• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do people enjoy attacking the Catholic church so much

Pah

Uber all member
Trinity said:
Mark 7:5-8 "Why do your disciples not follow the tradition of the elders but instead eat a meal with unclean hands?" He responded, "Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.' You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition."

What is the problem with pork?

Wow!

That's another thread! Thanks for the reference.

-pah-
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Trinity said:
Matthew 5:17 'Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete the law.

There was no confusion, Jesus told them just what was going on.
Jesus started the confusion himself.

First he said this to the High Priests.
Matthew..
15:11
Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

Then he said this when the disciples asked him what he meant....

Matthew...
15:16-19
And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding?
Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, and blasphemies.



There are other books that mention the old laws being abolished.

Jesus isn’t exactly clear on this one and I believe that’s the source of confusion about it with most Christians.

I do not want to get into a debate about it here; there is a thread in Biblical Debates titled “Leviticus” that delves into it already.

It’s irrelevant anyway because I`m talking about the beliefs and rights of these “Heretics”.
They didn’t subscribe to the Biblical texts as the orthodox did and you are defending the Church with the same texts the Church used to persecute these people.

It’s kind of ironic really.

My point is ..these Christians didn’t fall into line with the Orthodox Church , the Orthodox Church persecuted them brutally for it.

This is simply not true. The Vatican was not yet the center of the Church... it was in France when this happened.

It is true.

This Crusade against the Albigenses was ordered by Innocent III in 1209.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm

It was one of many over the centuries.
This was the Catholic Church.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Australian church apologies to child migrants:

1300 British and Maltese children abused by the Catholic church over a span of 3 decades.

These numbers are just those that have been proven, the church imported 100,000 of these British orphans over a period of 100 years..

Sexual, physical abuse, humiliation, and deprivation of food was common practice at these Australian Catholic Schools.

These children were brought to Australia by the Church for forced labor looking to populate with “pure white stock”.

The church has admitted and is making payment for this child immigrant scheme.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
SOGFPP said:
Trinity,

You can't expect anyone who is reading their history from a inaccurate source to belive anything we say.
Funny..you get much of yours from the Bible.


Constantine did no such thing and in fact was very tolerant towards the pagans.
I didn`t say Constantine did anything other than found the church
Oddly enough he was a pagan himself.
You cannot deny the Council of Nicea was not the bedrock for Catholic Canon.
Constantine called this and other councils that further defined what Catholicism was to become.
It is an attempt at a strawman to imply I said Constantine was a part of this persecution.

I find it interesting that niether you nor Trinity will touch on the content of my post but pick away at irrelevent parts of it.

I honestly don't know if it happened or not, but I would like to point out that Rome was established well before the Avignon Papacy. This era was filled with strife, corruption, anti-Popes...etc.. The Great Schism damaged the Church almost beyond repair, but the true damage done was not seen until a few hundred years later when a man named Luther tacked his list up.
Yes..it was the pagan Romans who first started persecuting Christians (I mentioned this) afyter that the Christians started persecuting other "different" Christians.
The Christians who were doing the persecuting went on to found the Catholic Church on their canon.
It was because of the Catholic canon that Luther "tacked his list up".

Editted...
 

Trinity

Member
linwood said:
Funny..you get much of yours from the Bible.
I assumed accuracy wasn`t such a high priority for you.



I didn`t say Constantine did anything other than found the church
Oddly enough he was a pagan himself.
You cannot deny the Council of Nicea was not the bedrock for Catholic Canon.
Constantine called this and other councils that further defined what Catholicism was to become.
It is an attempt at a strawman to imply I said Constantine was a part of this persecution.

I find it interesting that niether you nor Trinity will touch on the content of my post but pick away at irrelevent parts of it.


Yes..it was the pagan Romans who first started persecuting Christians (I mentioned this) afyter that the Christians started persecuting other "different" Christians.
The Christians who were doing the persecuting went on to found the Catholic Church on their canon.
It was because of the Catholic canon that Luther "tacked his list up".
What is the content? What direct questions do you have that are being answered? I will answer them to tbe best of my ability.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Trinity said:
What is the content? What direct questions do you have that are being answered? I will answer them to tbe best of my ability.
I have no questions.
The Op is "Why do people Bash Catholicism?"
You specifically asked me in another thread why I dislike Catholicism.
You asked me to post some of the reasons some people might have an aversion to The Church.
I`m posting some reasons.
 

Trinity

Member
linwood said:
I have no questions.
The Op is "Why do people Bash Catholicism?"
You specifically asked me in another thread why I dislike Catholicism.
You asked me to post some of the reasons some people might have an aversion to The Church.
I`m posting some reasons.


I find it interesting that niether you nor Trinity will touch on the content of my post but pick away at irrelevent parts of it.

It is my confusion, and my fault for getting lost, but which content are you talking about.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Church bans reading the Bible

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07721a.htm
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nobible.htm

What possible reason would the Church have for banning the Bible?
Wanna guess?
 

Trinity

Member
linwood said:
Church bans reading the Bible

The Council of Trent (1545-1564) placed the Bible on its list of prohibited books, and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Roman Catholic bishop or inquisitor. The Council added these words: "That if any one shall dare to read or keep in his possession that book, without such a license, he shall not receive absolution till he has given it up to his ordinary."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07721a.htm
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nobible.htm

What possible reason would the Church have for banning the Bible?
Wanna guess?

This is a new one. Not the accusation but rather the details. Normally this accusation is said to have happened at the council of Valencia in 1229. Could you find a more credible source than http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nobible.htm/?

Thanks.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Trinity said:
This is a new one. Not the accusation but rather the details. Normally this accusation is said to have happened at the council of Valencia in 1229. Could you find a more credible source than http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nobible.htm/?

Thanks.
I did, it`s right above the one you have a problem with.
here`s more.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm

Maybe they all have their councils mixed up I dunno but again it`s not the point.
The point is the content, the content is the Bible was banned to the layman by the church.

Just one of the many ways the Church attempted to stop intellectualism.
 

Trinity

Member
linwood said:
I did, it`s right above the one you have a problem with.
here`s more.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/trent-booksrules.html
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm

Maybe they all have their councils mixed up I dunno but again it`s not the point.

The point is the content, the content is the Bible was banned to the layman by the church.



Just one of the many ways the Church attempted to stop intellectualism.




During the Albigensian heresy, the problem was they were distorting bible passages to justify their sexual beliefs. A local council was held (in southern France) to help the bishops sort through the problem. After this was understood, the request for people to stop reading the bible was lifted.



Now at Trent, a similar problem existed. In the website you pointed me to, it showed the text from Trent. It says the bible should be limited to learned men. Not kept from laymen. This was response to sola scriptura, the idea that the bible should be taken completely literally. Earlier in this thread we went through this, and pointed to many protestant speeches which exemplify we learned men should be reading the bible.



For the record, the Bible is a recommended reading for Catholics.
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Trinity said:
[/color]
Now at Trent, a similar problem existed. In the website you pointed me to, it showed the text from Trent. It says the bible should be limited to learned men. Not kept from laymen. This was response to sola scriptura, the idea that the bible should be taken completely literally. Earlier in this thread we went through this, and pointed to many protestant speeches which exemplify we learned men should be reading the bible.

It was a problem for the Catholic Church, not for those who were reading the Bible.
The Catholic Church didn`t want anything but their own interpretation of the scripture to be voiced because they didn`t want to have to defend their canon which isn`t Gods word yet it`s law Catholics live by.

They kept Gods word from it`s intended people.


For the record, the Bible is a recommended reading for Catholics.
It is now of course just as divorce is NOW acceptable.
Just as NOW the Church accepts a heliocentric solar system.
Just as NOW a woman can serve at the alter.
Just as NOW] evolution can be harmonized with scripture.
Just as many many things the Catholic Church has had to change it`s stance on because it was so obviously wrong and simply unacceptable.

The point is the Catholic Church kept the scripture from it`s congregation and instead told the people their version of the story.
Much like the situation you earlier warned against in Islam.
 

Trinity

Member
linwood said:
It was a problem for the Catholic Church, not for those who were reading the Bible.
The Catholic Church didn`t want anything but their own interpretation of the scripture to be voiced because they didn`t want to have to defend their canon which isn`t Gods word yet it`s law Catholics live by.
What are you talking about, not God's Word yet. It was His the min, He said it.
They kept Gods word from it`s intended people.[/color]
God's Word is that which lead back to Him, not that which only pleases our senses but also builds us spiritually. People were perverting the Scripture for only sexual and sensual things. The people (bishops) were responsible to the people in the area. They were God's people, they are God's people, and they were in the Church... and they were being abused by the distortion of the Scripture.

It is now of course just as divorce is NOW acceptable.
Just as NOW the Church accepts a heliocentric solar system.
Just as NOW a woman can serve at the alter.
Just as NOW] evolution can be harmonized with scripture.
Just as many many things the Catholic Church has had to change it`s stance on because it was so obviously wrong and simply unacceptable.

The point is the Catholic Church kept the scripture from it`s congregation and instead told the people their version of the story.
Much like the situation you earlier warned against in Islam.[/QUOTE]
Not Exactly. They did not change their position, they grew to understand the situation better. Everything that happens in the world is already in Scripture, when it is new to "our" knowledge, it is important to get a handel on it, before teaching the wrong message.

God's word is rich and heavy, it sometimes takes a while to pear through it.
 

huajiro

Well-Known Member
Trinity said:
God's word is rich and heavy, it sometimes takes a while to pear through it.
This is about the only thing I believe is true, the only problem is that the "Bible" is not "God's" word, it is many mens' (mis)interpretation of it. It is many mens' distortion of it for personal gain.
 

huajiro

Well-Known Member
chuck010342 said:
don't pray for me take a good look at your beliefs you should pray that God can forgive you
You should look at your own beliefs before you pass judgement
 
Top