What Divides Catholics and Protestants?

Judged:

1

1

1

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
The Bible is imperfect. It is you who is content with it.

Judged:

1

Tango Bravo wrote:

<quoted text>
And when you interpret this passage from the Bible "the husband of one wife", you might interpret it to mean that he must be married, or that he can have no more than one wife, or that he can't be divorced and remarried. Perhaps there are other possibilities.
I, personally, consider another possibility. The CC, as Christ's representative on earth, found it desirable to use their God given authority to change the requirement already laid down by their predecessors. Is the "one wife" requirement a quote from Jesus, or from someone of less authority?

Judged:

1

Tango Bravo wrote:

<quoted text>
Go back an read the Bible again. Then read Catholic theology. You will find that neither of them claims that Mary is a god.
Then go back an read the Bible again. Jesus does not say, as you have claimed, that "the people who hear the word of God and put it into practice are MORE BLESSED than mary." Jesus is, in fact, referring to Mary and giving her far greater glory than the simple praise of the woman in the crowd, for it is clearly Jesus' reference to Mary as the person who heard the request of God and accepted His will.
The quote concerning John, the Baptist, is a bit more challenging on the face of it. Was Jesus really saying John was greater than Mary. Go back and read your Bible again. Does Jesus say that John is greater than all others, of does He say that no one, including Mary, is greater than John?
You seem to be particularly unfamiliar with the Bible. Even when you quote it directly it appears in your comments concerning the quote you just made that you haven't ever read the Bible.
Go read the Bible for the first time; not with the aim of memorizing justification for your acts, but with the aim of understanding God's will. It's a completely different Bible if you seek His will with the same affection that Mary used.

Judged:

1

1

1

Tango Bravo wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps. But I don't see the alternate translations as negating justification for the current form of the prayer.

Judged:

1

1

1

ITB wrote:

<quoted text>
"and there is no record of a forty day fast before Christ went to the cross."
Seriously? Did you rip these verses out of your KJV?
Matthew 4:1-11
King James Version (KJV)
4 Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.
2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
The 40 days of Lent have a symbolic importance, the Pope continued, noting the many times in Scripture when the same number figures in a period of preparation: the 40 days that Noah stayed on the Ark; the 40 days Moses remained on Mt. Sinai; the 40 years that the Hebrew people spent in the desert; the 40 days of penance by the people of Nineveh, the 40-year reigns of Kings Saul, David, and Solomon. Most relevant of all, the Pope said, is the 40 days that Jesus spent praying in the desert.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines...
It's not a "specific day set aside annually"...didn't you read how the date of Ash Wednesday is set? I posted it for you.
The "concept" of Ash Wednesday....all the times in Scripture when people used ashes during repentance...how is that NOT a "concept" of using ashes to signal the start of the season of Lent, a time of penance and preparation?
Since you are just grasping at straws, getting ridiculous, ignoring all facts, and being blind to this because you are too full of hate towards Catholic teachings to see anything good being part of it, there's no sense discussing it with you anymore.
You are as closed minded, and as hateful as Ox and Justa. Just another one of them....

Judged:

1

1

1

Converted wrote:

<quoted text>
Jesus Christ fearlessly stood for the truth. You would rather He had pussied out and embraced all schools of thought rather than offend someone by sticking to His beliefs which ARE Truth. He is the Way, the Truth, and the LIght, but you would rather he just cow down and accomodate people who prefer their own "truth."
Jesus established one Church, not 33,000 seperate and individual and conflicting churches.
Of course there were groups outside of the Faith which constantly and relentlessly attached the Truth which Jesus gave His life to uphold. And still to this day there are people who constantly and relentlessly (and senselessly) attack the very Church Jesus established. I can't imagine what they think they will gain for doing so.

Judged:

1

1

1

ITB wrote:

<quoted text>
The absurdity of the things said by anti-Catholics about the anathemas pronounced by Trent and other councils is plain. A number of errors are nearly ubiquitous in anti-Catholic writings:
1. "An anathema sentenced a person to hell". This is not the case. Sentencing someone to hell is a power that is God’s alone, and the Church cannot exercise it.
2. "An anathema was a sure sign that a person would go to hell." Again, not true. Anathemas were only warranted by very grave sins, but there was no reason why the offender could not repent, and those who repent aren’t damned.
3. "An anathema was a sure sign that a person was not in a state of grace". This is not true for two reasons:(a) The person may have repented since the time the anathema was issued, and (b) the person may not have been in a state of mortal sin at the time the anathema was issued.
4. "Anathemas were meant to harm the offender." No. Anathemas were simply a major excommunication performed with a special papal ceremony, and, like all excommunications, their intent was medicinal, not punitive.
5. "Anathemas are still in place today". This is the single most common falsehood one encounters regarding anathemas in the writings of anti-Catholics. They aren’t in place today. The penalty was employed so infrequently over the course of history that it is doubtful that anyone under an anathema was alive when the new Code of Canon Law came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.
http://archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/000...

Judged:

1

Converted wrote:

<quoted text>
According to Bible banging fundies, all those who lived and died before Jesus Christ made His appearance (and immediately started passing out Bibles) so that people could read their Bibles and accept Him "as their personal Lord and Savior" well, they were just shit out of luck and doomed to hell. Such a loving and fair god they worship. Tough shit for all those who didn't know Jesus as their "personal Lord and Savior."

Judged:

2

2

2

Converted wrote:

<quoted text>
Can I ask you a question?
If r=7 and p=r, then what numerical value does p have?
I'm really curious if you can answer this or not. Oxbox was presented a similar question and skirted the issue. Hopefully you won't be so obviously clueless. Hint: The answer is a single digit number between 1 and 10.

Judged:

1

1

1

ITB wrote:

<quoted text>
What a sad way to think of God...that He is only out for His own pleasure.
1 God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive ...

Judged:

1

1

1

Converted wrote:

<quoted text>
I really do think this issue has been beaten to death.
You seem to think that the CC somehow hijacks or kidnaps men in order to force them into the priesthood as if they have no decision in the matter. As if they had no idea that the office requires the relinquishing of wife and biological children in preference for a larger group of spiritual children, people who they administer the sacraments to for their spiritual life.
Secondly, you somehow seem to think that the clergy (priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes, not to mention nuns, monks, and deacons) would somehow be BETTER ABlE to be faithful to their profession if they had a wife and kids or a husband and kids to divide their time and energies and resources.
OK.
Well, I have a sincere question, and really since I don't feel like wasting my time much anymore.
Here it is. Buckle in, I know it's a hard one, but I know you can do it.
Here is the question.
If "Betsy" is a dog, and "Poopsy" is shaped just like "Betsy", then what kind of animal is "Poopsy"?

Judged:

1

1

1

Converted wrote:

<quoted text>
I really do think this issue has been beaten to death.
You seem to think that the CC somehow hijacks or kidnaps men in order to force them into the priesthood as if they have no decision in the matter. As if they had no idea that the office requires the relinquishing of wife and biological children in preference for a larger group of spiritual children, people who they administer the sacraments to for their spiritual life.
Secondly, you somehow seem to think that the clergy (priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes, not to mention nuns, monks, and deacons) would somehow be BETTER ABlE to be faithful to their profession if they had a wife and kids or a husband and kids to divide their time and energies and resources.
OK.
Well, I have a sincere question, and really since I don't feel like wasting my time much anymore.
Here it is. Buckle in, I know it's a hard one, but I know you can do it.
Here is the question.
If "Betsy" is a dog, and "Poopsy" is shaped just like "Betsy", then what kind of animal is "Poopsy"?

Judged:

1

1

1

Converted wrote:

<quoted text>
BTW where have you been for the last several months? Why do you and people like you just imagine that these "objections" you all spout out are things Catholics have never been confronted with? It's just amazing how you all, from all stripes of protestantism (not the root word "protest") think you have just brought up an issue so brand new that it is SURE to catch the evil Catholic off guard. It is trully comical. It really is like being swarmed by a pack of ludicrous clowns all dancing around like mad acting stupid as if we haven't ever been to a circus before.

Judged:

1

1

1

ITB wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you, like Patriot, ignore all the OT? Isn't the OT part of your Bible? Why does the example have to be in the NT?
BTW....In the New Testament, Jesus refers to the use of sackcloth and ashes as signs of repentance: "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty deeds done in your midst had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would long ago have repented in sackcloth and ashes" (Mt 11:21, Lk 10:13).
So Jesus referring to the use of ashes and repentance isn't good enough for you? Don't His words count?
Can you imagine the spectacle of a few hundred people, men, women, children, young, old and in between, rolling around the church in ashes? Imagine the logistics for that to occur safely, not to mention having the room to do it....LOL
You ignored the rest of the history of it...typical of you.
"Thomas Talley, an expert on the history of the liturgical year, says that the first clearly datable liturgy for Ash Wednesday that provides for sprinkling ashes is in the Romano-Germanic pontifical of 960. Before that time, ashes had been used as a sign of admission to the Order of Penitents."
"Our use of ashes at the beginning of Lent is an extension of the use of ashes with those entering the Order of Penitents. This discipline was the way the Sacrament of Penance was celebrated through most of the first millennium of Church history."
Too sophisticated...no. Not repentant enough...no. You writing nonsense...yes. You've really gotten ridiculous.

Atheist Conservative wrote:

<quoted text>
Go to hell and get lost!

Judged:

2

2

1

barry wrote:

<quoted text>i thought it was the lost go to hell.

par five wrote:

<quoted text>
My goodness, you just made fifteen posts in a row. Anyway don't get disheartened, keep trying, you might eventually give us a post that actually makes some sense!

Patriot wrote:

ITB, I do not ignore the OT nor does the COC, As it says in Rom 15:4, THE THINGS WRITTEN BEFORE ARE TO BE USED FOR OUR LEARNING, 1 COR CHAP 10 MAKES IT PLAIN THE OT IS FOR US TO LEARN BY AND NOT REPEAT MISTAKES OF CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. TAKE A PEEK AT HEB 7:11-12, THERE IS A CHANGE OF "LAW" WE ARE UNDER TNE NT NOW, THE OLD IS USED TO LEARN FROM, SEE GAL 3:16-27(FOCUS ON 24-27 MOSTLY) THE OT LASTED LONG AS IT WAS SUPPOSED TO AND THE NT TOOK OVER WHEN OT HAD "FULFILLED ITS PURPOSE" ..BTW I AM NOT YELLING CAP LOCK WAS ON.THE OT WAS/IS GOD'S WORD AND HOW HE DEALT WITH FOLKS BACK IN THE DAY, WE CAN READ/STUDY OT AND GLEAN MANY LESSONS THAT STILL APPLY TO NT CHRISTIANITY.