Spare me the commentary Stu, surely even you can see how weak an argument is to say:

Quote :

"I could quote you something and tell you how it breaks all laws of reason and then you will simply qoute another line to some how "prove" it actually happened."

Then say: Well I'm not going to quote it since you can justify it.

What if my justification makes a lot more sense than yours in line with the entire scripture?

To be honest I hear a whole lot of talking and no evidence to support her initial claim.

7/7/2011 11:52:34 AM

I'm pretty sure that was hyperbole on her [his?] part. I agree though, she's generalizing, which I don't really have a problem with. The Bible clearly contains magical, miraculous things along with explanations of human existence that don't jive with scientific understanding. Going through passage by passage and hearing your particular flavor of interpretation to reconcile it isn't going to get us anywhere.

7/7/2011 12:02:41 PM

The existence of miracles, or supernatural events, are certainly a physically unjustifiable ramification of faith. But this is why Christianity is faith based. That is faith in the power of God and salvation of Christ, to say this faith is entirely without rhyme or reason however, is unfounded.

7/7/2011 12:06:35 PM

I see religious faith as the abandonment of reason, myself. The things which require faith for you to be a Christian require that you accept them without evidence or rational support, and ignore mountains of contradictory evidence and reason to boot. I'm not saying everything in the Bible can't be supported by evidence or reason, but the stuff that you truly cannot prove exists (or happened) cannot.

All this stuff about saints transforming in Heaven and whatnot that you're talking about with E Man. There's nothing resembling reason in how you conclude that such processes even exist and that you can know details about them to have conversations about them. It's faith.

My position is that faith is a bad thing. It's giving up. You don't have an explanation, so instead of trying harder or accepting it, you make one up. That's what faith is, to me.

And aaronburro I'm essentially going to ignore your response to this post. You know what I mean by faith in this context. Not reasonable assumptions based on evidence, or the assumption that reality really is real.

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2011 12:25:02 PM

LeonIsPro, my previous attempts to take you through a logical hop, skip, and jump failed miserably. It is like we are speaking different languages. Here is my last attempt, and I'll cut right to the chase.

I think your being Christian, as opposed to Muslim or Buddhist or Shinto or Zoroastrian or ..., is due primarily to the accident of birth. Christianity is not your original idea. You were exposed to Christian beliefs in a specific way. The manner in which these beliefs were presented and the types of evidence you accept as support for these beliefs are not unique. They are holy books, the teachings of a preacher, etc - different in content than their analogs in other religions, but only in content. If you were instead born in Saudi Arabia, you would be Muslim. You would have been taught the Quran by imams instead of the Bible by preachers. Given that you have said it would take a personal message from God for you to give up your Christian beliefs, does your Muslim mirror image not have that same right? None of your reasons for believing in Christianity would be up to snuff for your Muslim mirror image, who would also only accept a personal message for God refuting Islamic teachings, which you can't provide to him. If so, how do you begin to tell that person that Christianity is true and Islam is not true?

7/7/2011 12:32:03 PM

I have some questions for creationists.

Why do we have counter shading on our hands since we don't walk on them?

Why do men have nipples?

Why are embryos so similar to our closests evolutionary relatives?


How can anyone look at that and reject evolution?

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 1:23 PM. Reason : I assume you understand the Catholic view of evolution driven by the holy spirit]

7/7/2011 1:22:49 PM

Quote :

"Otherwise would I not be denying the power of Christ's salvation?"

you cannot know if you have his salvation. you only have faith of that.

7/7/2011 1:26:01 PM

Quote :

"Why are embryos so similar to our closests evolutionary relatives?"

Essentially every vertebrate embryo looks exactly the same (to start). There is a almost unfathomable amount of microbiological evidence for DNA, on top of the fossil record. There could be absolutely no fossils and the case for Evolution would be open and shut.

To deny Evolution is to deny reality. The Pope realized this, realized he'd lose quite a few members over it and decided to sanction the belief of Evolution. Now only if he'd figure out birth control.

I was going to post a dog embryo in the abortion thread and ask aaronburro if he thought it was a human being but I refrained.

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2011 1:30:21 PM

Quote :

"None of your reasons for believing in Christianity would be up to snuff for your Muslim mirror image, who would also only accept a personal message for God refuting Islamic teachings, which you can't provide to him. If so, how do you begin to tell that person that Christianity is true and Islam is not true?"

As I said at first, I wouldn't know enough about the Quran to dispute with him. What good does it do if I convince someone of something, from where does their faith come then?

7/7/2011 2:35:54 PM

Quote :

"you only have faith of that."

I have faith in his power to redeem the lost. I have faith that by my trusting in him he shall redeem me.

"13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; 15Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: 17And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. 18For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit. "

Ephesians 2


"15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Mark 16

Now if I believed and was baptized with the Holy Spirit how shall I not have salvation in the day of the Lord?

7/7/2011 2:45:20 PM

Quote :

"As I said at first, I wouldn't know enough about the Quran to dispute with him. What good does it do if I convince someone of something, from where does their faith come then?"

What he's getting at is why should we believe you? Why should you believe yourself? If you wouldn't believe a Muslim who has the exactly the same justifications you have for believing, then what makes your belief superior? Why don't you worship Odin?

Also, you necessarily must have had some external exposure to Christianity that convinced you of it. You weren't born a Christian. Where did your faith come from then?

And above when I said there was an unfathomable amount of evidence for DNA, I mean for Evolution.

V, It's useful as an example to 3rd parties. The goal isn't necessarily "Change LeonIsPro's mind".

[Edited on July 7, 2011 at 2:58 PM. Reason : V]

7/7/2011 2:55:35 PM

Here's a serious question: if you're unwilling to accept the basic principles of rational inference and discourse that have led humanity to the great leaps in mathematics and science in the past few centuries, how can we have a productive discussion about your religious ideas? It seems to me that you're only willing to accept a certain style of argument and that your ultimate barometer for truth is your own intuition (and understanding of the scriptures). Given that you're unwilling to even entertain that you might be wrong about something, how could a discussion like this prove fruitful?

7/7/2011 2:55:47 PM

Quote :

"As I said at first, I wouldn't know enough about the Quran to dispute with him."

The point is moot. Even if you were just as learned in the Quran as you are in the Bible, just as learned in the Quran as he is, you could never convince him. He believes the Quran, not the Bible, and he needs a personal message from God to believe otherwise.

Quote :

"What good does it do if I convince someone of something, from where does their faith come then?"

Where does any faith come from? Feral children do not stumble upon civilizations quoting the Bible. Your faith is based upon the entirety of your religious experience, but there needs to be a spark, a starting point, that is tangible. To say practically, for example, that your faith in God comes from God is not a reasonable argument, unless Christianity is your original idea or you got that personal message from God before being exposed to any idea of Christian religious practice.

Furthermore, aren't Christians a proselytizing faith? Does that just apply to people who happen to be easier to convert?

Finally, the main idea: You obviously don't subscribe to Islam. Islam and Christianity have at least a few contradictions. You can't do both. You happen to be Christian, by accident of birth. Do you expect your Islamic mirror image to be absolved of his failure to believe in Christianity? If not, it hardly seems fair. He came about his faith in the same manner than you came about your faith. If Christianity is the truth, you just got lucky to be born into the right team.

7/7/2011 3:07:05 PM

I assume y'all have covered this one already, but just in case... The christmas tree effect. Taking from other previous religions to build your own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris-Dionysus

Quote :

"A dying god,[1][2][3][4] also known as a dying-and-rising or resurrection deity, is a god who dies and is resurrected or reborn, in either a literal or symbolic sense. Male examples include the ancient Near Eastern and Greek deities Baal[5] , Melqart[6] , Adonis[7] , Eshmun[8], Tammuz, [9] Asclepius, Orpheus, as well as Mithras[citation needed], Krishna, Ra, Osiris[10], Jesus, Zalmoxis, Dionysus,[11] and Odin. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Quote :

". Christianity would have sought to further enhance its appeal to gentiles by adopting myths from pagan cults with some Judaic input— e.g., Jesus' healings came from Asclepius, feeding of multitudes from Dionysus, the Eucharist from the worship of Dionysus and Mithras, and walking on water from Poseidon"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology#Comparative_mythology

Quote :

"The opening salvo of debates concerning mythological parallels between Dionysus and the figure of the Christ in Christian theology can be traced to Friedrich Hölderlin, whose identification of Dionysus with Christ is most explicit in Brod und Wein (1800–1801) and Der Einzige (1801–1803).[3] Modern scholars such as Martin Hengel, Barry Powell, and Peter Wick, among others, argue that Dionysian religion and Christianity have notable parallels. They point to the symbolism of wine and the importance it held in the mythology surrounding both Dionysus and Jesus Christ;[4][5] "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_(mythology)

Quote :

"Perseus was the son of Danaë. She was locked away while a young girl, to prevent her having children, but Zeus came to her in the form of a shower of gold and impregnated her."

Quote :

"Zoroasterianism, the religion of ancient Persia, has the closest resemblance to Judaism and Christianity, perhaps because its beliefs were in force before the Babylonian captivity of the Kingdom of Judah. Zoroaster’s name has been adopted from the Greek and Latin Zoroastres. The ancient form of his name in the Avesta is Zarathustra. His native country was probably Media in Western Iran, (possibly in modern Azerbaijan), but his ministry took place in eastern Iran, especially in the region of Bactria, about 1200 BC. Zoroaster was originally a Magian priest, and under the reforms he instituted, Mithra became one of the Yazatas (Worshipful Ones), the angels or lesser divine beings. Zoroaster, whose faith was a type of monotheism, taught that a conflict between the opposing forces of light and darkness would last for 12,000 years, divided into eons of 3000 years each. His birth marked the beginning of the final eon, which was to be presided over by Zoroaster himself and his three sons who would be born after his death. The last of these would be the Messiah,"

7/7/2011 3:57:41 PM

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa2.htm

Quote :

"Life events shared by Osiris, Dionysus and Jesus The following stories appear both in the Gospels and in the myths of many of the god-men: Conception: God was his father. This was believed to be literally true in the case of Osiris-Dionysus; their God came to earth and engaged in sexual intercourse with a human. The father of Jesus is God in the form of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18). A human woman, a virgin, was his mother. Birth: He was born in a cave or cowshed. Luke 2:7 mentions that Jesus was placed in a manger - an eating trough for animals. One early Christian tradition said that the manger was in a cave. His birth was prophesized by a star in the heavens. Ministry: At a marriage ceremony, he performed the miracle of converting water into wine. He was powerless to perform miracles in his home town. His followers were born-again through baptism in water. He rode triumphantly into a city on a donkey. Tradition records that the inhabitants waved palm leaves. He had 12 disciples. He was accused of licentious behavior. Execution, resurrection, etc: He was killed near the time of the Vernal Equinox, about MAR-21. He died "as a sacrifice for the sins of the world." 1 He was hung on a tree, stake, or cross. After death, he descended into hell. On the third day after his death, he returned to life. The cave where he was laid was visited by three of his female followers He later ascended to heaven. His titles: God made flesh. Savior of the world. Son of God. Beliefs about the God-man: He is "God made man," and equal to the Father. He will return in the last days. He will judge the human race at that time. Humans are separated from God by original sin. The god-man's sacrificial death reunites the believer with God and atones for the original sin."

7/7/2011 4:09:00 PM

Quote :

"I agree though, she's generalizing, which I don't really have a problem with. The Bible clearly contains magical, miraculous things along with explanations of human existence that don't jive with scientific understanding. Going through passage by passage and hearing your particular flavor of interpretation to reconcile it isn't going to get us anywhere. "

First off, A lot went down while I was at work! Sorry for missing the discussion.

Secondly, Well said and I'm relieved we can all agree not to have to go through every "Miracle" in the bible and discuss how they are clearly to be believed soley on "faith" and go completely against reason. Ex. the "Virgin Birth".

7/7/2011 5:45:20 PM

Ok, so I skimmed through the thread. Good stuff. Since LeonIsPro hit the nail on the head that "not all Christians are saved" and pretty much lambasted Catholics, I might as well show you guys what me and my dad had in plan.



Here ya go:



Or is it only funny when there is a Spiderman picture accompanying it?

7/13/2011 3:52:10 AM

See? Jesus Christ can't even hotlink an image!

7/13/2011 8:53:38 AM

I have a question for E Man and pretty much any other liberal Christian who thinks that Genesis isn't literal.

If Genesis is not literal and you believe in science's explanation for people (evolution with natural selection, etc) and not Adam and Eve, then what is Jesus saving you from? If the Fall never happened, what's the point of Jesus?

It seems to me (and I assume LeonIsPro) that the NT is inexorably tied to the OT (particularly Genesis) being a literal story.

7/25/2011 11:40:34 AM

Jesus isn't saving people from The Fall. He is ostensibly saving people from their own sins. damn, that was easy.

7/25/2011 9:50:36 PM

It'd be convenient if my ethos had a catch-all term to cover any/all fallacies that it might contain.

Like "faith," but less cliche.

7/25/2011 10:17:11 PM

if only that's what faith were. doH!

7/25/2011 10:24:13 PM

In practice...

7/25/2011 10:26:13 PM

not really.

7/25/2011 10:27:06 PM

I'm sure faith is really a matter of faith.

7/25/2011 10:29:26 PM

yeah, but it's not really a matter of ignoring things you've noticed as troubling. That's just being naive

7/25/2011 10:36:54 PM

Quote :

"it's not really a matter of ignoring things you've noticed as troubling. That's just being naive"

Perfect save for that one word.

7/25/2011 10:38:55 PM

Yes, I have a faith-based question.

Please explain this



Thank you.

7/25/2011 10:46:40 PM

Quote :

"Jesus isn't saving people from The Fall. He is ostensibly saving people from their own sins. damn, that was easy."

So Jesus doesn't need to save babies? Until a person actually commits a sin, they don't need to be saved, right? I'm just saying, this goes against almost every mainstream interpretation of the Bible and Christianity.

But that's pretty common for you. Representing Christianity by not representing what is actually practiced and generally believed.

Quote :

"yeah, but it's not really a matter of ignoring things you've noticed as troubling. That's just being naive"

It's ignoring evidence to the contrary, for one thing. It's declaring certainty when certainty is unjustified.

[Edited on July 25, 2011 at 10:49 PM. Reason : .]

7/25/2011 10:48:16 PM

Why do Christians have the logical reasoning abilities of my 4 year old nephew?

7/25/2011 11:01:20 PM

Second question:

Why would Jones Sr. reach for the grail after just witnessing Elsa plummet to her death in the exact same scenario?

7/25/2011 11:04:02 PM

Quote :

"I have a question for E Man and pretty much any other liberal Christian who thinks that Genesis isn't literal. If Genesis is not literal and you believe in science's explanation for people (evolution with natural selection, etc) and not Adam and Eve, then what is Jesus saving you from? If the Fall never happened, what's the point of Jesus? It seems to me (and I assume LeonIsPro) that the NT is inexorably tied to the OT (particularly Genesis) being a literal story."

It has a literal meaning but not a literalist translation; it didn't happen the way it says in the bible but the lesson of each story is real and meaningful.

Example-"God said let there be light"=Through the power of the holy spirit, several molecules came together and set off a fusion reaction

The bible was written in ancient times and the stories had to be in a context relevant to culture and knowledge of the time. ]

If genesis were written today, @serpant would be posting links on twitter and shit.

7/25/2011 11:30:12 PM

Quote :

"So Jesus doesn't need to save babies? Until a person actually commits a sin, they don't need to be saved, right?"

That depends on the sect. Some people have a notion of an "age of accountability," especially the Catholics, IIRC. What happens to unbaptized children under this age thus differs based on the denomination. It's something that I've never seen discussed as a Baptist, though.

Quote :

"It's ignoring evidence to the contrary, for one thing. It's declaring certainty when certainty is unjustified."

It would be no such thing. That would be naivete.

7/26/2011 1:17:34 AM

They go to purgatory for their original sin.

7/26/2011 2:07:29 AM

Just because there are many different religious answers and systems doesn’t automatically mean pluralism is correct.

7/26/2011 4:41:38 AM

Quote :

"It has a literal meaning but not a literalist translation; it didn't happen the way it says in the bible but the lesson of each story is real and meaningful. "

So if it didn't literally happen, why do you believe original sin exists?

7/26/2011 8:27:13 AM

Third question:

If the Ark of the covenant is so powerful, why was it stored in such an unsecured site with little-to-no protection from someone stumbling across it?

7/26/2011 8:36:44 AM

Quote :

"If the Ark of the covenant is so powerful, why was it stored in such an unsecured site with little-to-no protection from someone stumbling across it?"

Oh you were trolling, well I'll answer anyway.

That's an interesting question, for one it was stored in a place where the normal populace could not enter. At first it was stored in the tent of meeting, then it was stored in the Temple of Solomon. Now, Hebrew law prohibited normal citizens from entering, only designated Levites could enter. Obviously, if someone wanted to they could go and try and steal the Ark, but there are several stories of what happened to people who stole the ark.

"1And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer unto Ashdod. 2When the Philistines took the ark of God, they brought it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon. 3And when they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the LORD. And they took Dagon, and set him in his place again. 4And when they arose early on the morrow morning, behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground before the ark of the LORD; and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of Dagon was left to him. 5Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon's house, tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod unto this day.

6But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof. 7And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god. 8They sent therefore and gathered all the lords of the Philistines unto them, and said, What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel? And they answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried about unto Gath. And they carried the ark of the God of Israel about thither. 9And it was so, that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the LORD was against the city with a very great destruction: and he smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts. 10Therefore they sent the ark of God to Ekron. And it came to pass, as the ark of God came to Ekron, that the Ekronites cried out, saying, They have brought about the ark of the God of Israel to us, to slay us and our people. 11So they sent and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and said, Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go again to his own place, that it slay us not, and our people: for there was a deadly destruction throughout all the city; the hand of God was very heavy there. 12And the men that died not were smitten with the emerods: and the cry of the city went up to heaven. "

1 Sam 5

[Edited on July 26, 2011 at 9:17 AM. Reason : ]

7/26/2011 9:16:10 AM

Quote :

"They go to purgatory for their original sin."

Are they there with the Catholic priests who smuggled war criminals out of Germany and Serbia?

7/26/2011 9:21:53 AM

Quote :

"So if it didn't literally happen, why do you believe original sin exists?"

It did literally happen, it just didn't happen exactly the way its portrayed in the bible. Do you not believe humans are naturally mischievous and inclined to sin?

literal vs literalist

If I say its raining cats and dogs outside it literally is raining really hard but the literalist meaning of cats and dogs falling from the sky is obviously false.

Quote :

"Are they there with the Catholic priests who smuggled war criminals out of Germany and Serbia?"

Priests sin all the time and are people just like you and me. No one has claimed that every priest is a saint or priests are less inclined to sin. No one can say who is in hell or purgatory.

7/26/2011 10:14:51 AM

Quote :

"No one can say who is in hell or purgatory."

Except for babies I guess (in purgatory)? Since that is doctrinal (according to the Catholics).

Well let's postulate a few other examples, do you think the Popes who condoned/started the inquisition are in Hell? Or maybe the ones who had Satanic sacrifices in their papal office, or maybe the ones that had relations with so many women, that priests would warn pilgrims, not to go to Rome.

I guess my question is, Can the Pope sin?

[Edited on July 26, 2011 at 10:20 AM. Reason : ]

7/26/2011 10:20:07 AM

All I can tell you is that everyone has to answer for their sins. To me, it seems pretty hard to end up in hell if you are willing to repent. Anyone can sin and its easier for people with great power to commit mortal sins.

7/26/2011 10:26:49 AM

That's an interesting answer, though not in line with scripture, and a secular summation of Christianity (without Jesus, which for some reason you always seem to leave out), I'm once again left with this question...

Quote :

"Can the Pope sin?"

7/26/2011 10:34:58 AM

already been answered

Quote :

"Anyone can sin and its easier for people with great power to commit mortal sins."

Quote :

" (without Jesus, which for some reason you always seem to leave out"

well part of the reparations are eating his blood and drinking his body

7/26/2011 10:54:41 AM

Quote :

"well part of the reparations are eating his blood and drinking his body"

So what you're saying is he doesn't give you the redemption he makes you earn it?



Also if the Pope has sinned, how can he be infallible and with such egregious sins as the ones I listed, shouldn't he be excommunicated (as the Catholics call it) from the Church?

Also shouldn't these priests who are sexually deviant be displaced from the Church? According to scripture that is accurate. Seems to me the only priests who are excommunicated are the ones who either attempt reform, or marry.

7/26/2011 10:59:11 AM

Its more you have to accept redemption than "earn" it but yeah.

Quote :

"Also if the Pope has sinned, how can he be infallible and with such egregious sins as the ones I listed, shouldn't he be excommunicated (as the Catholics call it) from the Church? "

I think you have a misconception about infallibility. The pope himself is not infallible but the papacy is infallible and the pope has the power to make infallible statements. Every statement made by the pope is not infallible. Its rare that an infallible statement is made and they are very calculated and advised by the cardinals. Its more akin to a supreme court ruling being the law of the land than the actual person being infallible.

Quote :

"Also shouldn't these priests who are sexually deviant be displaced from the Church? According to scripture that is accurate. Seems to me the only priests who are excommunicated are the ones who either attempt reform, or marry."

Nobody said the people running the church were sinless or perfect administrators. These priests should be let go and in my opinion it would all be better if you let them get married and had female priests. I feel that Mary was phased out of the Gospel to keep women from being powerful in the church at the time and if it all happened in a world of equality like today then women would be a large part of the church but thats just me.

7/26/2011 11:07:34 AM

Quote :

"I think you have a misconception about infallibility. The pope himself is not infallible but the papacy is infallible and the pope has the power to make infallible statements. Every statement made by the pope is not infallible. Its rare that an infallible statement is made and they are very calculated and advised by the cardinals. Its more akin to a supreme court ruling being the law of the land than the actual person being infallible. "

Apparently, you haven't read Vatican I

Quote :

" Therefore,faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our saviour, for the exaltation of the catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the sacred council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. 10. So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema. "

Quote :

" So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. "

Quote :

"Its more akin to a supreme court ruling being the law of the land than the actual person being infallible. "

Does this mean you are anathema?

7/26/2011 11:18:51 AM

No. The Pope makes non-infallible statements all the time. Like the one he just made on condom use in aids-ridden areas.

7/26/2011 11:22:25 AM

Well, that sure is convenient, so tell me then, how do we know when he's speaking ex Cathedra?

7/26/2011 11:24:13 AM

They make it clearhttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2676121/posts

7/26/2011 11:37:50 AM