What's with the anti-Catholic hate?

Shihulud, do you have anger problems?

What is it you have against theists?

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Shihulud, do you have anger problems?

What is it you have against theists?

I have absolutely nothing against theists - I have a problem with peole informing me that Im wrong on a subjective matter, Whether or not you believe in god etc is no basis for proclaiming an authority. I have just as valid an opinion as you or anyone else.

Also what did I say that was untrue?? Constantine wasn't a christian, even when he was proclaiming it to be the true religion. Pauls 'gentile' religion is the version of christianity that is taught today and not what james preached in jerusalem. The canon was decided only on the basis of what the church leaders thought was the true canon - if it didn't fit the beliefs at the time then it didn't go in. SO how am I wrong???


G

Personally, I have no use for religion. As far as the Catholic Church goes I recognize that it is Mystery Babylon of the book of Revelation. From idols, to Lent, to the Sacraments, to the Mother/child worship, and to Purgatory..... it all comes from Babylon. I was raised Catholic by the way. I took it upon myself to find out about the church I was brought up in. (as everyone should do........seek the truth.)

As far as the Catholic Church choosing the books in the Bible, I believe you are in error.

If the Catholic Church chose the books of the Bible why is the Catholic Bible different than the Jewish and Protestant Old testament??????????

The books of the old testament were gathered around 300 BC and a Greek Old Testament was printed in 275 BC. The Jewish Old Testament was offficially Codified in Jamnia in 90 AD but the books had been chosen long prior to that. Jesus was always referencing the Scripture with comments like: "You search the Scriptures and they point to Me" The Catholic Church had nothing to do with these books.

As for the New Testament, the books were chosen as early as 100 AD and were written by the Apostles or those within the Apostles immediate circle. Different churches gathered their own collection of books. If a letter was written by Paul to church at Ephesus, it was copied and taken to other churches and vice versa. The problem came from the attack of the truth from false Gnostic writings. These false books of course were written later and are not in the Canon.

Constantine by the way had 50 bibles copied in 330 AD but had nothing to do with choosing the books.

As for the New Testament, the books were chosen as early as 100 AD and were written by the Apostles or those within the Apostles immediate circle. Different churches gathered their own collection of books. If a letter was written by Paul to church at Ephesus, it was copied and taken to other churches and vice versa. The problem came from the attack of the truth from false Gnostic writings. These false books of course were written later and are not in the Canon.

Constantine by the way had 50 bibles copied in 330 AD but had nothing to do with choosing the books.

Some proof of what you claim would be nice.

I have already given links backing up my claim.

Sorry but you are wrong about the Catholic church. You wouldn't even have the book of revelation had the church not chosen to include it in the new testament.

Also, I never said anything about the old testament, I'm talking about the new.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by thehumbleone]

[edit on 7-3-2007 by thehumbleone]

Originally posted by shihulud
FSOA Wasn't it supposed to be god who decided the bible??? Or were the early catholic church leaders charged by god to create the bible? If so then wouldn't that make all other christian religions false? As they dont follow the religion set out by god and jesus to the catholics. So really how many true christians are there and what version of catholicism is the true one?

I mean your probably a roman catholic yes??? But wasnt it the Eastern Orthodox church that decided what was to be in the canon?? So wouldn't that make the roman catholics the wrong religion???

Just a thought!!!!!
G

The Bible didn't come down on a silver cloud with angels trumpeting its arrival into the hands of King James, Luther, etc.

The early Christian communities (prior to the establishment of the Canon) didn't have complete copies of the Bible -- some might have had one or more of the Gospel books, others one or more of the Letters of St. Paul, etc.

The Church leaders (Bishops) established the books as the Canon because there were many other books claiming to be divinely inspired, and their authenticity was questioned, or the message was radically different from the message in what we know in the Bible today.

Common arguement: (paraphrasing)"...in Europe during the Middle Ages, the great Cathedrals of God kept the Bible locked away and kept the people from reading it.." - Rev. John Hagee (television ministry), circa 1998-2000

This is making some assumptions:
1) Universal literacy did not come into being until what, the late 1800's or early 1900's? Most people in the Middle Ages were illiterate.
2) It assumes the printing press was available. Prior to the printing press, all books were hand-copied, and illuminated with ornate script and artwork. Books were valuable. They needed to be secured to avoid theft, vandalism, or other natural catastrophe.

What we know as the Eastern Orthodox did not exist as a seperate entity until 1056. Prior to this, they were in communion with the Pope of Rome, even if the last century or two before the official schism was a period of tension and disagreement.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
Personally, I have no use for religion. As far as the Catholic Church goes I recognize that it is Mystery Babylon of the book of Revelation. From idols, to Lent, to the Sacraments, to the Mother/child worship, and to Purgatory..... it all comes from Babylon. I was raised Catholic by the way. I took it upon myself to find out about the church I was brought up in. (as everyone should do........seek the truth.)

As far as the Catholic Church choosing the books in the Bible, I believe you are in error.

If the Catholic Church chose the books of the Bible why is the Catholic Bible different than the Jewish and Protestant Old testament??????????

For someone who has no use for religion, you sure have a well-defined Protestant view.

Idols: People often criticize the use of statues or icons. Books weren't always available to people, and people weren't as literate as they are today. The statues illustrate certain passages in the Bible, or representations of various holy people. Statues and saints are venerated, but not worshipped. Veneration may appear to be worship in its external appearance, but it varies in its intent. (It is not charitable to assume the intent or thought, heart and mind of person who venerates a servant of God, who lived faithfully to His word, possibly even unto death.) For example, some people venerate their civil leaders or monarchs, some may venerate their supervisors, children often venerate their parents, but not as gods. Veneration is respect given to another out of love, position, or even through fear or command.

People often have pictures in their home of loved ones. I might come to your home, and see the picture of a kindly older woman and inquire, "Who is that?", and you might respond that its your mother. Now seriously, would I think that the actual picture is literally your mother? No, of course not. The same is with statues and icons.

Now, conversely, how would you feel if you point out a picture of your mother and I respond by calling her just an ordinary woman, use an expletive to describe her, and stomp on her photo and spit on it? You probably wouldn't be too happy, because (I'm hoping) you venerate your mother.


The Catholic Bible differs from the (modern) Jewish Tanakh because during the time of Jesus various Jewish communities adhered to different Canons. The Catholic OT is from the Jewish Alexandrian Canon. Interestingly enough, it was the Pharisees (or was it the Sadducees?) who rejected the notion of the afterlife also rejected the Alexandrian Canon.

The Catholic OT differs from the Protestant OT because, frankly, Luther removed books which he didn't think were important. He further wanted to remove the Epistle of James (what he called an "Epsitle of Straw"), but relented over the objections of his companions.

You object to an organization (the Catholic Church) for accepting/rejecting books into the Canon, but accept the "authority" of a single man? That makes no sense to me...

The Catholic and Protestant NT, thankfully, are the same.

Peace,

Z

Zhenyghi, your posts are excellent, you explained what I couldn't.

You have voted Zhenyghi for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by thehumbleone]

First could your comment about the book of Revelation. Are you referring to Luther questioning it?


By the way.........Your second link was sheer GARBAGE and nothing less. I don't want to take the time to tear it appart as there are no end to the inaccuracies. It is total GARBAGE. Suffice it to say that in 325 AD in Nicea there were no books discussed.

Many Evangelical Christian groups do not accept the theory that the Christian Bible was not known until various local and Ecumenical Councils, which they deem to be "Roman-dominated" and made their official declarations.

These groups believe that the New Testament supports that Paul (2 Timothy 4:11-13), Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16), and ultimately John (Revelation 22:18-19) finalized the canon of the New Testament. Some note that Peter, John, and Paul wrote 20 (or 21) of the 27 books of the NT and personally knew all the other NT writers.

en.wikipedia.org... " target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> en.wikipedia.org...

Sun, you use wikipeidia as you source?:shk:

Please show me the inaccuracies of my second link.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Catholic church didn't choose the New testament canon?

Zhenyghi gave an excellent explanation, you should read his posts.

You're not one of those people who believe in the moon landing conspiracy are you?

[edit on 7-3-2007 by thehumbleone]

Originally posted by Zhenyghi


Idols: People often criticize the use of statues or icons.

Simply put it violates the Ten Commandments.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

These graven images are nothing more that the false pagan gods taken into the Church.

Sun, this website should explain it for you.

www.greenspun.com...

Please read it.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Sun, you use wikipeidia as you source?:shk:

Please show me the inaccuracies of my second link.

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Catholic church didn't choose the New testament canon?

I told you there are too many inaccuracies to mess with. Look what it says happens in 325 as far as the books and then check the Council of Nicea. There were no books discussed, chosen, thought about, printed, dreamed of, wished for.............

That's basically what I believe right there below. The books were chosen long before the Catholic church was formed which happened when Constantine backed the Bishops of Rome(one of the few things Dan Brown had right). Yes as it says below.........Rome made their offical declarations........but so what.

Many Evangelical Christian groups do not accept the theory that the Christian Bible was not known until various local and Ecumenical Councils, which they deem to be "Roman-dominated" and made their official declarations.

These groups believe that the New Testament supports that Paul (2 Timothy 4:11-13), Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16), and ultimately John (Revelation 22:18-19) finalized the canon of the New Testament. Some note that Peter, John, and Paul wrote 20 (or 21) of the 27 books of the NT and personally knew all the other NT writers.

You're not one of those people who believe in the moon landing conspiracy are you?

No.........You're not one of those people who believe that Peter was the first Pope are you?

No.........You're not one of those people who believe that Peter was the first Pope are you?

Yes, because that is what the tradition has always said.

Sun, you really have nothing to back up your claim, it isn't even worth arguing.

[edit on 7-3-2007 by thehumbleone]

Originally posted by thehumbleone

No.........You're not one of those people who believe that Peter was the first Pope are you?

Yes, because that is what the tradition has always said.

More important.............is it the truth.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
Sun, this website should explain it for you.

www.greenspun.com...

Please read it.

Did you read your link.........It also shot holes in the response

Reasons people don't like the Catholic church:

1) They protect child rapists

2) They are a very rich organisation and if they were real Christians they should be giving every spare penny to the poor and starving people of the world.

3) They cause the spread of fatal disease by preaching against the use of contraception.

4) The Catholic Church helped many Nazi war criminals escape to South Amaerica at the end of World War 2

That's all I can think of for the moment, I'm sure there's lots of other reasons I could think of given the time.

[edit on 8/3/07 by Phil123]

Originally posted by thehumbleone
I've been seeing a lot of comments from a lot of members on here who seem to have some sort of prejudice against the Catholic church.

Not only on this site but also all over the internet.

May I ask you Why?

Protestants, what is it you do not like about the Catholic church?

I have a very important point to make, so listen ok.

Do you know who chose the books that would be in the new testament?

The very books you base you faith upon, the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The acts of the apostles all the way to the book of Revelation.

Do you realize who it is that chose these books?

I'll tell you who it is, it's the Catholic church who chose them, that's who.

No matter what you may have against us, always remember that reason you believe what you believe is because the Catholic church chose the books of the new testament.

So you're openly admitting that the Bible is the pure creation of man and not the infallible word of god then, eh?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix

Originally posted by Zhenyghi


Idols: People often criticize the use of statues or icons.

Simply put it violates the Ten Commandments.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

These graven images are nothing more that the false pagan gods taken into the Church.

Christ is pagan?! So, having an image of Christ in church (or as many, including many Protestants) or in your home is forbidden because Christ is pagan?..

If you feel so strongly about this, you should toss out any pictures you might have of anyone, and also any artwork which might depict any man or beast. If you have a young daughter, you should also discard any dolls she might have (The Amish have a strict interpretation of the prohibition against "graven images", and thus avoid their picture being taken, and have dolls without faces (no eyes, mouth, etc.).

The commandment cited above opposes the making of pagan idols to worship, such as the Golden Calf, which was an image of the false Egyptian god Apis. That's why God added the words "Thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them (see post above about veneration vs. worship/adoration). God doesn't want us to make images for the purposes of idolatrous worship. This commandment does not apply to artwork, like the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or monuments like the Lincoln Memorial or the Statue of Liberty, since none of these images are intended for idolatrous worship. Since Catholics do not worship holy images nor attribute divinity to them, this does not apply to Catholic practice either. Catholics do not worship statues, nor the persons they represent (other than Christ), they are used to remind us of our beloved family in heaven, even as you might look at a photo of a relative when he or she is far away. We know the Ten Commandments would never address prayers "to" a plaster statue, since the statue itself can do nothing.

Notice that as long as they are not worshipped, God does not absolutely forbid the use of statues and other images in the houses of worship. Indeed, in Exodus 25:18, shortly after issuing the command in question, God says, "Thou shalt make two cherubims of gold: of beaten work thou shalt make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat". These cherubim on the Ark were images of things "in heaven above", and so seemingly prohibited by Exodus 20:4-5! Is God contradicting Himself? No, for although they were intended for use in the Tabernacle, and thus had a religious purpose, they themselves were not objects of worship!

Again, in Numbers 21: 8-9, when the Israelites were plagued by serpents, the Lord told Moses to "Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that everyone who is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live". Moses did so, and people were healed by looking at it! Evidently, God does not oppose all images.

1 Kings 6:29 tells us that the walls of the Temple were covered with "carved figures of cherubims, and palm trees, and open flowers, wthing and without". These are likenesses of things in heaven AND on earth! 1 Chronicles 28:18-19 indicates that King David made numerous gold and silver images to adorn the future temple, and that he did so according to God's command (vs. 19)! And 2 Chronicles 3:10-13 informs us that Solomon had two huge golden statues of angels constructed for the Holy of Holies (in addition to the two on top of the Ark).

Nowehere does God ever object to this proliferation of images in the Temple of Jerusalem, in fact His blessing of the Temple implies divine pleasure with the whole thing 2 Chronicles 7:18. Many Catholic churches are similarly filled with holy images; indeed, the Temple of Solomon resembled a Catholic church more than a typical Evangelical one!

I told you there are too many inaccuracies to mess with. Look what it says happens in 325 as far as the books and then check the Council of Nicea. There were no books discussed, chosen, thought about, printed, dreamed of, wished for.............

Many Evangelical Christian groups do not accept the theory that the Christian Bible was not known until various local and Ecumenical Councils, which they deem to be "Roman-dominated" and made their official declarations.

These groups believe that the New Testament supports that Paul (2 Timothy 4:11-13), Peter (2 Peter 3:15-16), and ultimately John (Revelation 22:18-19) finalized the canon of the New Testament. Some note that Peter, John, and Paul wrote 20 (or 21) of the 27 books of the NT and personally knew all the other NT writers.

Let's assume that Peter, Paul, and John established the Canon. When, exactly, was this done? Peter was crucified in Rome circa 60 AD, Paul was beheaded in Rome shortly after. John was the only Apostle to be spared death by martyrdom.

The Council of Nicea did not establish the Canon, the Councils of Hippo and Carthage (both in (formerly) Christian North Africa) circa 350-450 AD.

Following the end of Christian persecution in the empire, Christians were able to worship more freely, and openly express thoughts on Christianity. With this freedom came debates, questions, and varying doctrines regarding Christ's divinity vs. humanity, the nature and status of the human soul, etc.

Constantine, having accepted Christianity, and decreeing it the official faith of the empire, needed a unified Christianity for its own sake, and the sake of the empire.

Nicea "settled" matters of doctrine (doctrine is always questioned, even by Christians of all denominations to this day - which is why (other than issues of leadership) there are so many various Christian denominations today. They all claim to be right, and claim the same source (the Bible) as their blueprint... (That's another topic)

Constantine was the host, the facilitator of the Council of Nicea.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
I've been seeing a lot of comments from a lot of members on here who seem to have some sort of prejudice against the Catholic church.

It goes in waves. Sometimes it's quiet and othertimes it gets wonky with it. In most cases, the people complaining about the Church end up saying 'the Church believes ______ ' and it simply isn't true.

Case in point -

Originally posted by kinglizard
Praying to Saints.

We are all supposed to pray for each other. Asking people who are in heaven to pray for us is not any different.

www.catholic.com...
www.catholic.com...
www.catholic.com...
www.catholic.com...

Worshiping the Mother Mary

This gets sooooooooo old. Catholics do not worship Mary. Take a look at the Catechism someday. It's very specific about that.

www.catholic.com...

priest... we should confess our sins to him for judgement

Confess THROUGH the priest to God. You can go straight to God, or you can have a priest there. And no, Catholics don't go to a priest 'for judgement'.

www.catholic.com...

Calling a priest "father" when we know that God is the only Father.

Better not call your biological father - father.

Better take this up with those in the Bible.. afterall ... some of them called each other 'father' and 'son'. Timothy, Peter, Paul ....


www.catholic.com...


I don't care if people decide they don't like the Catholic church or that it's not for them. But what I care about is when people say things like 'Catholics worship Mary' or 'Catholics think the Pope is God' ... or other junk that simply isn't true. It usually isn't all their fault for believing this stuff because they have been told this from ministers and other allegedly 'learned' people, so they believe them.

[edit on 3/8/2007 by FlyersFan]