And I disagree with jehoshaphat (funny way to write "yehoshafat"
) , I don't think we should follow the pope, because of the whole "rotten" system of how that works, its basically politics, nothing spiritual about it.Debating Catholicism
-
NateVONgreat
- Cookies & Creme
- Posts: 239
- Joined: August 2013
- Location: Gulf Of Oman, either that or Karkand
I agree with helios, that basically sums up what I think of Catholicism, more or less.
And I disagree with jehoshaphat (funny way to write "yehoshafat" ) , I don't think we should follow the pope, because of the whole "rotten" system of how that works, its basically politics, nothing spiritual about it.
And I disagree with jehoshaphat (funny way to write "yehoshafat"
) , I don't think we should follow the pope, because of the whole "rotten" system of how that works, its basically politics, nothing spiritual about it.Sandwiches are wonderful
Sandwiches are fine!
I like sandwiches, I eat them all the time!
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
Nate, again I disagree with the pope too but I don't understand why you and Helios are insisting that Roman Catholics treat him like God. That's just not true, let's have an actual discussion where both sides are represented accurately.
Now maybe you can expand on this idea that the system is purely politics, just stating it as you did without any examples adds nothing to the discussion. Also do you think the current pope is political? I actually find him very spiritual and a good leader, I don't agree that he has universal authority and the ability to speak ex-cathedra but I still like him as a person and spiritual leader.
Now maybe you can expand on this idea that the system is purely politics, just stating it as you did without any examples adds nothing to the discussion. Also do you think the current pope is political? I actually find him very spiritual and a good leader, I don't agree that he has universal authority and the ability to speak ex-cathedra but I still like him as a person and spiritual leader.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
-
Pound Foolish
- Coffee Biscotti
- Posts: 3349
- Joined: June 2012
- Location: Kidsboro
- Contact:
Already went over the Mary thing with Blondie, but I'll cut and paste it rather than make you go through the inhuman labor of finding it.
"The angel Gabriele said, "Hail, full of grace, the lord is with you!" (Luke 1:28.) The phrase full of grace is a translation of the Greek word, kecharitomene. Which means it refers to a specific characteristic of Mary.
The traditional translation "full of grace" is sounder than the newer one in some recent editions of the Bible, that give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was that indeed, to be sure, but the Greek implies more than that, and it never even mentions the word for "daughter."
The grace given to Mary is of a PERMANENT and unique kind.
Kecharitomene is passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill our endow wit grace." Since this term is in perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but is enjoying its affects in the present.
Which means Mary wasn't in a state of grace because of the angel.
She was born sinless. Pure.
And forever more shall be."
As to the Pope, suffice for the moment to say if we think the Pope is in any way equal to God, including in how we obey him, it seems we would pay him more. As it is, the Pope is paid absolutely nothing.
It's lovely to be conversing with someone who has no problem making herself heard.
I'll leave it at that until you elaborate a bit on how you think we are obey the Pope in a Godlike way.
"The angel Gabriele said, "Hail, full of grace, the lord is with you!" (Luke 1:28.) The phrase full of grace is a translation of the Greek word, kecharitomene. Which means it refers to a specific characteristic of Mary.
The traditional translation "full of grace" is sounder than the newer one in some recent editions of the Bible, that give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was that indeed, to be sure, but the Greek implies more than that, and it never even mentions the word for "daughter."
The grace given to Mary is of a PERMANENT and unique kind.
Kecharitomene is passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill our endow wit grace." Since this term is in perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but is enjoying its affects in the present.
Which means Mary wasn't in a state of grace because of the angel.
She was born sinless. Pure.
And forever more shall be."
As to the Pope, suffice for the moment to say if we think the Pope is in any way equal to God, including in how we obey him, it seems we would pay him more. As it is, the Pope is paid absolutely nothing.
It's lovely to be conversing with someone who has no problem making herself heard.
I'll leave it at that until you elaborate a bit on how you think we are obey the Pope in a Godlike way.
- "Pound Foolish, I just adoreee arguing with you! Here, have an eyeball."
~Suzy Lou Foolish
As the founder of the E.R.K., may I say: Emily RULES!
Battle-axes rising...
Anyway, I wouldn't necessarily condemn all Catholics as being in a system that is wholly corrupted. Sure, there's corruption and politics going on, but it happens in all religions. It's part of being RELIGIOUS.
Which is not quite the same as being Christian.
11th Doctor, you say you like the current Pope as a leader and a person. Is this not the same Pope who condones abortion and homosexuality? (if this is too mature content on here, please tell me and I'll remove it)
As for PF, would you pay God for being God? Probably not, so why pay the Pope? But that's not really important. I still don't believe Mary was sinless, because after all, doesn't it say in the Bible that "there is none righteous, no, not one"? Wouldn't Mary being sinless rather disprove that verse? Because then it would be "there is none righteous, no, not one...except for the Virgin Mary". It's...pardon the adjective...ludicrous!
As for obeying the Pope as if he's God...you do everything he says, no? You do obey him no matter what the Bible says, no? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will), but it rather seems that the Catholic hierarchy is like this:
Pope first.
God after.
Anyway, I wouldn't necessarily condemn all Catholics as being in a system that is wholly corrupted. Sure, there's corruption and politics going on, but it happens in all religions. It's part of being RELIGIOUS.
Which is not quite the same as being Christian.
11th Doctor, you say you like the current Pope as a leader and a person. Is this not the same Pope who condones abortion and homosexuality? (if this is too mature content on here, please tell me and I'll remove it)
As for PF, would you pay God for being God? Probably not, so why pay the Pope? But that's not really important. I still don't believe Mary was sinless, because after all, doesn't it say in the Bible that "there is none righteous, no, not one"? Wouldn't Mary being sinless rather disprove that verse? Because then it would be "there is none righteous, no, not one...except for the Virgin Mary". It's...pardon the adjective...ludicrous!
As for obeying the Pope as if he's God...you do everything he says, no? You do obey him no matter what the Bible says, no? Correct me if I'm wrong (and I know you will), but it rather seems that the Catholic hierarchy is like this:
Pope first.
God after.
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
Whoa, when has this pope condoned abortion and homosexuality?
So you think being religious and being Christian are two different things?
So you think being religious and being Christian are two different things?
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
I heard the thing about the Pope on a news website somewhere. It was a little while after he was...what's it called...made Pope? There's a term for it, but I can't remember it.
All men are religious, so being religious doesn't necessarily mean you're a Christian.
All men are religious, so being religious doesn't necessarily mean you're a Christian.
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
Maybe don't believe everything on the internet 
I have never heard anything from this pope that condones abortion or homosexuality.
Could you maybe define by what you meant all men are religious?
I have never heard anything from this pope that condones abortion or homosexuality. Could you maybe define by what you meant all men are religious?
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
-
jehoshaphat
- Cookies & Creme
- Posts: 228
- Joined: May 2012
The pope does not condone homosexuality or abortion. The media has skewed what the pope said to mean differently then what he said. He said we should love them when he was talking about homosexuals, not condone their actions but still love them as a child of God. He was talking about abortion and said that we shouldn't go crazy about it he wants us to talk about it in less black and white terms because even some religious people get touchy when people tell them how to live their lives.
Many people think that homosexuality is fine and that people who don't agree are "haters." We aren't "haters," we just don't agree. What the pope is trying to say, is that we may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't love them!
Wowzer, 11th...if I shouldn't believe everything I read on the internet, then why should I believe anything the Catholics say? Since after all, that's where I talk to them.
Just sayin', not trying to be rude or anything.
As for the media skewing stuff up, that's what they do best. But I still believe that this current Pope is...shall we say...less conservative than the one before him.
Which reminds me: Do Catholics believe in the Antichrist and the end of the world as foretold in Revelation (and sundry other places)?
Just sayin', not trying to be rude or anything.
As for the media skewing stuff up, that's what they do best. But I still believe that this current Pope is...shall we say...less conservative than the one before him.
Which reminds me: Do Catholics believe in the Antichrist and the end of the world as foretold in Revelation (and sundry other places)?
-
Pound Foolish
- Coffee Biscotti
- Posts: 3349
- Joined: June 2012
- Location: Kidsboro
- Contact:
I got into a very long and fascinating conversation with Blondie... who has since disappeared from the conversation. *glares at Blondie* But now then.
You made the common debating error, Helios, of rather than refuting my argument, simply throwing one of your own at me. What do you expect me to do? Try to find a logical hole in it, even though you did not do as much for me? Or merely throw one of my own arguments at you so you can retaliate with on of your arguments? In the latter case, the "debate" would really be just a contest to see who has more arguments for their case, no matter how erroneous they may be. In the former, we have an uneven and frustrating discussion because one person is trying to defeat the others claims while the other merely ignores her opponent's claims.
And, even supposing such a conversation was possible, look at the problem we would have at the end. Since you never refuted my interpretation of that verse, we would have one verse that says one side of the argument, and another that, even if I could not refute it, was contradictory to the claim we did not earlier refute. So where does that leave us? To assume that two Bible verses are flagrantly contradictory? To say that two logically incompatible premises are both right?
To be quite honest, how many people make the mistake you just made is quite astonishing. *ahem. I have particularly run into it on this board*
So, in order for this debate to be functional, we must refute one another's claims. In order. Agreed?
Now then. What is the logical error in my claim about Mary?
But about the Pope, the premise good old Jehoshaphat put forth so excellently is that if you read reports of what the Pope said second-hand you are liable to be misinformed and so the only way to be sure of what you say is to read what he actually said. So have you his original words in context, or not?
You made the common debating error, Helios, of rather than refuting my argument, simply throwing one of your own at me. What do you expect me to do? Try to find a logical hole in it, even though you did not do as much for me? Or merely throw one of my own arguments at you so you can retaliate with on of your arguments? In the latter case, the "debate" would really be just a contest to see who has more arguments for their case, no matter how erroneous they may be. In the former, we have an uneven and frustrating discussion because one person is trying to defeat the others claims while the other merely ignores her opponent's claims.
And, even supposing such a conversation was possible, look at the problem we would have at the end. Since you never refuted my interpretation of that verse, we would have one verse that says one side of the argument, and another that, even if I could not refute it, was contradictory to the claim we did not earlier refute. So where does that leave us? To assume that two Bible verses are flagrantly contradictory? To say that two logically incompatible premises are both right?
To be quite honest, how many people make the mistake you just made is quite astonishing. *ahem. I have particularly run into it on this board*
So, in order for this debate to be functional, we must refute one another's claims. In order. Agreed?
Now then. What is the logical error in my claim about Mary?
But about the Pope, the premise good old Jehoshaphat put forth so excellently is that if you read reports of what the Pope said second-hand you are liable to be misinformed and so the only way to be sure of what you say is to read what he actually said. So have you his original words in context, or not?
Last edited by Pound Foolish on Sat Dec 14, 2013 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- "Pound Foolish, I just adoreee arguing with you! Here, have an eyeball."
~Suzy Lou Foolish
As the founder of the E.R.K., may I say: Emily RULES!
Heh, I was discussing it with my wise Sunday School teacher, who has since, lost his job, gotten a new job, in which he works every day, and doesn't have much time for even his family...Pound Foolish wrote:I got into a very long and fascinating conversation with Blondie... who has since disappeared from the conversation. *glares at Blondie*
So, yeah, I will join at a later time, but for now, I must remain out.
~Queen Belle of Altanovia, Knight of Montreal & Order of Aristotle, Benevolent Dictator, Catspaw of the SS, & Dan's couch troll~
~"I’ve always found you to be a good person to disagree with." - Eleventh Doctor~
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
I said don't believe everything, not don't believe anything. And yes the media skews things so why not, as PF says, read what the Pope actually said?
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
PF: Actually, since I was merely asked to state my opinions and not debate (by two people, I might add), I didn't bother refuting your claims.
And honestly?
They sounded so silly (no offense), I didn't really see the point. Plus, it's kinda worthless. Neither of us are going to convince the other person of anything. So what's the point, except to waste time I'd prefer to spend on more worthwhile pursuits? Yes, this sounds like I'm backing down from the fight.
Indeed. I learned a long time ago that it's better to back away than to let things escalate. I can play this dirty game just as well as anyone, but I don't want to. I told 11th that I hate conflict. And I do.
Besides, all you'll do is twist my own words around and make it so I don't even know what I said in the first place. It's part of the dirty game. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be dirty.
As for reading what the Pope actually says...
You have to be joking. That would be on a Catholic site, no? With Catholic writers, no?
My Protestant soul recoils in horror. Just kidding.
But honestly...honestly I don't need to. I know what I believe. I know what you believe.
My debate is over.
And honestly?
They sounded so silly (no offense), I didn't really see the point. Plus, it's kinda worthless. Neither of us are going to convince the other person of anything. So what's the point, except to waste time I'd prefer to spend on more worthwhile pursuits? Yes, this sounds like I'm backing down from the fight.
Indeed. I learned a long time ago that it's better to back away than to let things escalate. I can play this dirty game just as well as anyone, but I don't want to. I told 11th that I hate conflict. And I do.
Besides, all you'll do is twist my own words around and make it so I don't even know what I said in the first place. It's part of the dirty game. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be dirty.
As for reading what the Pope actually says...
You have to be joking. That would be on a Catholic site, no? With Catholic writers, no?
My Protestant soul recoils in horror.
Just kidding.But honestly...honestly I don't need to. I know what I believe. I know what you believe.
My debate is over.
-
Eleventh Doctor
- Chocolate Bacon Drizzle
- Posts: 4769
- Joined: February 2013
Wait, can you please actually read what the pope said? A big pet peeve of mine is intellectual honesty and you are being intellectually dishonest to yourself right now by refusing to actually find out what the pope believes. Because what you've claimed is not in fact true, find out what is true, please.
King of The Lands of Rhetoric, Lord Ruler of the Debate Vampires, and Duke of Quebec
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
"It's particularly ignorant to assume malicious or ignorant intentions behind an opinion with which one disagrees." ~Connie
-
Pound Foolish
- Coffee Biscotti
- Posts: 3349
- Joined: June 2012
- Location: Kidsboro
- Contact:
Very well put, Good Doctor, I appreciate you saying all that despite your disbelief in papal authority.
So knowing what someone believes allows you to say with certainty that it is incorrect, and what you believe is not? You consider what you believe to be true, do you not? Truth is good, isn't it?Then why do you deny this great good to me? If you are wrong, then I am giving you a great good, and my understanding and confidence in my belief will be deepened while you will have discovered the truth. So why do you hate controversy?
Do you also hate truth?
As Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."
On side note, I have convinced people here of certain truths, and my opinion has been altered by others here. Also, if my statement is "silly" you will have no trouble refuting it, now will you? Now then...Helios wrote: But honestly...honestly I don't need to. I know what I believe. I know what you believe.
So knowing what someone believes allows you to say with certainty that it is incorrect, and what you believe is not? You consider what you believe to be true, do you not? Truth is good, isn't it?Then why do you deny this great good to me? If you are wrong, then I am giving you a great good, and my understanding and confidence in my belief will be deepened while you will have discovered the truth. So why do you hate controversy?
Do you also hate truth?
As Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living."
- "Pound Foolish, I just adoreee arguing with you! Here, have an eyeball."
~Suzy Lou Foolish
As the founder of the E.R.K., may I say: Emily RULES!
-
GratiaDei
- Cookies & Creme
- Posts: 451
- Joined: February 2013
- Location: Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
Helios, despite the fact that you may not be convinced by anyone's statements, you can at least learn more about another person's beliefs. I used to be pretty ignorant about Catholicism (something about Mary, and praying to dead people?), but listening to other debates, and occasionally chiming in, has taught me a lot, and I respect PF and 11th more because of it.
-
Pound Foolish
- Coffee Biscotti
- Posts: 3349
- Joined: June 2012
- Location: Kidsboro
- Contact:
I'm quite amused, what exactly do you mean, please? There seems to be more than one meaning I could take from that statement.
- "Pound Foolish, I just adoreee arguing with you! Here, have an eyeball."
~Suzy Lou Foolish
As the founder of the E.R.K., may I say: Emily RULES!
Your quote. You said the unexamined life is not worth living.
So I'm examining mine. What other meaning did you think I meant?
So I'm examining mine. What other meaning did you think I meant?