My point was... why is it ok to spare an animal... but not a baby?[/b]

I choose not to eat meat. I choose not to have an abortion. In both cases, I don't judge others for their choices. It's up to them. In both cases, I can be understanding to why they make their choices.

[mom2princesses]

I choose not to eat meat. I choose not to have an abortion. In both cases, I don't judge others for their choices. It's up to them. In both cases, I can be understanding to why they make their choices.
[/b]

Sorry... I got busy and didn't finish the post before submitting it... My bad!!!

You did not answer the question.

Why is it some vegatarians say it is not right to kill an animal for food or for clothing. But, it is cruel and in-humane. But, it is ok to abort a baby for various reasons such as, too many kids, not the right time of their lives, money is tight right now, problems with the baby or they just don't want it?

I just don't understand the logic. One of my good friends is a vegatarian and has those beliefs about aminals and she also 100% backs a woman's right to abortions... but she could not answer my question! I was hoping you could...

Why is you say it is not right to kill an animal for food or for clothing.[/b]

Where did I say that?

[mom2princesses]

Sorry... I got busy and didn't finish the post before submitting it... My bad!!!

Why is it some vegatarians say it is not right to kill an animal for food or for clothing. But, it is cruel and in-humane. But, it is ok to abort a baby for various reasons such as, too many kids, not the right time of their lives, money is tight right now, problems with the baby or they just don't want it?

I just don't understand the logic. One of my good friends is a vegatarian and has those beliefs about aminals and she also 100% backs a woman's right to abortions... but she could not answer my question! I was hoping you could...

My Logic? I can only control myself. So my level of faith, guilt and such is something I have to make peace with myself on. Why that statement matters is because I could live in guilt forever or learn to have peace with having an abortion &/or eating meat. Finding peace with either decision is up to an individual. There is a formula/cycle we've figure out but people can't do it in the same amount of time as the next. That's why some women can have an abortion, know it was for the best and be peace right away. On the other hand there are some women who will be suicidual and end up killing themselves over their own guilt. We hope we can interceed before that but sometimes we don't get to all of them, right?

Here's the "meat" you want from me.

If I had or was going to have an abortion, theorectically, I would be completely consumed with guilt. I think that is because I feel some guilt now for eating meat in the past so I'm assuming I'd feel the same way about having an abortion... Like anything, we re-exam it at later stages in life I think I would feel guilty about an abortion now because I want to have kids so bad. Having said that, if I did get pregnant at 16, thrown out of the house with no support (like my dad threatened to) then I think I would have made peace with it sooner than later because there is only so much one person can do. I see it no different than being repented, or being saved... sooner or later we all recognized we've done something in our past we wished we could have done differently or could take back. There is nothing we can do that can change the past. That stage of acceptance is where we finally start to move forward. Some people do it through religion, some through counselling, some through both.

In regards to your friend, there are some extremeists on each side of anything.. most people just want to be educated when asked, not told what to think. If the education is valid, then a sound thinking person can make up their own mind about it, right? A vegetarian who tells people where and what a meat-eater should do is going to be met with hosility. A pro-lifer who tells a person where and what they should do is also going to be met with hosility. A non-Christian who tells a Christian they shouldn't believe in Christ is going to be met with hostility. I don't want to judge Sally who believes her own things because there is a reason. In her soul/logic there is something critical which allows her to justify to herself the decision she made. That's why I understand why a person who eats meat, does it.. I understand why a woman who had an abortion did what she did. (I understand why a addict does it, a murderer, a priest, a police officer, a military personal, etc.) There is a medium where to each his own.. live and let live your own path...

((what a freaking novel.. sorry! I just hope that helps understand where I'm coming from.)

[MommySN]

I just thought I would throw this in here...

The bible states that all sins are equal. If abortion is believed to be a sin then those of you who lie (even the small white lies) are doing just as bad as those who have an abortion. IMO, you can't judge those who commit sins equal to those you commit. Same goes to those who have oral sex (which is a sin according to the bible). It's just something I've understood reading the bible.[/b]

No it does not.

This is from EWTN:

These two categories of sin are explicitly to be found in Sacred Scripture. In the Old Covenant there were sins that merited the death penalty and sins that could be expiated by an offering. This Law was a teacher that prepared the way for the faith (Gal. 3:24). In the New Covenant these material categories are replaced by spiritual ones, natural death by eternal death. There are thus daily faults for which we must daily ask forgiveness (Mt. 6:12), for even the "just man falls seven times a day" (Prov. 24:16), and mortal faults that separate the sinner from God (1 Cor. 6:9-10) for all eternity.

And again: <a href="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ278.HTM" target="_blank">1 John 5:17 explicitly differentiates a mortal sin from a less serious one (RSV):

All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

{KJV: "not unto death"}</a>

There is another great explanation at http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea4.asp

Speaking just for myself, it's not that I am "ok with abortion" it's that I am not ok with the government telling someone if it is ok or not. I know it's not ok. I would still probably have to fall under pro-choice b/c there is no such thing as "pro-government get your hand out of her vagina"[/b]

The governement frequently tells us what is right and what is wrong ... murder, rape, blackmail, abuse, etc. Do you honestly think that anyone has 100% freedom to do what they want, even with their own bodies? If so, try buying some illegal drugs on the street or jumping from a bridge.

MommySN, that's the point, I choose to give up meat... it wasn't forced by the government. (If you want to talk about meat, please feel free to PM me or head over the vegetarian mommies subforum, because I would love to get to know you in a more positive sense.)[/b]

OK ... but you might find that my views on animals rights is just as extreme in some areas. (LOL ... for instance, I ABHOR fur ....)

[Banned-coughburp]

No it does not.

This is from EWTN:

These two categories of sin are explicitly to be found in Sacred Scripture. In the Old Covenant there were sins that merited the death penalty and sins that could be expiated by an offering. This Law was a teacher that prepared the way for the faith (Gal. 3:24). In the New Covenant these material categories are replaced by spiritual ones, natural death by eternal death. There are thus daily faults for which we must daily ask forgiveness (Mt. 6:12), for even the "just man falls seven times a day" (Prov. 24:16), and mortal faults that separate the sinner from God (1 Cor. 6:9-10) for all eternity.

And again: <a href="http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ278.HTM" target="_blank">1 John 5:17 explicitly differentiates a mortal sin from a less serious one (RSV):

All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

{KJV: "not unto death"}</a>

There is another great explanation at http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9505fea4.asp
[/b]

“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” James 2:10
It doesn't matter if one person commits a very small sin (even unintentionally) or several "huge" ones, they both are guilty of the same thing, breaking God's law. The lord declares he will not leave the guilty unpunishable. Nahum 1:3

If ALL sins are forgiven at the cross of Christ, then why are some worse than others? If the punishment is Hell then they ALL have the same punishment. So what are you telling me? I can get into heaven by commiting small sins but if I commit a large one I'll go to hell?? I don't think that is in the bible.

I think the concepts you are trying to point out are mainly Roman Catholicism. You are saying that commiting a "mortal sin" removes eternal life from the offender. Only through repentance can that life be restored. That is mainly a Catholic's point of view. The concept of mortal sin teaches that a person can lose their salvation through personal sin, the Bible teaches that God’s love and favor will never be removed from his children.

[MommySN]

“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” James 2:10
It doesn't matter if one person commits a very small sin (even unintentionally) or several "huge" ones, they both are guilty of the same thing, breaking God's law. The lord declares he will not leave the guilty unpunishable. Nahum 1:3

If ALL sins are forgiven at the cross of Christ, then why are some worse than others? If the punishment is Hell then they ALL have the same punishment. So what are you telling me? I can get into heaven by commiting small sins but if I commit a large one I'll go to hell?? I don't think that is in the bible.

I think the concepts you are trying to point out are mainly Roman Catholicism. You are saying that commiting a "mortal sin" removes eternal life from the offender. Only through repentance can that life be restored. That is mainly a Catholic's point of view. The concept of mortal sin teaches that a person can lose their salvation through personal sin, the Bible teaches that God’s love and favor will never be removed from his children.[/b]

The Catholic Church was the church founded by Christ and who gave you that Bible from which you are taking small excerpts and placing your own interpretation.

Let me run out to the car and get my Bible ... I'll play along.

[Banned-coughburp]

No wonder so many people broke away from the Catholic church. If you can take small excerpts than I can too. I don't remember reading in the bible that the Catholic church is the only one that is right.

[MommySN]

No wonder so many people broke away from the Catholic church. If you can take small excerpts than I can too. I don't remember reading in the bible that the Catholic church is the only one that is right.[/b]

I don't take small excerpts. The Catholic Church wrote the Bible, so I think it knows a little more about it and its intentions than you.

I don't take small excerpts. The Catholic Church wrote the Bible, so I think it knows a little more about it and its intentions than you.
[/b]

LOL....Really? I am Baptist & in no way shape or form do I believe that for a second....I have many friends from college that are Catholics & I have never once heard them say such a thing!


Catholics contend that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible. This is another of their attempts to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible.

Please notice the following from Catholic sources:
"If she had not scrutinized carefully the writings of her children, rejecting some and approving others as worthy of inclusion in the canon of the New Testament, there would be no New Testament today.
"If she had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be inspired word of God, we would not know it.
"The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church." (The Faith of Millions, p. 145)
"It is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that Christians know that the scripture is the word of God, and what books certainly belong to the Bible." (The Question Box, p. 46)
"It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament...If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 4).
The Catholic writers quoted above state that one can accept the Bible as being inspired and as having authority only on the basis of the Catholic Church. In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever. "All scripture is inspired of God..." (2 Tim. 3:16). "...Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:21). "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Matt. 24:35). "The grass withered, and the flower has fallen--but the word of the Lord endures forever." (1 Pet. 1:24-25). The Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.

It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when both it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation from God. However, it is an attempt to weaken the Bible as the sole authority and to replace it with their man-made church. If it is true that we can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church, doesn't that make the Catholic Church superior to the Bible? This is exactly what Catholic officials want men to believe. Their only problem is that their doctrine comes from their own human reasoning rather than from God. Their logic is a classic example of their "circle reasoning." They try to prove the Bible by the church (can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church) and prove the church by the Bible ("has ever grounded her doctrines upon it"). Such is absurd reasoning which proves nothing. Either the New Testament is the sole authority or it is not. If it is the New Testament, it cannot be the church, and if it is the church, it cannot be the New Testament.

Notice, again, the following from Catholic sources:
"Because it never was a Bible, till the infallible Church pronounced it to be so. The separate treatises, each of them inspired, were lying, as it were dispersedly; easy to confound with others, that were uninspired. The Church gathered them up, selected them, pronounced judgment on them; rejecting some, which she defined and declared not to be canonical, because not inspired; adopting others as being inspired, and therefore canonical." (What Is the Bible? p. 6).
"And since the books of the Bible constituting both the Old and the New Testament were determined solely by the authority of the Catholic Church, without the Church there would have been no Bible, and hence no Protestantism." (The Faith of Millions, p. 10).
In addition to the above, Catholics often boast that the Bible was written by Catholics, e.g., "All the books of the New Testament were written by Catholics." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 14). When we consider the word "catholic" as meaning "universal," we readily admit that the writers were "catholic" in that sense; they were members of the church universal--the church of Christ which is described in the New Testament Scriptures (Col. 1:18; Rom. 16:16). However, we firmly deny that the writers of the New Testament were members of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today. The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament. The New Testament books were written by members of the Lord's church, but they are not its author. God Himself is the author of the New Testament.

The Catholic officials above claim that without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible; they argue that mankind can accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the Catholic Church which gathered the books and determined which were inspired. Surely the Catholic Church cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament came through the Jews (God's chosen people of old) who had the holy oracles entrusted to them. Paul said, "What advantage then remains to the Jew, or what is the use of circumcision? Much in every respect. First, indeed, because the oracles of God were entrusted to them." (Rom. 3:1-2; see also Rom. 9:4-5; Acts 7:38).

The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth. The Septuagint Version was translated by seventy scholars at Alexandria, Egypt around the year 227 B.C., and this was the version Christ and His apostles used. Christ did not tell the people, as Catholics do today, that they could accept the Scriptures only on the basis of the authority of those who gathered them and declared them to be inspired. He urged the people of His day to follow the Old Testament Scriptures as the infallible guide, not because man or any group of men has sanctioned them as such, but because they came from God. Furthermore, He understood that God-fearing men and women would be able to discern by evidence (external and internal) which books were of God and which were not; thus, He never raised questions and doubts concerning the gathering of the inspired books.

If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?

The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,

1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
Please notice further quotes from Catholic sources:
"During those early times parts of the Bible were scattered among the various churches, no one of which had the complete Bible as we have it now. Then in A.D. 390, at the Council of Hippo, the Catholic Church gathered together the various books which claimed to be scripture, passed on the merits and claims of each and this council decided which were inspired and which were not. The Catholic Church put all the inspired books and epistles together in one volume and THAT is the Bible as we have it today. The Catholic Church therefore gave to the people and the World, the Bible as we have it today." (From a magazine advertisement published by the Knights of Columbus bearing the title, "Who Gave the Bible to the People?"
"It was not until the Council of Hippo in 390 that the Church gathered these gospels and epistles, scattered about in different churches, and placed them within the covers of a single book, giving the Bible to the world." (The Faith of Millions, p. 152).
"Indeed, when you accept the Bible as the Word of God, you are obliged to receive it on the authority of the Catholic Church, who was the sole Guardian of the Scriptures for fifteen hundred years." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 68).
"When were all these writings put together? The Catholic Church put all of them in one book between the years 350 and 405." (A Catechism for Adults, p. 10).
Thus, Catholics argue that since the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, all are indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament and can accept it only on the authority of the Catholic Church. There are several things wrong with this. First, it cannot be proven that the church which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was the same church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. For example, the church of 390 had no crucifixes and images because, "The first mention of Crucifixes are in the sixth century" and "The whole tradition of veneration holy images gradually and naturally developed" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VII, p. 667). The church of 390 took communion under both kinds because that was the prevailing practice until it was formally abolished in 1416 A.D. (See Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Vol. I, p. 111). The church of 390 was a church altogether different from the Roman Catholic Church today.

Furthermore, in the proceedings of the Council of Hippo, the bishops did not mention nor give the slightest hint that they were for the first time "officially" cataloging the books of he Bible for the world. It was not until the fourth session of the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the bishops and high ranking officials of the Catholic Church "officially" cataloged the books they thought should be included in the Bible and bound them upon the consciences of all Catholics. (See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, pp. 17-18).

Secondly, God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?

Thirdly, it cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. In the following we list some of the catalogues of the books of the Bible which are given by early Christian writers.

326. Athanasius, bishop at Alexandria, mentions all of the New Testament books.
315-386. Cyril, bishop at Jerusalem, gives a list of all New Testament books except Revelation.
270. Eusebius, bishop at Caesarea, called the Father of ecclesiastical history, gives an account of the persecution of Emperor Diocletian whose edict required that all churches be destroyed and the Scriptures burned. He lists all the books of the New Testament. He was commissioned by Constantine to have transcribed fifty copies of the Bible for use of the churches of Constantinople.
185-254. Origen, born at Alexandria, names all the books of both the Old and New Testaments.
165-220. Clement, of Alexandria, names all the books of the New Testament except Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John. In addition we are told by Eusebius, who had the works of Clement, that he gave explanations and quotations from all the canonical books.
160-240. Turtullian, contemporary of Origen and Clement, mentions all the New Testament books except 2 Peter, James and 2 John.
135-200. Irenaeus, quoted from all New Testament books except Philemon, Jude, James and 3 John.
100-147. Justin Martyr, mentions the Gospels as being four in number and quotes from them and some of the epistles of Paul and Revelation.
Besides the above, the early church fathers have handed down in their writings quotations from all the New Testament books so much so that it is said that the entire New Testament can be reproduced from their writings alone.
Thus, the New Testament books were in existence in their present form at the close of the apostolic age. As a matter of fact, the apostles themselves put their writings into circulation. "And when this letter has been read among you, see that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also; and that you yourselves read the letter from Laodicea." (Col. 4:16). "I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read to all the holy brethren." (1 Thess. 5:27). The holy Scriptures were written for all (1 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:1) and all will be judged by them in the last day (Rev. 20:12; John 12:48). Jesus said that His Word will abide forever (Matt. 24:35; 1 Pet. 1:23-25).

Fourthly, the Catholic claim of giving the Bible to the world cannot be true because they have not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time. Some of the most valuable Greek Bibles and Versions have been handed down to us from non-Roman Catholic sources. A notable example of this is the Codex Sinaiticus which was found in the monastery of St. Catherine (of the Greek Orthodox Church) at Mount Sinai in 1844 and is now in the British Museum. It contains all of the books of the New Testament and all but small portions of the Old Testament. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was made early in the fourth century, not later than 350 A.D. This manuscript found by a German scholar named, Tishendorf, who was a Protestant, and this manuscript which is the most complete of all has never been in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church.

Another valuable manuscript that has never been possessed by the Roman Catholic Church is the Codex Alexandrianus. It, too, is now on exhibit in the manuscript room of the British Museum in London. It was a gift from the Patriarch of Constantinople (of the Greek Orthodox Church) to Charles I in 1628. It had been in possession of the Patriarchs for centuries and originally came from Alexandria, Egypt from which it gets its name. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was also made in the fourth century and, along with the Codex Sinaiticus, is thought to be one of the fifty Greek Bibles commissioned to be copied by Constantine.

In the light of the foregoing, the boastful claim of the Roman Catholic Church that it has been the sole guardian and preserver of the sacred Scriptures down to the present, is nothing but pure falsehood. The Bible is not a Catholic book. Catholics did not write it, nor does their doctrines and church meet the description of the doctrine and church of which it speaks. The New Testament was completed before the end of the first century, A.D. The things in it do not correspond to the Catholic Church which hundreds of years after the death of the apostles slowly evolved into what it now is. The Catholic Church is not the original and true church, but a "church" born of many departures and corruptions from the New Testament church. Even if the Catholic Church could prove that it alone is the sole deliverer of the Scriptures to man today, it still remains that the Catholic Church is not following the Bible and is contrary to the Bible. Furthermore, even if the Catholic Church could show conclusively that it alone is responsible for gathering the books, it does not prove that the Catholic Church is infallible, nor does it prove that it is the author of the Bible. God has at times used evil agencies to accomplish His purpose (Jer. 27:6-8; 43:10; Hab. 1:5-11; John 11:49-52).

We have studied, therefore, that the Catholic Church argues that since one of its councils in 390 selected the sacred books, one can accept them only on the basis of its authority. We have answered by showing: (1) The Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so but because God made it so. (2) Jesus did not teach the people in His day that they could accept the Old Testament Scriptures only on the basis of those who placed the books into one volume. (3) It is a mere assumption that the Council of Hippo in 390 was a Council of the church which is now the Roman Catholic Church. (4) God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His books only on the basis of councils. (5) The Catholic Church is not solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. (6) The Catholic Church has not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time. (7) Even if it could be proven that the Catholic Church gathered the books into one volume, it still remains that it is not following the Bible today.

[Banned-coughburp]

Thank you!!!! MommySN, you DO NOT know more about the bible because you are Catholic!!

[MommieinNC]

No one religion knows more than another just because they are that religion...

Heck... I'm devils advocate today... sooo... with that in mind...

The Satanic Bible preaches in rituals... This is everything from "sacrifices" to rituals of a "sexual" nature...

HOWEVER... because it says so in their Bible... they are more right than you with your Christian/Catholic Bible?

Ummmm don't think so... Each religion is different. Each religion is taught differently... Being able to be different is what makes us so unique as people... Not everyone wants to put on blinders to the rest of the world...

[tally]

The Catholic Church was the church founded by Christ and who gave you that Bible from which you are taking small excerpts and placing your own interpretation.

Let me run out to the car and get my Bible ... I'll play along.
[/b]

I have just figured out why I ran from the Catholic church. Hypocrisy and arrogance. For some reason- I do not think this is what God had in mind. TSk, Tsk

[MommieinNC]

Cmon though... I quoted biblical scripture about what God says on judging others, and I got bashed for using the KJV... Tsk tsk... I didn't know everyone in the world had to use the exact same bible either...

[tally]

:

Cmon though... I quoted biblical scripture about what God says on judging others, and I got bashed for using the KJV... Tsk tsk... I didn't know everyone in the world had to use the exact same bible either...[/b]

[MommySN]

Nice cut and paste job, perhaps you'd like to cite your source? (Are you familiar with the term plagiarism?)

Let's jump into this one:

It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when both it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation from God.

It is from God. BTW, what do you mean by "so call" Protestantism? Are you denying that there is historical evidence as what churches were found when. As a Baptist you should already know when your faith began ... and it wasn't until the year 1609 when John Smyth began his own sect.

However, it is an attempt to weaken the Bible as the sole authority and to replace it with their man-made church. If it is true that we can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church, doesn't that make the Catholic Church superior to the Bible?

The church is the mother of the Bible, not the daughter. Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition are on equal footing. The Bible constantly reminds us to "hold fast" to the traditions that were taught to believers. (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:14-15 and 3:6 for starters.)

As for your "man made" church, yes, it is. Christ in human form began His church before His death and the apostles continued His work.

On what basis do you defend your Sola Scriptura beliefs?

Either the New Testament is the sole authority or it is not. If it is the New Testament, it cannot be the church, and if it is the church, it cannot be the New Testament.

Well, the Christians that were around before the New Testament must've really been screwed, huh? What does the Bible say is the pillar of faith? Here's a hint, it's NOT the Bible itself.

The Roman Catholic Church was not fully developed until several hundred years after the New Testament was written. It is not the same institution as disclosed in the New Testament. The New Testament books were written by members of the Lord's church, but they are not its author. God Himself is the author of the New Testament.

This is B.S. St. Ignatius of Antioch named the church the Holy Catholic Church (he died in like 106 A.D.) and it is the same church that sufferened persecution until Constantine signed the Edict of Milan in 313. There is a reason why the church is in Rome. It is where Jesus sent Peter, it is where Peter was crucified himself (upside down b/c he said that he was not worthy of the same dead that His Lord had faced), it is where Peter was buried, and it is where Constantine first gave the church land to build a physical church. Ironically enough, the land given to the church, where the Vatican now sits, it on the burial spot of St. Peter himself.

Surely the Catholic Church cannot claim that it gave us the Old Testament Scriptures.

I don't know any Catholic who would claim such! But the church DID set the canon of the Christian Bible, including the approved books written by the early church fathers.

If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does it nowhere mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the Bible is a Catholic book, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it?

Since there was no other Christian church, why would it have to name the church? It does in a round-about way, talking about how the church should always be one, universal, and holy. The Bible never mentions the Bible, so what's your point? As for the other things written by the unnamed author, there are numerous, numerous mentions of a hierarchy, of clerics living in solitude, how the prayers of the righteous are valuble (and how death does not cut us off from God), that the Saints in Heaven to hear our prayers (read Revelations), and even the Hail Mary is in the Bible! Read Luke, chapter one.

Communal life is described at the end of Acts chapter 2 among many other mentions, BTW.

If the Bible is a Catholic book, how can Catholics account for the passage, "A bishop then, must be blameless, married but once, reserved, prudent, of good conduct, hospitable, a teacher...He should rule well his own household, keeping his children under control and perfectly respectful. For if a man cannot rule his own household, how is he to take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5). The Catholic Church does not allow a bishop to marry, while the Bible says "he must be married." Furthermore, if the Bible is a Catholic book, why did they write the Bible as it is, and feel the necessity of putting footnotes at the bottom of the page in effort to keep their subject from believing what is in the text?

Where did you get this?

Catholic clergy do not marry because, while Christ did approve of marriage for the clergy, He prefers that they do not marry.

I'm going to borrow the following from Paul Whitcomb, since he states is so clearly: He [Christ] made this quite clear when He praised the Apostles for giving up "all" to follow Him, saying, "And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting." (Matt. 19:27-29).

The Apostle Paul explained why the unmarried state is preferable to the married state for the Christian clergy: "He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided." (1 Cor. 7:32-33).

In other words, matrimony is good – Christ made it one of the holy sacraments of His Church – but it is not conducive to that complete dedication which is incumbent upon those who submit themselves to another of Christ's holy sacraments – that of Holy Orders. Even so, the unmarried state of the Catholic priesthood is not an inflexible law – under certain conditions a priest may be dispensed from this law.

I've been chewing at the bit for the next part, BTW...

1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).

My Bible says, "All their works are performed to be seen. They wden their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels. They love places of honor at banquets, seat of honor on synagogues" for Matt. 23:5-6 What on earth does this have to do with clerical dress?

The dress of the church is similar to those described in Exodus 28.

2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).

Are you serious? Did you read the entire chapter or just grab that well-known Protestant verse to rebuke the Mother of God? Do you recall the Beattitudes? Jesus is not rebuking His mother, He is emphasizing that attentiveness to God's word is more important than biological relationships to Him. If you flip back to the beginning of the chapter, you'll find that the Archangel Garbriel says that Mary is "full of grace" and that she is the "favored one." Elizabeth greets Mary after this encounter with the Archangel and says, "Most blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of they womb!" Mary herself says that "all ages will call her blessed."

Anyway, Mary is not adored by Catholics or the church! Again, I am going to quote Whitcomb: Mary is not adored, first because God forbids it, and secondly because the Canon Law of the Catholic Church, which is based on Divine Law, forbids it. Canon Law 1255 of the 1918 Codex strictly forbids adoration of anyone other than the Holy Trinity. ... In the year 434 St. Vincent of Lerins defended Christian devotion to Mary this way: "Therefore, may God forbid that anyone should attempt to defraud Holy Mary of her privilege of divine grace and her special glory. For by a unique favor of our Lord and God she is confessed to be the most true and most blessed Mother of God."

3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).

You believe yourself to be a priest, although the Bible forbids women preachers? Honestly? This is nothing more than one man's personal interpretation of a small snipett. Priesthood in the context means church. It says that believers should band together, to build a strong Christian community.

4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).

Paul is speaking to those who've turned their back on the church and returned to their pagan roots. It begins with Chapter 3:1 and continues on through 4:7, at which time Paul poses his question about why they are turning back to their old ways.

5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).

Again, in my Bible, this is a salutation, and opening to the first letter to the Corinthians from Paul. 1:1-3 says: (your one verse in in italics)

"Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Sosthenes, our brother, to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy, with all those everywhere who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."

So, where is the point made in no. 5??

6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).

Again, Catholics do not adore anything or anybeing but God. This commandment forbids the making of images with the intent that the images ARE a god which to be worship. He does not, however, forbid the making of images with the proper intent. (See Exodus 26:1 & 31 ... heck a large portion of Exodus deals with God dictating what a temple should look like.)

7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).

Again, mine says: "You were buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the power of God, who raised Him from the dead." Again, I fail to see the author's point.

8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).

I WAS SO WAITING FOR THIS ONE! I absolutely LOVE it when a Prot mentions this because it shows that they take passages from the Bible out of context. Should you read the entire section, it says to call no man Rabbi or master as well. The terms had been used to equate certain scrines and pharisees with God in heaven above.

We the term "father" to be such a no-no, why is the term used repeatedly to denote a relatioship between child and sire in the New Testament? Furthermore, read 1 Corinthian 4:15 and explain why St. Paul calls himself "Father."

9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).

Mine says, "for no oone can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ." There is no conflict since Jesus is the cornerstone of the faith, but he laid a foundation with Peter to govern the church in his earthly absence. Why would Christ give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven?

Read John 1:42. Jesus changes Simon's name to Kephas, the ROCK. (The Greek translation is Petros, which is where we get the name Peter today.) Neither name was used as a personal name before this instance in time. Why the change a personal name to a stone? A ROCK?

Go to John 10:1-21. Jesus talks about the sheepfold, warning that anyone who attempts to enter the sheepfold in any other way but through the gate is a theif and arobber. He goes on to say, "I am the gate for the Sheep."

Now, flip to John 21:15-19. Jesus asks Peter (Kephas, Petros ... ROCK) three times if he loves him. After each "yes" comes a reply having to do with taking care of the sheepfold once Christ had left the earth.

Finally, Matthew 16:13-20. "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are KEPHAS, and upon this rock I will build my church. <<< literally translated to "YOU ARE ROCK AND UPON THIS ROCK..." >>> and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound; whatever you loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven."

It is no coincidence that Christ set up Peter's office like this. This is the beginning of the papacy. Christ defines the sheepfold and hands over the keys to the kingdom to the ROCK.

10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).

Christ is the one mediator. But anytime you ask someone to pray for you, you are asking them, in essence, to mediate to God on your behalf. Again, what it you point?

[quote]
11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
[/qoute]

You hit this one earlier. Marriage is not a bad thing, but Christ preferred celibacy, for the leaders of the church to be like He was.

12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).

Did you read this entire chapter? Better yet, did the author? Read Acts of the Apostles and explain why Peter is seen as the leader of the apostles?

13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).

Luke 16:19-31 is about the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Purgatory is alluded to throughout the Scriptures (including the OT books that Protestants omit from their Bibles) ... see 1 Cor. 3:15; Heb. 12:23 w/ Heb. 12:23; Matt. 5 :26, 12:36 ...

14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

The bible speaks about many of these things:

Infant baptism: Did not Christ say, "Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me," in Matt. 19:14? And according to the Bible, one cannot truly come to Christ except through Baptism. (Rom. 6:3-4). The Bible talks about whole households being baptized (Act 16:15, 1 Cor. 1:16, et al). In the ancient catacombs of Rome the inscriptions on the tombs of infants make mention of their having been baptized. One such inscription reads: "Here rests Archillia, a newly-baptized; she was one year and five months old; died February 23rd."

Music in worship: I'll have to look for this one, but since when has singing to God been bad? The Bible tells us to "make a joyful noise" so ...

Indulgences: A true indulgence is about giving money and alms to the poor. Done correctly, it counts as a good work. And we know that the Bible is full of parables about giving to the poor and that FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD.

Confession: Christ said, "Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you... Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." (John 20:21-23). "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matt. 18:18). Try reading the end of James, too.

The rosary: The rosary is a meditation device. I've never understood why Protestants hate it. It is not mentioned in the Bible, but it isn't condemned, either.

The Mass: The mass was first celebrated by Christ at the Last Supper. It was a tradition that the apostles followed ... see Matt. 26:26-28; Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; and read all of Acts.

In other words, Catholics confess their sins to priests because priests are God's duly authorized agents in the world, representing Him in all matters pertaining to the ways and means of attaining eternal salvation. When Catholics confess their sins to a priest they ARE, in reality, confessing their sins to God, for God hears their confessions and it is He who, in the final analysis, does the forgiving. If their confessions are not sincere, their

First, it cannot be proven that the church which held the Council of Hippo in 390 A.D. was the same church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. ...

This is laughable, since a ninth-grade history books tells you that Pope Siricius governed the councils and it was only on his OK that the canon was set.

The church of 390 took communion under both kinds because that was the prevailing practice until it was formally abolished in 1416 A.D. (See Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Vol. I, p. 111). The church of 390 was a church altogether different from the Roman Catholic Church today.

Churches still take communion under boths kinds! Go to a mass on any given day of the week. I'd like to see this author's history books.

Secondly, God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils.

Really? Then why did it happen that way and why was it the Catholic Church that kept the text alive until the advent of the printing press when making copies was a whole lot easier than hand-copying it. The press was invented in the 15th century, so for over 1,000 years, the only copies made of the official Bible canon came from monks, nuns, and other religious that dedicated their lives to the church.

In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo.

This is interesting, as I've never seen that anywhere else in that context. It is no secret that the books existed before the end of the 4th century, but they were not gathered in one central location, nor where they a set canon. Funny thing, though. All of the men listed were early church fathers, and were you to read their writings, you'd be amazed at how "Catholic" they really are!

Fourthly, the Catholic claim of giving the Bible to the world cannot be true because they have not been the sole possessor of the Bible at any time. Some of the most valuable Greek Bibles and Versions have been handed down to us from non-Roman Catholic sources. A notable example of this is the Codex Sinaiticus which was found in the monastery of St. Catherine (of the Greek Orthodox Church) at Mount Sinai in 1844 and is now in the British Museum. It contains all of the books of the New Testament and all but small portions of the Old Testament. Scholars are certain that this manuscript was made early in the fourth century, not later than 350 A.D. This manuscript found by a German scholar named, Tishendorf, who was a Protestant, and this manuscript which is the most complete of all has never been in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church.

Well, seeing as there were no other churches until 1054, this makes no sense. The text from the Greek Orthodox would have Catholic origins since there were not Orthodox churches until the spilt in the 11th century.

Even if the Catholic Church could prove that it alone is the sole deliverer of the Scriptures to man today, it still remains that the Catholic Church is not following the Bible and is contrary to the Bible. Furthermore, even if the Catholic Church could show conclusively that it alone is responsible for gathering the books, it does not prove that the Catholic Church is infallible, nor does it prove that it is the author of the Bible. God has at times used evil agencies to accomplish His purpose (Jer. 27:6-8; 43:10; Hab. 1:5-11; John 11:49-52).

So the Catholic Church is an evil agency? I'm sure that that is news to both Christ and St. Peter.... This is too funny to be serious. I must know the name of the author! PLEASE!

Not only did you not cite a source, but this mysterious author did not cite one single historical reference for his assumptions.

Nice cut and paste job, perhaps you'd like to cite your source? (Are you familiar with the term plagiarism?)

Well, gee, plagiarism??? I bet no one here on this board knows what that means but you since you're all educated & stuff! Of course I searched the web for it. You think I would waste that much of my time typing all that out? HUH? NO, I have a life outside of this place. As always the point & the truth is just too hard for your narrow minded brain to comprehend so again I will stop wasting my time.

Signed,

A very educated nurse(also)

[MommieinNC]

Errmm... Momma2Lexi?

She's NOT a nurse... she's in nursing school... So maybe she will be one one of these days, but as of now, she's not...

Errmm... Momma2Lexi?

She's NOT a nurse... she's in nursing school... So maybe she will be one one of these days, but as of now, she's not...[/b]

OHHH!!! You mean I am one step up! LOL