One) Who said the Bible is right? Well I'll let you ask (God), the 2 billion plus people that believe in it, let alone the Church hierarchy, and those churches running under sola scriptura.
2) What about it is crap, please tell me because this nothing in the Old Testament that, to my knowledge, is outrageous in documenting the Jewish faith and nothing in the New Testament that is crap. Go ahead and show me.
3) You are talking about a world of moral relativism. So you CANNOT say that the terrorists who blew up the World Trade Centers were wrong, because, even though it is unethical, we cannot "go fucking with it." Nor is Osama bin Laden, or any communist, or any prisoner in for murder, it is their lifestyle so just live with it. Well I guess in your mind that's okay but in my mind, the one that is obviously logical in this situation, would say no these people are wrong, it is wrong to do (blank), because (blank). Whereas you are saying that you would say not to mess with ANYONE
4) After skimming through Martin Luther's NINETY FIVE THESES (yes note nintey five, not ninety nine), there is one mention of the Bible whatsoever. Furthermore, the 95 Theses is not what got him into trouble.
"This condition of morbidity finally developed into formal scrupulosity. Infractions of the rules, breaches of discipline, distorted ascetic practices followed in quick succession and with increasing gravity; these, followed by spasmodic convulsive reactions, made life an agony. Thesolemn obligation of reciting the daily Office, an obligation binding under the penalty of mortal sin, was neglected to allow more ample time for study, with the result that the Breviary was abandoned for weeks. Then in paroxysmal remorse Luther would lock himself into his cell and by one retroactive act make amends for all he neglected; he would abstain from all food and drink, torture himself by harrowing mortifications, to an extent that not only made him the victim of insomnia for five weeks at one time, but threatened to drive him into insanity."
"It is not denied that a doctrine like that of the indulgences, which in some aspects was still a disputable subject in the schools, was open to misunderstanding by the laity; that the preachers in the heat of rhetorical enthusiasm fell into exaggerated statements, or that the financial considerations attached, though not of an obligatory character, led to abuse and scandal. The opposition to indulgences, not to the doctrine -- which remains the same to this day -- but to the mercantile methods pursued in preaching them, was not new or silent. Duke George of Saxony prohibited them in his territory, and Cardinal Ximenes, as early as 1513, forbade them in Spain.
On 31 October, 1517, the vigil of All Saints', Luther affixed to the castle church door, which served as the "black-board" of the university, on which all notices of disputations and high academic functions were displayed, his Ninety-five Theses. The act was not an open declaration of war, but simply an academic challenge to a disputation. "Such disputations were regarded in the universities of the Middle Ages partly as a recognized means of defining and elucidating truth, partly as a kind of mental gymnastic apt to train and quicken the faculties of the disputants. It was not understood that a man was always ready to adopt in sober earnest propositions which he was willing to defend in the academic arena; and in like manner a rising disputant might attack orthodox positions, without endangering his reputation for orthodoxy""
"Luther's Theses impress the reader "as thrown together somewhat in haste", rather than showing "carefully digested thought, and delicate theological intention"; they "bear him one moment into the audacity of rebellion and then carry him back to the obedience of conformity"
The papal legate, Cajetan, and Luther met face to face for the first time at Augsburg on 11 October. Cajetan (b. 1470) was "one of the most remarkable figures woven into the history of the Reformation on the Roman side . . . a man of erudition and blameless life" (Weizacker); he was a doctor of philosophy before he was twenty-one, at this early age filling chairs with distinction in both sciences at some of the leading universities; in humanistic studies he was so well versed as to enter the dialectic arena against Pico della Mirandola when only twenty-four. Surely no better qualified man could be detailed to adjust the theological difficulties. But the audiences were doomed to failure. Cajetan came to adjudicate, Luther to defend; the former demanded submission, the latter launched out into remonstrance; the one showed a spirit of mediating patience, the other mistook it for apprehensive fear; the prisoner at the bar could not refrain from bandying words with the judge on the bench. The legate, with the reputation of "the most renowned and easily the first theologian of his age", could not fail to be shocked at the rude, discourteous, bawling tone of the friar, and having exhausted all his efforts, he dismissed him with the injunction not to call again until he recanted. Fiction and myth had a wide sweep in dealing with this meeting and have woven such an inextricable web of obscurity about it that we must follow either the highly coloured narratives of Luther and his friends, or be guided by the most trustworthy criterion of logical conjecture.
The papal Brief to Cajetan (23 August), which was handed to Luther at Nuremberg on his way home, in which the pope, contrary to all canonical precedents, demands the most summary action in regard to the uncondemned and unexcommunicated "child of iniquity", asks the aid of the emperor, in the event of Luther's refusal to appear in Rome, to place him under forcible arrest, was no doubt written in Germany, and is an evident forgery (Beard, op. cit., 257-258; Ranke, "Deutsche Gesch." VI, 97-98). Like all forged papal documents, it still shows a surprising vitality, and is found in every biography of Luther.
Luther's return to Wittenberg occurred on the anniversary of his nailing the Theses to the castle church door (31 October, 1518). All efforts towards a recantation having failed, and now assured of the sympathy and support of the temporal princes, he followed hisappeal to the pope by a new appeal to an ecumenical council (28 November, 1518), which, as will be seen later, he again, denying the authority of both, followed by an appeal to the Bible.
In the meantime Luther was saturating himself with published and unpublished humanistic anti-clerical literature so effectually that his passionate hatred of Rome and the pope, his genesis of Antichrist, his contemptuous scorn for his theological opponents, his effusive professions of patriotism, his acquisition of the literary amenities of the "Epistolae Obscurorum Vivorum", even the bodily absorption of Hutten's arguments, not to allude to other conspicuous earmarks of his intercourse and association with the humanistic-political agitators, can be unerringly traced here."
So one can see how he went from someone of slight questioning to a man out in his ways and over his head.
Concerning Galileo:
Anti-Catholics often cite the Galileo case as an example of the Church refusing to abandon outdated or incorrect teaching, and clinging to a "tradition." They fail to realize that the judges who presided over Galileo’s case were not the only people who held to a geocentric view of the universe. It was the received view among scientists at the time.
Things returned to relative quiet for a time, until Galileo forced another showdown.
At Galileo’s request, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, a Jesuit—one of the most important Catholic theologians of the day—issued a certificate that, although it forbade Galileo to hold or defend the heliocentric theory, did not prevent him from conjecturing it. When Galileo met with the new pope, Urban VIII, in 1623, he received permission from his longtime friend to write a work on heliocentrism, but the new pontiff cautioned him not to advocate the new position, only to present arguments for and against it. When Galileo wrote the Dialogue on the Two World Systems, he used an argument the pope had offered, and placed it in the mouth of his character Simplicio. Galileo, perhaps inadvertently, made fun of the pope, a result that could only have disastrous consequences. Urban felt mocked and could not believe how his friend could disgrace him publicly. Galileo had mocked the very person he needed as a benefactor. He also alienated his long-time supporters, the Jesuits, with attacks on one of their astronomers. The result was the infamous trial, which is still heralded as the final separation of science and religion.
In the end, Galileo recanted his heliocentric teachings, but it was not—as is commonly supposed—under torture nor after a harsh imprison- ment. Galileo was, in fact, treated surprisingly well.
As historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not overly fond of the Catholic Church, noted, "We must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and legal scruples of the Roman authorities." Galileo was offered every convenience possible to make his imprisonment in his home bearable.
and
Nicolini revealed the circumstances surrounding Galileo’s "imprisonment" when he reported to the Tuscan king: "The pope told me that he had shown Galileo a favor never accorded to another" (letter dated Feb. 13, 1633); " . . . he has a servant and every convenience" (letter, April 16); and "[i]n regard to the person of Galileo, he ought to be imprisoned for some time because he disobeyed the orders of 1616, but the pope says that after the publication of the sentence he will consider with me as to what can be done to afflict him as little as possible" (letter, June 18).
Had Galileo been tortured, Nicolini would have reported it to his king. While instruments of torture may have been present during Galileo’s recantation (this was the custom of the legal system in Europe at that time), they definitely were not used.
So therefore, following LOGIC, the Church was correct, and the Church never said that it was right on science, it was acting LOGICALLY for the time. It's like saying that the Church now condemns embryonic stem cell research but then a new method is found that does not kill the child, but still Catholic bashers would say that we are still against it.
Logical people of throughout the Church:
St. Paul
St. Patrick
St. Augustine
St. Terese of Liseux
St. Aquinas
St. Pius X
St. Martin
St. Francis
St. Luke
St. Leo
St. Ambrose
St. Cyril
St. Gregory
St. John Chrysostom
in no particular order. O and here's a site with the most logical of the Faith: http://www. catholic. org/saints/doctors. php
Not to mention John Paul II, modern theologians etc.
Current issues the Church worries about:
Warfare, poverty, arms race, life issues(abortion etc), government roles, inter religious affairs, international issues, economic justice, environmental justice, shall I go on?
Two things that I found immature about your last post: one you said that if I used God as someone who thinks the bible is right im a pussy. And two, you requoted Scripture for no apparent reason. And I can see how you are getting tired of this. You are running out of ideas to bash the Church with.
Have a good night.
In Christo,
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Admiral Wolverine Lightening Bolt
Date: Mar 25, 2008 5:33 PM
who in hell said that the bible was right!! (and if you say god your a pussy) yes some of the bible has some truth behind it but a lot of it is just crap who should have the power to judge people and say if their lifestyle is right or wrong it may be unethical or a little crazy but let them live their life and dont go fucking with it!! and further more ,yes martin luther was a monk and he studied scripture dont mess with me and my history and he got a lot of what you call crazy claims from the BIBLE heard of it i thought so and his claims didnt get crazy have you read his 99 thesis he was that off some of his claims weren't right but a lot of them were!! galileo (spelled it wrong) he told the church that the earth spins around the sun the sun doesn't spin around the earth like GOD supposedly created and jesus this is getting boring see you dont listen to reason you dont admit when you might be wrong its just stupid and martin luther started the church reformation well he didnt start it but he was at the beginning of it!!! and immature really i am a person who doesn't follow your faith or really any faith (agnostic) and i've been able to have a decent argument with you on your faith!! and i give you credit you have made some good point bringing aquinas into the mix top notch but one guy isn't going to make up for as you said 2000 years of being off not wrong but i think and believe off i think the morals of the church are lost!! you cant fix that just because one person (maybe a couple more) were logical because if they were so logical how did they get stuck following your religion!! and the church doesnt worry about that many current issues other than their view on sexuality and so forth (crap i was going to say something but i lost it will come back to me i will include in my next message) and what was so immature signing my name as RIGHTEOUS please it is merely a pen name it has the word right in as i believe i am and it sounds kinda cool very dramatic
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Louie
Date: Mar 24, 2008 10:31 PM
Buddy, you really need to learn your Catechism before you come arguing to me. The Catholic Church DOES accept everyone, gay straight, alien, but we do not accept people living in sin. We know that God created us Adam and Eve (not adam and steve), and there are multiple places in the bible that state that homosexual acts are wrong. Note HOMOSEXUAL ACTS, not homosexuality, you really need to get that, because that is stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But if you don't believe me the Catechism is online, feel free to look it up. Homosexual ACTS are wrong, just as wrong as heterosexual acts out of marriage.
Concerning Martin Luther: St. Francis of Assisi was around in the same time period as Martin Luther, and HE went around changing the church constructively, not like Martin Luther.
Did you know that Martin Luther:
was a Catholic Monk
Didn't originally want to split from the Church but his claims got crazier and crazier until he left?
had problems with priestly celibacy?
On people who the Church "banished":
First dude call it by the correct name: excommunication. And the reason why the Church does this is because without it, the Church would be in frays and not a Church. Seriously, if the Church did not excommunicate the people who were heretics (people who denied Church teaching), then the Church would have never survived. And the last I knew, one dude's 60 years on earth is always going to have error in it, but the Church's 2000 years with refinement etc, it is hard to come across something that the Church teaches to be wrong. The Catholic Church excommunicates few people, and those they do are to have been found way out of line in trying to change things (Martin Luther), or way out of line because they are screwing people up with bad teachings.
On being logical: Buddy have you ever read some of Aquinas' works? Yah talk about logical, THAT'S ALL HE USES. All of his stuff is logic. Most of the Church's morality, doctrine, etc, is based on logic, but you fail to see that. How? I don't know.
Finally poking fun at a (at the least) historical text that accurately portrays stuff at the time, and religion of the time, is stupid, let along immature. I would love to talk with you like this, but not if you're going to be an immature kid like you were at the end of your message.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Admiral Wolverine Lightening Bolt
Date: Mar 24, 2008 9:53 PM
you say you welcome everyone but you dont accept the gays!! if two gay people want to get married and they are both catholic the church wont allow them to get married in the church thats not accepting everyone!! and i am talking about over time martin luther i think it took the church over 200 years to admit they were wrong and there are others when to church banished them from the church because it did not go along with church teaching!! and it is impossible to argue with you and anyone of your faith is because you are all oblivious to reason oblivious to any truth except of what mumbo jumbo is said in the bible!! good history yes! religious book its iffy!! and i think you have your quote wrong i believe it should say I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, who ever comes to me will not die, but have eternal life."
-righteous
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Louie
Date: Mar 24, 2008 12:58 PM
Yah it's hard to talk to a religious person because you know that you do not have enough information to back up what you're saying, and you know that you'll come out on the bottom in the end. Because in the end "Truth will prevail." And this corruption you talk about, apart from the .02% of priests that were involved in the sexual scandal, what other corruption do you see, because we welcome everyone, and almost all priests are willing to talk to you. And pertaining to the homeless man; have you ever really talked to him, and seen what his life has been like? You'd probably be amazed, not only at his life, but how he also believes in God.
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, however comes to me will not die, but have eternal life."
-Christ.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Admiral Wolverine Lightening Bolt
Date: Mar 24, 2008 12:24 PM
actually h]he often holds another sign that says "need money for weed" and since i walk by him every now and then its not hard to smell the beer on his breath!! and god damn it is impossible to argue with a religious person its like talking to a rock!!! and your precious church is corrupt and it always has been!!
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Louie
Date: Mar 24, 2008 12:09 PM
The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
The Miracles of Padre Pio
Miracles surrounding Gloria Strauss
just to name a few.
Have you ever talked to that Homeless guy? I didn't think so, have you ever seen him stoned out or drinking? So you just made a really rash decision about someone that you know nothing about! Good for you. Maybe if you talked to him you would see Christ in him, and not just a man on the street. I have talked to many homeless people, and they all inspire me to be a better person, and I can see Christ in them.
And look at Mother Teresa of Calcutta, all that she did was for God, and she looked after your "drunk stoned homeless" friend, just as Christ taught us to.
Remember that God is outside the realms of space and time, and He sees everything in the present, so comparing me, someone inside time, to God, someone outside time, is not a good analogy, nor a good argument, however, if you do want to go technical, every time someone disobeys God's will, God is hurt by this because we are choosing evil over good. However God gave us that free will, and sometimes we use it to our disadvantage, and so we have to live with the consequences, either here or in our next life. And due to the fact that we haven't solved global warming, then it is not right to say that we won't be saved by God.
Remember that Christ works through us, and is at work all around us.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Admiral Wolverine Lightening Bolt
Date: Mar 24, 2008 9:16 AM
WHAT MIRACLES!! i see nothing driving home i see a homeless guy who is addicted to drugs and beer and he always has a sign that says "GOD BLESS YOU" and if god cries everytime someone sins or does something bad!! that DOESNT change anything! if you sat and cried everytime you failed a test or sinned etc. then you wouldnt get anywhere in life!!! and thats why when global warming is about to destroy the world it will be human acts that save it not any help from some higher being we are on our own!! god isnt there to help us anymore
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Louie
Date: Mar 23, 2008 11:39 PM
How could God let His Only Son come to the World and Die for our sins. That should be the beginning question, because that is the basis of the rest of your questions.
However, if you want to jump directly to evil in the world:
It's called Original Sin and Free Will.
Do not you think that God doesn't cry every time someone disobeys what he wants? Every time someone is killed? Do you think that He wants war and death? No! Look at the creation story and how all was good, but then our Free Will got in the way...
You find it so shocking that God does not intervene, well he does. Look at the miracles all around you!
Talking about the saints: Again it goes back to the question; how could God send His only Son to die for us, the answer is that He loves us, and wants us to be with Him so much that He is willing to even give His son up for us to be with Him. "Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Unnecessary war: It's called Free will. Just as Adam and Eve had it, so do we, and we do not always follow His will and wants. God doesn't want robots, he wants people freely loving Him, and some do not. You must also look at all the war even before Christ, and how he allowed that to happen. Also, did you know that St. Francis of Assisi was a warrior before becoming a monk, again, just as in the Crucifixion, there is always some sort of Good to be found even in some of the most udder evil.
Gloria Strauss: is a saint. Again it goes with God's will, and God wanted Gloria to come home. With the faith Gloria had in God, it is impossible to separate her from Him and His will. And God said to her that it was time to come home. And she did get a clean bill of health; she was rid of this world of pain and sorrow, and given new life in Christ in Heaven.
God is all around us, you just have to look and see Him.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Admiral Wolverine Lightening Bolt
Date: Mar 23, 2008 10:32 PM
how can a god watch his people die!!!! that is soooo shocking if he is so high and mighty why doesnt he doesnt he or why didnt he do something to save those saints who were brutally killed!! or all those uneccessary wars!! or Gloria Strauss why didnt he save her from the cancer why didnt he allow her to walk out of the hospital with a clean bill of health!! answer that decently and i will be amazed if you cant then i think and believe then you have to wrong idea about life, death, everything (well almost everything, i suppose you couldnt be oblivious to absolutely everything!!!)
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Louie
Date: Mar 23, 2008 12:01 AM
Then you have truly missed out in the glory of God in the Eucharist, and Gloria Strauss, tell me that God wasn't working in her, or the saints. God does do things in theis world, you just have to look.
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Admiral Wolverine Lightening Bolt
Date: Mar 22, 2008 8:20 PM
Good Friday Ha!! thats funny well the difference between me and you is that i dont believe in some god that can idly watch as the world he supposedly created and the people that were supposedly perfect: as they kill, destroy,rape. steal, plunder etc. while he watches and doesnt do a thing
----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Louie
Date: Mar 21, 2008 9:10 PM
Louie has posted a new comment about you on MySpace!
According to your privacy settings, all comments must be approved by you before they appear on your profile.
Louie's Comment:
"Wow that was outrageously rude, and I don't even know you, and it was on Good Friday. I'll pray for you. Have a good day remembering how Christ died for YOU. You're a sad little man.