by the other apostles, (Acts8:14). If he was pope he would be the one doing the sending.
In Acts 15:6-29 the apostles hold council on how they should handle a matter, Peter being present. But it is the advice of James that they follow.
The apostle Paul scolds Peter for a trouble that he was the cause of, (Gal 2:11).
Also in the same chapter in Galatians we read of James, Cephas (which is Peter) and John being described as pillars in the church. A pillar can't be the foundation.
If Peter was supreme, the one with authority why did the likes of John and Paul write more books of the Bible than him?
Actually there's a thought. You could sit down and read through the two epistles of Peter and see if they mention anything that agrees/disagrees with RC teaching today, or shows that he was the head of the church.
We, me included, should always test our beliefs against the final authority, God's Word.
You asked me if I accept that the early Christians were Catholics. No I don't. I accept they were Christians. When we read of their history in Scripture and their epistles we are always pointed to Christ, and Christ alone. No talk of Mary, masses, rosaries etc.
I enjoy forgiveness of sin and closeness with God, through Christ Jesus His Son, and as I said before putting priests, rituals etc in between is like setting up hurdles that God never intended.
"
Peter could not have been the first pope.
Christ taught that all His apostles were equal, (Matt 23:1-12, Mark 10:35-45).
Peter never alludes to himself as having supremacy over the church.
Peter was sent to Samaria to preach by the other apostles, (Acts8:14). If he was pope he would be the one doing the sending.
In Acts 15:6-29 the apostles hold council on how they should handle a matter, Peter being present. But it is the advice of James that they follow.
The apostle Paul scolds Peter for a trouble that he was the cause of, (Gal 2:11).
Also in the same chapter in Galatians we read of James, Cephas (which is Peter) and John being described as pillars in the church. A pillar can't be the foundation.
If Peter was supreme, the one with authority why did the likes of John and Paul write more books of the Bible than him?
Actually there's a thought. You could sit down and read through the two epistles of Peter and see if they mention anything that agrees/disagrees with RC teaching today, or shows that he was the head of the church.
We, me included, should always test our beliefs against the final authority, God's Word.
You asked me if I accept that the early Christians were Catholics. No I don't. I accept they were Christians. When we read of their history in Scripture and their epistles we are always pointed to Christ, and Christ alone. No talk of Mary, masses, rosaries etc.
I enjoy forgiveness of sin and closeness with God, through Christ Jesus His Son, and as I said before putting priests, rituals etc in between is like setting up hurdles that God never intended.
"
Hi Philanthro - 2000 years of theology you say. I believe that the way of salvation and the doctrines of the church are the same as when we read of them in the Bible.
But RC theology has changed over the years.
For instance the infallibility of the pope was only decreed in 1870, and I think the assumption of Mary became a Roman Dogma in 1950 by Pius XII. I also read recently that the RC church was thinking ofremoving the doctrine of limbo.
But the Bible says:
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Hebrews 13:8
But RC theology has changed over the years.
For instance the infallibility of the pope was only decreed in 1870, and I think the assumption of Mary became a Roman Dogma in 1950 by Pius XII. I also read recently that the RC church was thinking ofremoving the doctrine of limbo.
But the Bible says:
"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." Hebrews 13:8
"May I please speak to the lady of the house? . . . OK, is the lady of the house in?"
While the impassioned debate over who�s got the biggest God continues perhaps the lady to whom this thread pertains should consider accepting responsibility for her own life by taking into consideration the physical and emotional consequences of her actions. We should all accept and understand what being human entails and practice safety and responsibility when contemplating and enjoying the methods we use to satisfy our sexual needs and desires, remembering that where relationships involving two or more people are concerned that long term mutual benefit should be pursued and as much as possible assured. All other concerns should first and last take this into consideration.
While the impassioned debate over who�s got the biggest God continues perhaps the lady to whom this thread pertains should consider accepting responsibility for her own life by taking into consideration the physical and emotional consequences of her actions. We should all accept and understand what being human entails and practice safety and responsibility when contemplating and enjoying the methods we use to satisfy our sexual needs and desires, remembering that where relationships involving two or more people are concerned that long term mutual benefit should be pursued and as much as possible assured. All other concerns should first and last take this into consideration.
It is not a debate over who has the biggest God, but a debate on the doctrine taught by the various religions, that all claim biblical authority.
I people regard the basics of Christianity as true, then they are my Christian brothers and sisters, regardless of their religious denomination. They are as entitled as I am to engage in constructive criticism of each others view of scripture, and how this translates into belief and practice.
I people regard the basics of Christianity as true, then they are my Christian brothers and sisters, regardless of their religious denomination. They are as entitled as I am to engage in constructive criticism of each others view of scripture, and how this translates into belief and practice.
-- answer removed --
Latest Posts
ChatterBank1 min ago
Shopping & Style1 min ago
News3 mins ago
Film, Media & TV7 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
