Now back to contraception. My question is this: What is the Church's teaching about artificial contraception? Why does the Church teach that artificial contraception is wrong?

 

A link to an explanation is not exactly what I was looking for. I should have said that I wanted an answer in your own words. Like I said at the beginning of the thread I'm interested in how well former Catholics know the Church's teachings, not how well they can hyperlink explanations.

Your second answer was very wrong, and needlessly sarcastic.

Just curious, but at the beginning you didn't seem to care about this fight. Now you do. Why is that?

One of the good things about a discussion with a Catholic compared to an Evangelical is the hellfire & damnation comments are minimal. You are aware the Church considers me to be relapsed and compared to a heretic in other religions in a better position, though I'd have to come back. I appreciate your visits, quite refreshing compared to the Protestants & fanatical evangelicals. Of course we will get into it but at least you follow a prescribed theology that is clear & understandable, not that I buy it anymore.

John Paul II in his statements in regard to whether there was an actual Hell or not never specifically supported the view there is such a physical place. OTOH he never actually claimed there was a heavenly cloud place either. See some of his discussions on the Vatican website. His position was basically you were in Hell when you were out of the grace of God. Considering this, it's not so far off when you consider the KOG is within and clearly meant to encompass others as in "among you" statements in Luke as well as Thomas. see - http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm
Whether this helps you or not remains to be seen.

How we both see Jesus and who he may or may not have been are all very different things.

I consider Luke to be filled with fantasy, not just in the Gospel with his name but also in Acts. I don't have time today to detail for you all of his problems but I will give you a few if you'd like to discuss them.

1-One wonders where Luke came up with his first chapter. Interviews? John the baptist left a journal? Mary & Elizabeth talked to him? But wait, Luke wrote this in about 70 CE and these events were 9 months before the birth of Jesus. Being about 70 to 75 years earlier. Luke indicates Elizabeth was very old as was Zechariah so they were most likely dead by the time Luke wrote this as was John the baptist who was executed about 40 years before Luke wrote his story. So we immediately see that Luke did not have any 1st hand facts from the principals.

Next, what about Mary and Joe. Joe was supposedly not as young as Mary and he's not discussed after Jesus is about 12, so we can pretty much conclude he was dead as well, though Joe didn't 1st hand witness any of this any way. So that's leaves Mary, who was supposedly fairly young, so how about she was 14 when she got pregnant. The date of birth was from about 4 BCE to 0 depending. We'll use 0 CE. In 70 CE, she's be about 84 then. Though we have nothing after the death of Jesus to substantiate she lived that long. She may have had other children, though that goes against Catholic understanding. Though Jesus has brothers, so perhaps they were Joe's kids. Once Jesus left the center stage, there was nothing left for her, so she's out of the story. Funny that.

Luke 2 then proceeds to claim that Caesar sent out a decree that all should go to their home cities of their ancestors to be taxed. Though since Herod administered the province this did not happen while he was alive. The first mention of anything approaching a census and tax is in 6 CE by Cyrenius or Quirinius. Under Herod, Judea was a client kingdom and was not required to perform a census to determine taxes under Roman Law. During the census performed in 6 CE, Josephus discusses a revolt. SO Luke is wrong one way on the other. Either Herod was already dead and Jesus was born in 6 CE or Jesus was born prior to 4 BCE when Herod was alive and there was no census.

In Luke 2:39, we have a contradiction to Matthew 2:13 where they flee to Egypt. In Luke they go home to Nazareth.
Speaking of Nazareth, when did Jews start to build villages over their cemeteries?

Luke has other inconsistent rendering throughout his account all the way through, such as Pilate sends Jesus to Herod for entertainment. There are multiple angels in the tomb on Resurrection day, the women that go to the tomb are different then other accounts, Peter  runs to the tomb, and even the appearance to the 11 disciples at the end.

In Acts, Luke has consistency problem with Paul, especially in regards to when and why the Romans take Paul into protective custody or not in Jerusalem. Then there is the inconsistent story of how he converted or rather, saw the true way and what occurs then and after even with the writing of Paul.

So all in all, I'd not give Luke a lot of credit for accuracy. He did seem to know where Jerusalem and Judea were though. Far from being a great historian he errors and is inconsistent with the other Gospel stories as well. You wonder if he just took a fast trip through the area one time.

In the meanwhile, please list all of the 100 historians of the time period from 30 CE to 70, no make that 100 CE in your claim, I'll  give you 50 or so years past the writing of Paul to come up with some writers.

And if you could, please list the 500 witnesses, name, city, and date they witnessed these events in 28 - 33 CE, which also gives you an extra year or 2.

Do you understand what a synagogue was in the 1st century?

He went to the synagogues to learn and to teach for one.

We haven't established that Jesus created the idea of the Eucharist.

Why do pilots and soldiers do a ritual in memory of fallen comrades? Why do we celebrate the 4th of July in the US.

You don't like Thomas but you quote "The Didache". Interesting when you consider early Church father Eusebius considered it spurious along with the books, Acts of Paul, Shepherd, Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistles of Barnabas.


 

Everyone starts  this list with the Crusades and the Inquisition deserved but based earlier in the words of Church fathers that enabled them.
Both Ambrose and Augustine expressed or enabled the evil that the Church acts upon in later times.

"It appears that in 388 a mob, led by the local bishop and many monks, destroyed the synagogue at Callinicum. The emperor Theodosius the Great, who can scarcely be accused of lack of religious zeal, was nevertheless just enough to order the re-erection of the synagogue at the expense of the rioters, including the bishop. Ambrose immediately issued a fiery protest to the emperor. He writes to Theodosius ("Epistolæ," xl. xvi. 1101 et seq.) that "the glory of God" is concerned in this matter, and that therefore he can not be silent. Shall the bishop be compelled to re-erect a synagogue? Can he religiously do this thing? If he obey the emperor, he will become a traitor to his faith; if he disobey him, a martyr. What real wrong is there, after all, in destroying a synagogue, a "home of perfidy, a home of impiety," in which Christ is daily blasphemed? Indeed, he (Ambrose) must consider himself no less guilty than this poor bishop; at least to the extent that he made no concealment of his wish that all synagogues should be destroyed, that no such places of blasphemy be further allowed to exist." - from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1377&letter=A

Augustine took Ambrose's ideas even further - See - http://www.crusades-history.com/Augustine-of-Hippo.aspx

Augustine advocated the use of force and violence to return fallen members to the fold as well as justified war for the propagation of the faith. These ideas are used both in the Crusades and the Inquisition.Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1377&letter=A#ixzz149CCmqAY

I refer you to Augustine's' writing, The City of God, The Confessions, The Trinity, his view the human condition is a continual state of weakness & sin which will only be overcome with the end. This more than anything established the far different idea of original sin in opposition to the views of Judaism. Augustine's extremism is manifest in many of the fanatical Protestants, such as Luther & Calvin.

Then there is the con of the Donation of Constantine, an outright forged document.

There is a long list of Popes lacking virtues and scruples, such as these included for a variety of reasons. Some were extremely decadent, some were just plain evil, others used warfare to spread the message of the "lamb of God". Others sold out their fellow man. Some condemned freedom and democracy. Some sided with murderers.

The list is not inclusive.

John XII, Urban II,  Benedict IX, Innocent III, Boniface VIII,  Urban VI, Alexander VI, Leo X, Clement VII, Julius II aka Papa Terrible, the Warrior Pope, Pius IX,  Pius XII

And I know, its the office not the man. Don't you wish everyone could get away with that loophole?


 

My poor expression. (the priest forgives you) in regards to the forgiveness passed on to the alleged repentant by the priest. The supposed case is what you claim, an unproven assertion or theory. The only presence observed is the priest. Whether a god is actually behind it is the whole point is it not?
In the Church, if you make the attempt to make amends you have done your penance. As I pointed out it may not be possible to do this thus leaving "sins" that have not been fully made whole or forgiven. As I said, it may not be possible to make amends for the evil you di d, drunk driver that kills an innocent person for example. That you may serve time, stop the behavior (serving 5-20 years will stop it for awhile) is not going to replace the life that was taken. Even if the surviving members of the family forgive you, the dead person can't.
The offending person may become an upstanding individual in the years after such an incident. yet he got there on the blood and life of another.

I was using shortened descriptions, I know Pete was the rep, not the Church itself. This allows the rep to be immoral as in the mentioned popes above and keep the Church white as snow.

Whatever Paul has to say is derived interpretation and is slanted by his opinionated views that are in contrast to what is in the supposed words of Jesus. But you go ahead see what you want. Anyway, I did indicate Paul supported the idea the ministry had basis, and agreed it was in the future book of Matthew, which had yet to be written at the time of Paul.

 Part of what I do is satirical comparison. Granted not a perfect fit but then again I think Bill Maher is funny.



 Perhaps the memorial ceremony was not what Jesus had in mind. Your Didache does not seem to detail it specifically does it?


I realize you don't like my satire when I poke fun at some of the ideas. It does have a similarity in that both methods are in memory of someone that is gone. Beer mugs, or wine & a wafer, same thing on some levels.
 

All this is the dogma propagated by the Church for exclusivity and control. An effective technique I grant you.
 

I already knew that the sacraments of the Church weren't actually given out in an instruction book by Jesus nor did he detail them expressly. There is a lot if interpretation in that regard, which is nothing at all new to religious beliefs.

Sorry for not responding sooner, but I had two papers an two presentations to do. So I was working on them and the response and Christmas shopping for the last two weeks.

 

Pauljohntheskeptic said:
One of the good things about a discussion with a Catholic compared to an Evangelical is the hellfire & damnation comments are minimal. You are aware the Church considers me to be relapsed and compared to a heretic in other religions in a better position, though I'd have to come back. I appreciate your visits, quite refreshing compared to the Protestants & fanatical evangelicals. Of course we will get into it but at least you follow a prescribed theology that is clear & understandable, not that I buy it anymore.

John Paul II in his statements in regard to whether there was an actual Hell or not never specifically supported the view there is such a physical place. OTOH he never actually claimed there was a heavenly cloud place either. See some of his discussions on the Vatican website. His position was basically you were in Hell when you were out of the grace of God. Considering this, it's not so far off when you consider the KOG is within and clearly meant to encompass others as in "among you" statements in Luke as well as Thomas. see - http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm
Whether this helps you or not remains to be seen.


My response:
I’m not quite sure what you are trying to say in your first two paragraphs. The Catholic Church does teach that hell and heaven are real places, what they are like, where they are, and specific details about them are unknown. Hell, is a state of being without God, which is eternal. Heaven is being one with God, or the Beatific Vision. 

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

How we both see Jesus and who he may or may not have been are all very different things.

I consider Luke to be filled with fantasy, not just in the Gospel with his name but also in Acts. I don't have time today to detail for you all of his problems but I will give you a few if you'd like to discuss them.


1-One wonders where Luke came up with his first chapter. Interviews? John the baptist left a journal? Mary & Elizabeth talked to him? But wait, Luke wrote this in about 70 CE and these events were 9 months before the birth of Jesus. Being about 70 to 75 years earlier. Luke indicates Elizabeth was very old as was Zechariah so they were most likely dead by the time Luke wrote this as was John the baptist who was executed about 40 years before Luke wrote his story. So we immediately see that Luke did not have any 1st hand facts from the principals.


Next, what about Mary and Joe. Joe was supposedly not as young as Mary and he's not discussed after Jesus is about 12, so we can pretty much conclude he was dead as well, though Joe didn't 1st hand witness any of this any way. So that's leaves Mary, who was supposedly fairly young, so how about she was 14 when she got pregnant. The date of birth was from about 4 BCE to 0 depending. We'll use 0 CE. In 70 CE, she's be about 84 then. Though we have nothing after the death of Jesus to substantiate she lived that long. She may have had other children, though that goes against Catholic understanding. Though Jesus has brothers, so perhaps they were Joe's kids. Once Jesus left the center stage, there was nothing left for her, so she's out of the story. Funny that.


Luke 2 then proceeds to claim that Caesar sent out a decree that all should go to their home cities of their ancestors to be taxed. Though since Herod administered the province this did not happen while he was alive. The first mention of anything approaching a census and tax is in 6 CE by Cyrenius or Quirinius. Under Herod, Judea was a client kingdom and was not required to perform a census to determine taxes under Roman Law. During the census performed in 6 CE, Josephus discusses a revolt. SO Luke is wrong one way on the other. Either Herod was already dead and Jesus was born in 6 CE or Jesus was born prior to 4 BCE when Herod was alive and there was no census.


In Luke 2:39, we have a contradiction to Matthew 2:13 where they flee to Egypt. In Luke they go home to Nazareth.
Speaking of Nazareth, when did Jews start to build villages over their cemeteries?


Luke has other inconsistent rendering throughout his account all the way through, such as Pilate sends Jesus to Herod for entertainment. There are multiple angels in the tomb on Resurrection day, the women that go to the tomb are different then other accounts, Peter  runs to the tomb, and even the appearance to the 11 disciples at the end.


In Acts, Luke has consistency problem with Paul, especially in regards to when and why the Romans take Paul into protective custody or not in Jerusalem. Then there is the inconsistent story of how he converted or rather, saw the true way and what occurs then and after even with the writing of Paul.


So all in all, I'd not give Luke a lot of credit for accuracy. He did seem to know where Jerusalem and Judea were though. Far from being a great historian he errors and is inconsistent with the other Gospel stories as well. You wonder if he just took a fast trip through the area one time.

My Response:

I’m sorry that I steered the conversation away from the main topic’s purpose. The historic validity of the Bible is the topic for another discussion. I will respond to your comments here:


Onto Luke…

Archeology and Archeologists would beg to differ about your assessment of Luke’s Gospel account. Sir William Ramsay and E.M. Blaiklock for example agree and have shown through archeological evidence that Luke was an impeccable historian.

I’m not understanding your first comment about Luke’s first chapter. You seem to be implying that Luke could only have gotten his facts in 70AD. He may have written his gospel in 70 AD, but that doesn’t mean he only got information about Jesus, and John the Baptist at that time. He could have easily talked with Mary and Jesus about these events and gotten information from them. Some of the first chapter of Luke came from Mary the Mother of God. He was asking her questions about Jesus, and she explained to Luke about the Annunciation, shepherds, and the infancy. This is why it is in his Gospel. He also painted the Black Madonna of Częstochowa. So he did have first hand facts from a principal source. Also there is more evidence to suggest that Luke’s account was written sometime in 50-60 AD not in 70AD.

Again your assertions about Mary are off. Joseph probably died early on in Jesus’ life, but Mary we know lived through out Jesus’ life even after the Crucifixion. Any of the Gospel writers could have talked to her at anytime to get the information they wrote in their Gospels.

As for the census in Luke’s gospel here is a good explanation of this supposed contradiction:

http://books.google.com/books?id=jcTsxY_j8rkC&pg=PT452&lpg=PT452&dq=new+Ignatius+Study+Bible+NT+census&source=bl&ots=ePnzZxCx0d&si...

As for Luke 2:39 and Matthew 2:13 this is not a contradiction. Just because one historian mentions one event and the other does not does not mean a contradiction exists. Luke may not have seen it as important when writing his gospel, but Matthew did.

As for the other supposed inconsistencies here is a good article explaining that:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402bt.asp


You’ll have to elaborate more on the consistency problem Luke had in Acts with Paul.

Pauljohntheskeptic said:


In the meanwhile, please list all of the 100 historians of the time period from 30 CE to 70, no make that 100 CE in your claim, I'll  give you 50 or so years past the writing of Paul to come up with some writers.

And if you could, please list the 500 witnesses, name, city, and date they witnessed these events in 28 - 33 CE, which also gives you an extra year or 2.

Do you understand what a synagogue was in the 1st century?

He went to the synagogues to learn and to teach for one.

We haven't established that Jesus created the idea of the Eucharist.

Why do pilots and soldiers do a ritual in memory of fallen comrades? Why do we celebrate the 4th of July in the US.

You don't like Thomas but you quote "The Didache". Interesting when you consider early Church father Eusebius considered it spurious along with the books, Acts of Paul, Shepherd, Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistles of Barnabas.

My Response

As for the historical documentation of Jesus, I was using hyperbole when saying that a 100 historians wrote about Jesus, and the 500 witnesses to His resurrection. I should have made that clearly. I’m sorry. For extra-biblical evidence of Jesus’ existence there are the following sources:

1. The Talmud
2. Flavius Josephus
3. Tacitus
4. Pliny the Younger
5. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg 
6. http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Jesus_Christ#II._SOURCES
7. not a person but the 200 year history of the Church and Her martyrs.
8. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=6845&highlight=historical+Jesus

As for the witnesses to His resurrection you know I cannot give you each of their names, cities, or exact date. The disciples of Jesus saw His resurrected form and Ascension into heaven. Mary Magdalene, Mary the Mother of God, St. Paul, the two men on the road to Emmaus, and the two guards at the tomb also saw Jesus after the Resurrection.

As for Jesus and His attendance of synagogue/temple, I was using this to show that Jesus went to temple and worshipped God the Father; therefore, we should as well.

Jesus’ Bread of Life discourse, the command to honor and repeat the Last Supper does not show that Jesus established the Eucharist?

I quoted the Didache, because it shows that from the beginning of the Church, the Apostles of Christ, practiced the Eucharist, Holy Orders, and Confession. The Didache cites where in the Bible these traditions came from.

When you say, “Interesting when you consider early Church father Eusebius considered it spurious along with the books, Acts of Paul, Shepherd, Apocalypse of Peter, and the Epistles of Barnabas.” Are you speaking about Eusebius of Caesarea who thought it would “spurious” to include the Didache in the New Testament Cannon? If so what does that have to do with anything? The Didache was more of a manual about the Catholic faith, not an inspired book. It shows that the teachings of the Catholic church were apostolic in origin and came from Jesus.

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

Everyone starts this list with the Crusades and the Inquisition deserved but based earlier in the words of Church fathers that enabled them.

My Response:

The Church started the Crusades and the Inquisition, but they were not designed by the Church to be prolonged wars or torturous witch hunts. The original purpose of the Crusades was to take back the Holy Land and to save the Byzantine Empire. Pope Urban II started the first Crusade for these reasons and these reasons alone. The resulting Crusades were started to retake the Holy Land. Certain soldiers and governments took advantage of the armies that were in the Holy Land, and this led to certain problems. Pope Urban II was not a bad pope, and he was not a power hungry man who wanted to expand the Church’s power. This is historically inaccurate.

As for the Inquisition the Church started it as a way to find and excommunicate heretics, particularly albigensism. Then the governments saw an opportunity to take land and wealth and played along with the Church, mainly to destabilize the Church. Then a papal delegation was sent to Albgensia and were murdered by the Albigensian princes. Then the Kings of Europe, French in particular, ordered a slaughter of the albigensians, because they did not want a threat like that in their nation. The Spanish Inquisition was entirely run and started by the Spanish government, not the Church. The Catholic Church was very outspoken against this “Inquisition” and issued numerous orders to stop the torture and injustice of the Spanish Inquisition.  

I could go on and on and on about the historic inaccuracies of the Catholic Church’s role in the Crusades and the Inquisition, but I don’t have that much time with papers due and research to do. So, here is an excellent summary of the history of the Church’s involvement in the Crusades and the Inquisition:

http://www.theonetruefaith.tv/podcast/s2e12.mp3

I’ll stress again that this is a summary and a good starting point. You’ll need to do more research to see that the Church is not a power hungry monster. I know it’s Michael Voris, and you probably don’t like him, but he is giving a good and accurate history, like it or not.

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

Both Ambrose and Augustine expressed or enabled the evil that the Church acts upon in later times.

"It appears that in 388 a mob, led by the local bishop and many monks, destroyed the synagogue at Callinicum. The emperor Theodosius the Great, who can scarcely be accused of lack of religious zeal, was nevertheless just enough to order the re-erection of the synagogue at the expense of the rioters, including the bishop. Ambrose immediately issued a fiery protest to the emperor. He writes to Theodosius ("Epistolæ," xl. xvi. 1101 et seq.) that "the glory of God" is concerned in this matter, and that therefore he can not be silent. Shall the bishop be compelled to re-erect a synagogue? Can he religiously do this thing? If he obey the emperor, he will become a traitor to his faith; if he disobey him, a martyr. What real wrong is there, after all, in destroying a synagogue, a "home of perfidy, a home of impiety," in which Christ is daily blasphemed? Indeed, he (Ambrose) must consider himself no less guilty than this poor bishop; at least to the extent that he made no concealment of his wish that all synagogues should be destroyed, that no such places of blasphemy be further allowed to exist." - from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1377&letter=A



Augustine took Ambrose's ideas even further - See - http://www.crusades-history.com/Augustine-of-Hippo.aspx



Augustine advocated the use of force and violence to return fallen members to the fold as well as justified war for the propagation of the faith. These ideas are used both in the Crusades and the Inquisition.Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1377&letter=A#ixzz149CCmqAY


I refer you to Augustine's' writing, The City of God, The Confessions, The Trinity, his view the human condition is a continual state of weakness & sin which will only be overcome with the end. This more than anything established the far different idea of original sin in opposition to the views of Judaism. Augustine's extremism is manifest in many of the fanatical Protestants, such as Luther & Calvin.

My Response:

The writings of Ambrose and Augustine that you listed, how and what evil do they enable the church to do later? Are you talking about the Crusades, anti-Semitism, Inquisition, etc?  Of course the Church didn’t do any evil things, but for argument’s sake.

In your first paragraph you quote from http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1377&letter=A Ambrose was speaking about a synagogue burning that was instigated as a response to jews attacking and sacking Catholic churches. The military Count of the East blamed the burning on a bishop’s supposed, no proof for it, instigation. Theodosius wanted the bishop to pay for the rebuilding, but Ambrose argued that because the Jews were not forced to rebuild Catholic churches, why should a Bishop who may or may not have instigated the burning have to pay to rebuild a synagogue. This is about fair justice. The particular site that quotes from Ambrose letter to Theodosius is very poorly done.

The second link in reference to Augustine was the same as the Ambrose link. How is this, http://www.crusades-history.com/Augustine-of-Hippo.aspx, taking Ambrose writings “further”? Augustine is describing a historical event, the scattering of the Jews, as prophesied by Jesus/God. As for Augustine “advocating” violence to return lost members to the Church I’m guessing you are referring to his writings about the Donatists? The particular part being quoted in the link above refers to compelling, by punishment such as a mother/father would inflicted on a son/daughter who disobeys them. It is preferred that the lost “sheep” be returned without being compelled by force, but that does not mean it should not be considered as a last resort. Before this statement he provides and example through the Apostle Paul’s experience. I know Augustine developed the idea of just war which the Church still uses, but when did he promote war to convert others to the faith? As for Augustine’s writings about man being in a constant state of sin and weakness to temptation is true this is biblically true. 


Pauljohntheskeptic said:

Then there is the con of the Donation of Constantine, an outright forged document.

My Response:
 
The Donation of Constantine was a fraud, but it was not known to be a fraud until the fifteenth century. Until then there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. Its authenticity was not denied outside the church either. The popes’ adversaries only argued that the interpretation of the document was incorrect. There was some use of it by canonists, and by Popes Urban II, Innocent III, Gregory IX, and Innocent IV (none of them new it was a forgery). None of the writings from these Popes solely relied on the Donation of Constantine as evidence for a particular claim. More specific points about this can help me formulate a better answer for you.

Pauljohntheskeptic said

There is a long list of Popes lacking virtues and scruples, such as these included for a variety of reasons. Some were extremely decadent, some were just plain evil, others used warfare to spread the message of the "lamb of God". Others sold out their fellow man. Some condemned freedom and democracy. Some sided with murderers.

The list is not inclusive.

John XII, Urban II,  Benedict IX, Innocent III, Boniface VIII,  Urban VI, Alexander VI, Leo X, Clement VII, Julius II aka Papa Terrible, the Warrior Pope, Pius IX,  Pius XII

And I know, its the office not the man. Don't you wish everyone could get away with that loophole?

My Response

The bad popes argument, well this is actually good evidence for the incorruptibility of the Church. While some the popes listed above, John XII, Benedict IX, and Leo X did bad things personally and professionally, not one of them changed the Church’s teachings, doctrine, or dogma to fit their immoral lives. Some of the popes in the list are not bad at all and were good. You’ll have to be more specific with your list of “bad popes” and what they did wrong. Aside from the Crusades, which were started for just and good reasons, what did Urban II do wrong? What about Innocent III, what did he do wrong? Was it because he was Pope at the height of the Church’s “power” in Europe? What about Boniface VIII, was he bad for wanting to arrest Celestine V? Urban VI why was he bad? Alexander VI was bad why? He wasn’t a stellar pope, but again he never changed the teachings of the church to suit his desires. Clement VII was not a horrible man morally. He was a scholar and diplomat first then a spiritual leader. Again he was not a stellar pope, but his intentions were good, and he did not actively seek out and do evil things. Julius II was bad why, because he fought to free Italy from France’s rule? Again, he was a morally upright man. Pius IX was a good Pope as well. What in particular did he do wrong? Finally Pius XII was bad because? He was a great pope and helped hundreds of thousands of Jews. I’ve heard numerous complaints lodged against Pius XII and the other popes, but there are so many further specification is needed.

The office not the man thing. It’s not a loophole it has been demonstrated to be true in every case of a bad pope. Again the bad popes did not change the Church’s teachings on premarital sex, affairs, etc to fit their lifestyles.

Pauljohntheskeptic said

My poor expression. (the priest forgives you) in regards to the forgiveness passed on to the alleged repentant by the priest. The supposed case is what you claim, an unproven assertion or theory. The only presence observed is the priest. Whether a god is actually behind it is the whole point is it not?
In the Church, if you make the attempt to make amends you have done your penance. As I pointed out it may not be possible to do this thus leaving "sins" that have not been fully made whole or forgiven. As I said, it may not be possible to make amends for the evil you di d, drunk driver that kills an innocent person for example. That you may serve time, stop the behavior (serving 5-20 years will stop it for awhile) is not going to replace the life that was taken. Even if the surviving members of the family forgive you, the dead person can't.
The offending person may become an upstanding individual in the years after such an incident. yet he got there on the blood and life of another.

My Response

I’m not sure what you are asking when you said, “The supposed case is what you claim, an unproven assertion or theory. The only presence observed is the priest. Whether a god is actually behind it is the whole point is it not?” Are you asking for scientific evidence that God is present during the sacrament of Confession and that He forgives you through the priest? If so I can’t prove that to you scientifically. It is a matter of faith, not a scientific issue. The purpose of the thread is to explain the Catholic faith and it’s teachings and correct misunderstandings.

Again in the Catholic faith you must make an earnest, contrite attempt to make amends, then you are absolved. If you just sorta kinda try then there is no absolution.

You are correct that one cannot bring dead people back to life or take back extramarital affairs; however, this does not impair your ability to make amends. Making amends can take many different forms, not just directly replacing or taking back something. In your example of the drunk driver making amends may involve turning yourself in, accepting and suffering the consequences of your actions, and then trying to earnestly change your ways, and doing what is possible to help the family/people you wronged. This may involve many things. Just because a person cannot bring back the dead, directly repay stolen money, or take back actions does not mean amends cannot be made. If a child yells at his/her parents he/she cannot take it back, but he/she can make amends by accepting the punishment, being penitent and contrite, and trying not to repeat the action(s) again.
  
Again, further reading about the Sacrament of Confession is needed to help you better understand it.

Pauljohntheskeptic said

I was using shortened descriptions, I know Pete was the rep, not the Church itself. This allows the rep to be immoral as in the mentioned popes above and keep the Church white as snow.

Whatever Paul has to say is derived interpretation and is slanted by his opinionated views that are in contrast to what is in the supposed words of Jesus. But you go ahead see what you want. Anyway, I did indicate Paul supported the idea the ministry had basis, and agreed it was in the future book of Matthew, which had yet to be written at the time of Paul.

My Response

The protection of the Church through the Holy Spirit does not allow the pope to be immoral. It simply protects the Church’s teachings and doctrine from being changed to suit the pope’s immoral acts. Which again has been historically proven.

So where does Paul disagree with Jesus’ teachings? They are perfectly in line. Also why can you use Paul to support your ideas, but not me? You seem to use Paul as proof for the uselessness of priests and church, but if I use Paul to support Church teaching he is a slanted, untrustworthy, and unreliable source. I also would like to add that I am not seeing what I want, but what Paul wrote.


Pauljohntheskeptic said

Part of what I do is satirical comparison. Granted not a perfect fit but then again I think Bill Maher is funny.
 
My Response

No offense, but when you make these imperfect satirical comparisons with no context, emoticons or explanation I assume that your understanding is poor, and that further explanation is needed. 

Pauljohntheskeptic said

Perhaps the memorial ceremony was not what Jesus had in mind. Your Didache does not seem to detail it specifically does it?

My Response

Jesus commanded His disciples to eat His body and drink His blood. He laid out the Eucharist at the Last Supper. You’re right it is not completely detailed in the Didache, but is detailed by the Bible (Last Supper), later writings, and later Church councils. The idea and overall description of the Eucharist, the consecration of bread and wine into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ is stated.

Pauljohntheskeptic said

I realize you don't like my satire when I poke fun at some of the ideas. It does have a similarity in that both methods are in memory of someone that is gone. Beer mugs, or wine & a wafer, same thing on some levels.

My Response

Again, I can’t tell without context if you are being funny or serious. Also the Eucharist is not just a memorial, but a full participation in the Last Supper in which the bread and wine is transformed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.  Toasting to a friend may have vague similarities with the Eucharist it does not make it the same thing.

Did you listen to any of the Michael Voris shows?

Pauljohntheskeptic said

All this is the dogma propagated by the Church for exclusivity and control. An effective technique I grant you.

My Response

I don’t know what this means? How is the creation of Holy Orders by Jesus/God a way of giving the Church exclusivity and control? The Church cannot force people to believe in anything. Is this just another satirical statement?

Pauljohntheskeptic said

I already knew that the sacraments of the Church weren't actually given out in an instruction book by Jesus nor did he detail them expressly. There is a lot if interpretation in that regard, which is nothing at all new to religious beliefs.

 My Response

How can there be “a lot of interpretation” when the sacraments are described and commanded to be done by God/Jesus. They are elaborated upon, but there is not a lot of interpretation. 
 

 

Okay, a lot of misunderstanding here.

Well first off the Eucharist. Your combining the metaphysical aspects of Communion, body, blood, soul, and divinity with the physical aspects, bread and wine. My Jesus is not poop either. I suggest you read the Catechism and talk to a Catholic priest about the Eucharist.

 

Supererogation, what don't you like about that? It is simply a way to do more than what is required of you by God. Such as celibacy.

I don't know what you mean about "I see dead people" referring to dead people and the saints. Are you talking about purgatory and the Communion of Saints? I'll need more information to better explain the Church's teachings.

How does the biblical Mary differ from the Catholic Mary? They are the same. The Protestant faiths have changed Mary from the Biblical version, not Catholics.

Indulgences, okay, do you not like indulgences at all, or do you just have a problem with the fact that some people abused the practice of indulgences? Indulgences themselves are a blessing from God, and have been used for good except on rare occasions. What exactly is about the Persona Chrisiti is wrong?

Rome did not deny the Councils of Orange; however, there were some unauthentic teachings added by Graitian, that the Church denied.

Again you'll have to me more specific about the "acceptance into the freedom of the will vs. the bondage of the will." Are you talking about the Church's belief in free will?

Pope John Paul II did not worship with Voodoo priests. What about JPII kissing the Koran? It was simply a sign of respect.

John 6 was referring to eating the physical body and blood of Jesus Christ. Again check out the Catechism for more info.

Since our discussions have many different issues I separated them into several posts to reduce the length of my responses to a manageable level on each. We see things far differently in our perspectives. You are being an aggressive defender of Catholic beliefs in your position, and I’m attacking your stand as a heretic non-believing atheist. I do not separate the responsibilities and liabilities of the Church as you do, I place liability and responsibility on the Church as a whole for the actions of its leaders. It’s as if the Germans in NAZI Germany or the nation bore no responsibility for the action of Hitler as a comparison. Popes that led the Church in actions of violence, decadence and repression are responsible and much like the German nation so is the Church. You seem to try to vindicate the Church for what was done in its name by the Popes and its leaders blaming them and placing no blame on the Church overall if you even recognize what the pope in question has done that is wrong.

No problem, everyone has a life to lead.

You’ve read Dante it would seem, though you still aren’t making claims as a Protestant does where they make specific claims in regard to punishments.
John Paul 2 was clear about this just as was Thomas Aquinas – see this again which I mentioned before http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm

“Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him.”

And further “"Incorporeal things are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us." [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Supplement, Q69, a1, reply 1]”

So no the Church does not teach they are actual physical places at all.

Exactly what Heaven or Hell is supposed to be when it is outside our time-space dimension is inadequately described and understood. As I promised to not smart off, that’s as far as I will go.

My point in regard to John the Baptist was all those who knew of the event 1st hand as principals were dead. Mary, did not witness what her cousin Elizabeth did nor did she observe the events with Zechariah. Even if Mary lived long enough to discuss the events of her cousin, she was 2nd hand information. It is conjecture to consider Mary had a discussion with the unknown writer of Luke and Acts and is an assertion and an assumption on your part. They call this type of information hearsay. As Luke was not mentioned as being a Jesus follower during the time span when Jesus supposedly taught all of the content in his book called Luke is based on 2nd or 3rd hand information.

That is the point Cliff; Luke did not see any of the miracles attributed to Jesus or witness his resurrection on the 3rd day. If Luke was one of the followers credibility is established by saying either at the beginning of the book or the end that I Luke witnessed all that occurred in this account. He did not make such a claim. Therefore by definition all the content is hearsay.

As Joseph is not discussed in any of the Gospels after Jesus is 12, we can both agree he was dead before the events leading up to Jesus’ execution. As to Mary, what do you mean my assertions are off? Are there any biographies that mention what she did or did not do? I know of none. Do you have in mind some material or works that substantiate when she died and any discussions she had with anyone?

Any of the Gospel writers who we don’t even know who they actually were could have talked to her or she could have been dead any time within a few years of the execution. The silence of the time doesn’t support she talked to the writers and does not support she did not. That the Gospels don’t appear for 40 to 70 years later after the execution is what we know. As time passes, content is not as accurate as it would be if written during the time period. If a guy named Luke talked to Mary in 30 CE and wrote it in 70 CE, as he wrote he may have had additional questions to ask. But since by then she was dead, he’d have only what he got originally and couldn’t clarify. And if Luke did talk to her, and used her as a source, it would be beneficial to the acceptance of his work to credit her as a source of the information. He did no such thing nor did any of the other writers.

As you write, you realize you need some additional information you didn’t think about as you originally planned your work and outline. If the sources are dead, you have to go with what you had. It is inaccurate to assume as you do that Mary was a source for any of the Gospel accounts without proof of such. You can only claim that which there is basis or proof and there is none for this position.

Cliff, you quote me a study Bible as your evidence?

I refer you to infidels.org here - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/luke_and_quirinius.html

The major point being as I said, while Herod ruled Judea it was a client kingdom and as such Herod paid Rome tribute and no general taxation by Rome was in place.

Also from Infidels.org – “It is Roman practice to assess taxes province by province. These undocumented papyri give the practice for Egypt. Egypt, at the time of the incorporation into the Roman world, was made an imperial province, whose revenue went to the Emperors, and not to the Senate. Any practices in Egypt would not apply elsewhere.

Taxes were collected on a province-by-province basis, either by a local tax collection franchise (the publicans), or by tribute (e.g., during Herod's kingdom). There would be no Roman-administered census in areas controlled directly by Herod or his family, as was the case in both Judaea and Galilee during the years around the birth of Jesus.

There is absolutely no support to Luke's implication of worldwide census or an empire-wide tax. In fact, it is quite contrary to well-documented practice.
(T1) J.P.V.D. Balsdon. _Rome: The Story of an Empire_. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.”

Do you see the differences here? Egypt was an Imperial Province of Rome while Judea was a client kingdom during Herod’s reign. It is well established how they were handled differently.

See also - http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/lukecaesaraugustusquirinius.html
See Josephus Antiquities of the Jews XX.

Calling Luke and Matthew historians is a bit of a stretch for me to accept.  My view of the 4 Gospels is they were a reflection or documentation of various legends in regard to Jesus or prophets of similar purpose. Whether it was just a single man named Yahshua bar Joseph or is a composite is not clear. The 4 Gospels have many differences of substance beyond the perspective of the writer. In the 1st place 2 of the writers can immediately be dismissed as witnesses to 1st hand experiences, Luke and Mark. Neither one was a follower or a disciple. Neither witnessed the events in their books. John and Matthew both are dated to late 1st century casting doubts or either of them actually being one of the 12 mentioned as Disciples as well. As their books are not signed and credit is not given all we have is the tradition it was a disciple that wrote the books.

Further when you compare in detail the stories contained in the 4 accounts it would seem that when oral legends were documented various versions abounded. Such is the case with the feeding of the 5,000 or 4,000 which were likely only 1 event but mentioned 2 times due to various legends. The events before and after the feeding of the 5,000 also have very different stories and perspectives not to mention destinations after.  All of this is a discussion for another thread and time. I will eventually start a thread on the subject of the NT to discuss all of this, but not right now.

The problem between Matthew and Luke is not that one mentions an event the other does not but that what each mentions precludes the other event.  They went to Egypt in flight or they went home to Nazareth.  I don’t see how you can simply whisk this away so easily. The text in both is very clear as to what each one claimed. In Luke they have all the time in the world, go to the Temple, Jesus is circumcised and various people encounter him. And afterwards they go home to Nazareth.  In Matthew the family flees to Egypt without a mention of this and stays there for quite some time. The 2 stories are not compatible at all.

I really don’t have a problem in how the 4 Gospels are written, sometimes as a story and at other times a type of documentary. That is not where my issues lay with the inconsistent and at time very different stories. My problem lies with that they appear to be legends that are documented. Much of the events in regard to Jesus could not be specifically known to the writer, as the nearest observers as in the Garden story of the Passion were asleep.  Since I don’t consider an executed person named Jesus to have been brought back to life as a possibility, there would be no way for what occurred to be communicated. This is just one such example, don’t get all hung up on defending just it with something like, Jesus told everything that happened to his disciples after he was resurrected. I already said I don’t buy that as a possibility.

Next, we have various differences of substance such as the centurion’s servant. Either he went to see Jesus or he sent elders of the Jews. I have heard various excuses attempting to show that they are the same just expressed differently. The return from the feeding of the 5000 has different destinations, including an instantaneous transit in one case. Even the story of the feeding is very different, specifically after when the crowds are sent away. Who sent them away? Did Jesus fear as in one case they were going to make him king? In other versions, he’s the one that sends away the crowd. The entire Passion week story has multiple choice accounts that have substantial differences that most believers whisk away. All of this is truly food for an entire discussion in another thread. I consider these stories to be like any other legend or story which changed as various people told it. Maybe somewhere in these stories there was basis, but what, how can anyone know what part was gossip and storytelling and what had some reality?

IMO, the 3 accounts of Paul’s conversion differ substantially. They all saw the light or not. They all heard the voice or not. Paul went blind or not. Ananias has a dream about Paul or not. Many ways this was told, not the same in any of them by the same writer. As to who was after Paul in Damascus is different in Paul’s writing than in Acts. Paul said it was Aretas soldiers who wanted to apprehend him but Acts claims the Jews wanted to kill him. Same story told 2 ways.  In Acts after Paul is arrested after doing the purification ceremony requested by James he is taken to the Roman garrison and held. The account discusses at first torturing Paul but a few verses later we learn that Paul was picked up because the Commander knew Paul to be Roman and saved him from the mob. Luke or the writer does a very poor job of consistency in this entire adventure. Not to mention he has Paul giving a speech to the mob that wants to kill him on the steps of the Roman garrison, not very likely. Perhaps Luke inserted text to make the story more interesting and that is the problem, though he should have used outlines to keep himself on track. Then there’s the story of Stephen, told much like the trial of Jesus, possibly it is the same story.  In the end the ceremonious Sanhedrin Council becomes a mob and hauls him out to kill him.

I was being kind not to elaborate on all the evils of the Church. I’m very aware of all the details as I wrote a rather long paper, over 150 pages on the subject when I went to grad school.

Let’s start with the 1st Crusade. The Emperor Alexius I,  the real one in Constantinople called the Byzantine Emperor  commonly,  asked for help from the pope and expected maybe 200 knights. What he got horrified him and just about everyone else in between Europe and Constantinople.

The pope preached a crusade to save the Holy Land, far and above what was asked by Alexius. He preached it as a war of liberation that they would be fighting for God or would be Christ’s soldiers.  This is not what Alexius sought at all. The pope became so enthused with saving God’s city he went throughout Europe calling on people to take the cross and fight for Jesus. What happened was an out of control response that resulted in many thousands  of deaths in Europe and in Palestine. So I blame Urban for the Crusades and his call to be Christ’s soldiers. All of the dead of the Children’s Crusade,  the People’s Crusade, the murdered Jews in Germany, and those killed on the way in East Europe are on him. I consider him evil because no one in Europe had any right to Palestine at all. The Arabs had taken it from the Eastern Empire not from papal Europe. The Jews in Palestine actually were better off under Islamic rule than under Byzantine rule and had joined in pushing out the Empire. The Jews had not asked for help and it was supposedly their land if you  remember.

But, you can try to whisk away the crimes of Urban if you like, as far as I’m concerned he was as evil as Hitler. You seem to know of the history but you see it far different and somehow justify all that occurred  in the same way as the 1st Crusaders did when they heard God’s messenger tell them to fight for Jesus. And boy did they, killing damn near everyone in Jerusalem, Antioch and Ma’arrat al Numan, where they even ate the dead,  boiling babies in pots. Those they killed were not just Muslims but were Orthodox Christians and Jews as well, so even believing in Jesus saved no one.

I’m certainly not saying Urban was power hungry, what I’m saying is he is responsible for thousands and thousands of dead caused by his call to fight for Jesus. His actions have left scars that even today cause issues with the Islamic world. They remember  Ma’arrat al Numan even if you don’t. And no I’m not Arabic, I’m a German descendent  that grew up in the American South West.

We could also discuss the 4th Crusade and how it was redirected against the Byzantine Christians after being called by pope not so Innocent III, another evil man that is considered so highly in the Church. He also called crusades against heretics, Muslims, pagans in the Baltic and renegade Catholics. He may not have used the sword to kill, but he again like Urban has the blood of countless thousands on his hands. No, Innocent did not specifically order the Crusaders to invade and overthrow the Greek Orthodox Church and the Byzantine Empire, he was appalled at it. Did he order them to return all and give restitution?  And how do you restore those they murdered anyway. He authorized the Crusade to invade Egypt and the Crusaders instead went after their fellow Christians. What did Innocent III do to correct the evil he began?

I clearly don’t agree with the Church calling crusades on the Cathars, making it a war for Jesus to kill and gain power for those who participated. I disagree that the Church ever had a moral basis for participating based on Jesus’ reported actions in the Gospels. Here Jesus told his followers to knock the dust off their feet if the people would not receive them. He told them to turn the other cheek. The Church’s involvement is most certainly not following the Jesus in the Gospels, and if you think it is, please show me how they had the right to crusade against pagans or anyone that did not follow the prescribed beliefs of Rome. It’s not at all what Jesus is shown to teach. The Crusades in the Holy Land were escapades beyond the Church’s role as defined in the Gospels and by the alleged words of Jesus. Turn the other cheek indeed, not so the Church. This deserves a thread of its own.

As to the Inquisition, the Church started it, the Church appointed the Inquisitors, the Church pronounced judgments upon the accused, they judged them, then stood by as the people were executed. If all the Church wanted was to excommunicate heretics that was easily done. That they took it further than informing the accused you are out of the church unless you repent and change your ways is where problems begin for the Church and how they have the blood of thousands upon them and the liability for its instigation in the 1st place. Yes the Inquisition was used for gains by various governments and princes including the “prince of Rome”. Like you, I can go on and on about the Church’s involvement in torture, murder and confiscation of property. This  subject deserves a thread of its own.

So you acknowledge it was forged and used to manipulate the Emperors in the East and then the monarchies in the West. It was more intervention by the Church into the affairs of the state, somehow not supported by Jesus as written in the Gospels.

John XII- Since you know of his corruptions I won’t bother going into much detail. He turned the Lateran into a brothel and was more like Caligula than St Peter. He had armed gangs rob the pilgrims and they raped them even in St Peter’s.

 Urban II- I have gone into great detail above in what I think of Urban II, he’s the responsible party for murder and mayhem. The Crusades were not justified at all, no one in Europe had a right to invade. The Emperor Alexius I had a right to try, but it had been over 400 years since the Muslims took it from the Byzantine Empire. Alexius also had right to all of Europe as it had been part of the Empire. Murder and violence to take back dirt and cities in the name of Jesus sponsored by the Church and called by Urban II. He should have been executed for war crimes. Today he would be tried and convicted of just that.

Benedict IX- 14 years old when he became pope he used it to his own ends, sex, power and riches. In the end he sold the office which eventually results in 3 men claiming to be pope at once.

Innocent III- His greatest crime was the calling of the 4th Crusade which besieged and overpowered Christian Constantinople, all for loot and booty. The crimes committed there are on him just as with Urban II, he should have been executed for war crimes. He did not intend this to happen, and lambasted the Crusaders for their actions, so perhaps he just deserved life in prison in isolation. He did however launch Crusades in Spain against Muslims, against renegade Catholics and pagans as well. S no, I don’t see him as good at all. Religious persecution is a crime against mankind, he had no right to force the Church’s beliefs on anyone. As before, Jesus told his disciples to knock the dust off their feet as the left a town that wouldn’t receive their message. This is not  the policy followed by Innocent III.

Boniface VIII – Benedict Gaetani  forced through manipulation the abdication of Celestine V then became pope. After he hunts him down and has him imprisoned, though Celestine may have been grateful for the solitude. He dies 10 months later. Boniface is heavily involved in other deceit and manipulation, for his family the Gaetani one of several warring groups that manipulate the Church for their own gain. In 1297, war between the Church, Boniface and his family’s enemies, the Colonna began. They were excommunicated leaving them and their property open to anyone. Later it’s increased to a Crusade against the Colonna. By the Summer of 1298 all but one of the Colonna cities had been taken by the Crusaders. In the end, Boniface has Palestrina destroyed.

 Urban VI – Bartolomeo Pignano – involved in the Great Schism. He eventually ordered the death of several cardinals who opposed him. He raised an army to seize Naples for one of his nephews.
See - http://www.nndb.com/people/285/000095000/

Alexander VI – Alexander Borgia, do I need to say any more than that? I guess so since you don’t see what he did was in contrast to the church’s high ideals. I could tell you to just watch the upcoming series the Borgias on Showtime next year and so you get the idea.
First off he bought the votes that elected him pope.  Alexander had at least 7 illegitimate children if not 10. He used his daughter  Lucrezia to make deals with others through marriage. Several times. Alexander was manipulative involved in intrigue for power and money for his family. Well at least he was loyal to them. His most upstanding virtue was greed though he did act a patron for the arts and instigated much  Alexander parceled out the spoils of Naples between France and Spain for political gain as well. Another good thing he did was to welcome the Jewish refugees to Rome and allow them to lead their lives free from Christian oppression.

His son Cesare was involved in many of the intrigues and was likely poisoned along with his father, though he recovered.

 I refer you to Niccolo Machivelli  book The Prince, written about Cesare Borgia - http://www.wsu.edu/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/machiavelli.html
See also ER Chambelain “The Bad Popes” pp 160-205

 Leo X – Giovanni de Medici another of the great families of Italy. His primary interest was of course his family and wealth. As with others during this period he was a major patron of the arts. As with other popes he was engaged in warfare, though it was for family gain such as deposing the Duke of Urbino  della Rovere. As the feudal lord yes he had that right and he made his nephew Lorenzo the duke. The duke Francesco della Rovere however did not go quietly and the pope called on help of the French. The pope excommunicated him and did not lift it even after he was  driven out.  The pope even violated safe conduct for an envoy from della Rovere, torturing him in Rome to get information. All of these wars cost money and the pope had methods to raise it, though it also raised Luther as well.

Clement VII – Giulio de Medici – The main problem with him was his indecisiveness, his ineptness, and political involvements. pope when Henry 8th wanted a divorce. He couldn’t make up his mind and waffled on his decision back and forth. Made ill advised treaties with France. Then with Spain. Then he is involved in the war of liberation for Italy. Then the Colonna family attack Rome. Then back to his Italian liberation war. Rome is sacked by Spanish Catholics & Lutheran Germans.
See - http://www.nndb.com/people/202/000094917/

Julius II aka Papa Terrible, the Warrior Pope – In that Jesus said to turn the other cheek I really shouldn’t need to explain what was wrong  with this pope. That he personally dispatched persons from this world with a sword is all I need to consider him evil. He fought to regain and increase the Papal States which is clearly a worldly possession and not in line with leave everything and follow me attributed to Jesus.  Even he was not exempt from putting family in power as discussed in regard to the Duke of Urbino and 4 family members made into cardinals. Julius was one of the first cracks in my beliefs as a Catholic while I was in college. I never could understand or justify the warfare he began. He was influential and a major patron of the arts.

There are many sources you can utilize in regard to his actions, see these as a start  -
http://www.nndb.com/people/520/000097229/
http://www.wga.hu/database/glossary/popes/julius2.html

Pius IX – His anti-American attitude was really all I needed to label him evil. I realize God as envisioned in scripture is an autocratic dictator, so why would I expect a representative to be any different. He is listed as one of the 25 most evil people of the 19th century. See here - http://one-evil.org/people/people_19c_Pius_IX.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_IX_and_the_United_States
http://www.theologytable.com/Hist%20Chap%2025.pdf
On the 80 errors - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

One of the crimes is related to the seizure of a Jewish Child by the Papal police and did not allow his return to the parents.
He supported the South and dissension which contributed to the Civil War as well as prolonged it.

Pius XII – Eugenio Pacelli
As Cardinal Pacelli and the Secretary of State of the Vatican he concluded the Concordant with NAZI Germany whereby the Church stood by and made no complaints of the actions of Hitler to insure that Catholic Church would be left alone. It is the 1st treaty Hitler made with another country and this gave legitimacy to the NAZIS and sold out the Jews as well. Pacelli made the excuse he had a gun to his head and Hitler would violate the concordat anyway. Regardless, it insured that the RCC would be quieted in regards to actions in Germany.

On his relationship and handling of the Jews - http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/pius.html

NAZI corroborator or not –

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2017
http://www.st-louis.org/pdf/pius.pdf

In the end, he remains for me either an evil pope or inept at understanding of the damage that was caused by his actions and non-actions.

 

OK, the Church teaches the priest is acting for God, when 2 or 3 of you are gathered in my name in other words. In that whatever is done on Earth so should it be in Heaven. And yes I was asking how you know there is a God present at all and it’s not just an unwarranted assertion. And yes you explained adequately it’s faith that there is and as with most else in religious beliefs it can not be proven. And no I don't believe any of that is real.

If you’d like to restrict your responses and discussion to the subset of “to explain the Catholic faith and it’s teachings and correct misunderstandings” you can, it’s your thread and I will respect your wishes but I doubt everyone will.

I know what is in the Sacrament of Confession, I was arguing that it’s inadequate and can’t actually make whole those who have been wronged by others. Jews have the same problem  when they sin against others. It’s difficult or impossible to make whole either a victim or their family when you kill someone driving drunk. The Jews have antiquated scripture that attempts to do so, poorly in most cases. The RCC has no way other than as you have described. The victim who is killed can not be returned nor can he be replaced in the family. The person who turns himself in and gets 20 years for DUI manslaughter even if repentant still can’t fix what he has done. My point is the perpetrator can be forgiven by God through the priest but amends are not made that will satisfy the victim at all.

In my comments regarding the popes, Augustine, Ambrose, the Crusades, and the Inquisition I made clear that the Church as the entity is responsible for the actions of its leaders. That you don’t agree is your prerogative. It however does not vindicate the Church from its liabilities and responsibilities for their actions which has been shown repeatedly in court cases. Church sponsored terror through their leaders’ leaves blood on the Church’s hands in the same way it did for the German nation.

You can start with these links to see for yourself the differences-
http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html
http://www.sonofman.org/paul1.htm
http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html
I consider Paul to be a deceiver and a myth maker. See the Mythmaker by Maccoby

I have tried to not be satirical in my posts at all as I promised  in my first response to you in this series and will only post to you in a serious manner from here on.

I assure you, it’s not poor understanding in my case but rejection of the entire belief, from Yahweh of the Jews to the morphing of Judaism into Christianity I consider it all to be faulty and based in ancient legends and mythology. The morphed entity of Christianity from Judaism is without an adequate basis or proof as evidenced by the inadequate acceptance of Jesus as the mashiach and his complete failure to meet the prophecies of the originators of the beliefs in Yahweh, the Jews. Jews created the beliefs and their understanding must be shown faulty in meticulous detail where their errors occurred, not just they didn’t understand their own prophecies for 700 years or more before Jesus.

The claim you made earlier was the Didache reflected Apostolic beginnings. Since it is very sparse in its details it may not be so, or indicates something else.

The above was an analogy, for example, here’s to Joe, a good soldier who gave his life for his friends. I understand it doesn’t come near the mystic and spiritual meaning that you consider to be in the sacrament. I have tried not to be satiric at all in my responses after you said you can't understand my context.

No, I have to work to make a living and have not had time. I will when I get a chance.

 

It’s like Apple and Aps control as an analogy or Apple and Itunes. The Church holds the keys and can and has forced people to do its will. The Church considers itself the only “true Church of God”, that’s a lot of control. Today the Church can’t force belief, but they have tried in the past and still try today with rulings on what is acceptable as a Catholic and what is not. Unmarried Catholic couples do live together today, the Church doesn’t know, in the past that would have brought down retribution.  So the Church has created a generation of hypocrites by their repressive stands on many issues including, gays, gay marriage, and birth control to mention a few. I realize the Church can be considered similar to a club or organization, if you don’t follow the rules you can be restricted in what you can do or even expelled from it. Considered in such a way, the Church has the right to create and enforce these rules to all that want membership in it. The problem is many people take this seriously and it causes extreme issues in their lives unlike a book club where you can just join another. Yes, you can join a Christian Church that is not Catholic as an alternative, but many don’t and live a life of deception instead. These people accept that the Church is the “true Church” and hence are unwilling to join another though they consider the pronouncements of the Church to be in error, thus they are hypocrites.

Part of the differences we have is how we look at the Church. I consider the Pope to be just as responsible for the actions of the Church as a CEO. When the Pope or CEO directs actions that use the Church to propagate specific actions that are repressive, self-serving, blackmail, convoluted, anti-democratic, egotistical, or manipulative I consider it to be evil.

We clearly see this very differently. If the “sacraments” are not given in scripture by either the God or Jesus than it’s interpreted. Since I consider scripture to be the writing of men and not inspired in any way there is really no point in arguing over this.
 

Claiming any text to be the 'word of God' is an interpretation, there is absolutely no way to prove such a claim.

Even if you saw them spontaneously appear on the page, and even if you could find no 'natural' way such could happen, it still would not prove it was 'God'. It could be any other claimed deity, or a demon, or Satan, or some unknown 'supernatural' entity. It could even be just a clever mortal who had devised some new technique, found a new scientific principle, a way to harness gamma-ray photons, or any of a virtually infinite number of possibilities beyond current accepted science.

Believers are the ones taking a position for emotional or other subjective reasons, either from simple fear or to help them cope with life in a world they do not understand.

 

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

Most of the claims regarding the writer claimed to be Luke of the books Luke and Acts are he got many of the basic facts and places straight.  So, one would hope a writer could at least get basic facts correct.

See the following link, though from an Islamic source the points are worth consideration - http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2010/reliability-luke-historian/

The following is quoted from this source-

“Firstly, we should note that there is nothing in the above which would indicate that Luke was “inspired” or “inerrant” and that everything within his books can be trusted blindly. There is nothing here which would show that Luke was somehow “special”. Far from being remarkable, the above are very ordinary examples of Luke’s alleged accuracies. There is no reason to suppose that unless a person is inerrant or inspired, he or she cannot get such basic elementary facts straight. Such type of ordinary accuracies relating to certain factual matters are also to be observed in fictional books, which name, for instance, cities correctly, etc.”

 

As to the great accuracies there are also great inaccuracies, some I already mentioned before.

Again according to the site above they say this:

“Secondly, besides the above listed so-called wonderful “accuracies”, there are also grave inaccuracies within Luke’s gospel. The following are some inaccuracies and discrepancies within Luke’s Gospel and Acts over which there is widespread agreement among scholars, including devout Christian scholars:

·    Luke forged a genealogy for Jesus (P) even though he (P) had no father. The genealogy has no historical standing. Worse, his genealogy contradicts the one forged by Matthew.

·    Luke provides an infancy narrative which is irreconcilable with the infancy narrative provided by Matthew.

·    Luke mentions a census under Quirnius during the birth of Jesus (P) which is almost universally recognized as a major historical blunder on Luke’s part.”

 

I already mentioned the difference in the nativity narratives, which you whisk away. I also mentioned the census, which you attempt to validate using Egypt.

More on both of these later.

 

My Response:

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2010/reliability-luke-historian/ is not contesting the historical validity of Luke, just if it is inspired or not. This site is an Islamic site therefore they would not believe that Luke is divinely inspired.

 

The irreconcilable differences in the nativity stores are not irreconcilable differences at all. Matthew and Luke both record different events surrounding the birth of Jesus. Matthew focuses on the prophecy fulfillment of Jesus’ birth, while Luke focuses on the history of Jesus’s birth. This is not irreconcilable just separate parts to the whole story. For example different history books focus on different parts of WWII. Some focus on Hitler and Germany others on Japan, and others on America. It does not mean that these events did not happen just that they are considered more important to some historians than to other historians.

 

What genealogy is in Luke? I don’t remember that in Luke? According to the website there is no contradiction, just that the order of birth is reversed.

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

Cliff, you quote me a study Bible as your evidence?

I refer you to infidels.org here - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/luke_and_quirinius.html

 

The major point being as I said, while Herod ruled Judea it was a client kingdom and as such Herod paid Rome tribute and no general taxation by Rome was in place.

 

Also from Infidels.org – “It is Roman practice to assess taxes province by province. These undocumented papyri give the practice for Egypt. Egypt, at the time of the incorporation into the Roman world, was made an imperial province, whose revenue went to the Emperors, and not to the Senate. Any practices in Egypt would not apply elsewhere.

 

Taxes were collected on a province-by-province basis, either by a local tax collection franchise (the publicans), or by tribute (e.g., during Herod's kingdom). There would be no Roman-administered census in areas controlled directly by Herod or his family, as was the case in both Judaea and Galilee during the years around the birth of Jesus.

 

There is absolutely no support to Luke's implication of worldwide census or an empire-wide tax. In fact, it is quite contrary to well-documented practice.

(T1) J.P.V.D. Balsdon. _Rome: The Story of an Empire_. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.”

 

Do you see the differences here? Egypt was an Imperial Province of Rome while Judea was a client kingdom during Herod’s reign. It is well established how they were handled differently.

 

See also - http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr/files/lukecaesaraugustusquirinius.html

See Josephus Antiquities of the Jews XX.

 

My Repsonse:

Yes I quoted a study Bible which bases its evidence on historical and archeological evidence.How is this any different from infidels.org, a secular site which cannot even get basic facts about Christianity right.

Pauljohntheskeptic said:

 

IMO, the 3 accounts of Paul’s conversion differ substantially. They all saw the light or not. They all heard the voice or not. Paul went blind or not. Ananias has a dream about Paul or not. Many ways this was told, not the same in any of them by the same writer. As to who was after Paul in Damascus is different in Paul’s writing than in Acts. Paul said it was Aretas soldiers who wanted to apprehend him but Acts claims the Jews wanted to kill him. Same story told 2 ways.  In Acts after Paul is arrested after doing the purification ceremony requested by James he is taken to the Roman garrison and held. The account discusses at first torturing Paul but a few verses later we learn that Paul was picked up because the Commander knew Paul to be Roman and saved him from the mob. Luke or the writer does a very poor job of consistency in this entire adventure. Not to mention he has Paul giving a speech to the mob that wants to kill him on the steps of the Roman garrison, not very likely. Perhaps Luke inserted text to make the story more interesting and that is the problem, though he should have used outlines to keep himself on track. Then there’s the story of Stephen, told much like the trial of Jesus, possibly it is the same story.  In the end the ceremonious Sanhedrin Council becomes a mob and hauls him out to kill him. 

 

My Response:

 

See above responses. Again not inconsistencies, they are same events, with some events elaborated upon and others a simple summary, much like modern history texts.

 

 

I think that's stupid.

What you would like, means nothing, in realistic terms.

Maybe you never learned that.

But, you assume you have knowledge that is important for other people?

You personally can't prove much, in reality.

And if you tell me that you can prove what other people believe, then you're twice as stupid as you first appear.

Because you have faith in what other people tell you.

Faith is not an intelligent trait. Skepticism is.

Belief is not intelligent trait. Disbelief is.

I doubt you'll find many who have much concern for you at all, much less feel anything for you. So, feeling 'sorry' for those who feel nothing in particular about you, is not very intelligent.

You clearly aren't in a very good position to lecture on 'how to think' intelligently; but rather, only capable of proselytizing beliefs and faith should be paramount methods of reasoning.

That's stupid...

 

 

Because of the religious dogma, they had 'faith' and 'belief' in.

 

Checkmate.

No problem. I'll answer one or two things in your posts today if I have time as I'm at work.

Isn't that pretty much what I indicated by saying "Exactly what Heaven or Hell is supposed to be when it is outside our time-space dimension is inadequately described and understood."

Also:

In your other replies it looks like you are posting from Word. When you do that you get the result you see. In order to prevent the garbage formating coming from Word, copy and paste into Wordpad 1st. Then copy your text from Wordpad with ctrl C and paste into this forum with ctrl V.

 

 

Yes, just clarfying the statement for others.

 

Thank you for the tip. I corrected that.

1 - Islam considers Jesus a prophet, just like Mohammed. Instead of giving you the standard argument from an atheist view I thought one of the other religions views might be interesting. The author has valid points to consider.

2- I understand what you are saying in regard to perspective, however it seems very divergent to not mention that Herod was out to kill him at this point as did Matthew. Since Luke is clear the family returned home I do not see a way to reconcile this at all.

In your example of WW2 this is very different from discussing a single event. The front in Europe and the Pacific can be discussed in many ways, they are not a single event. A single battle can be described by different views from each side, from various participants etc. In the case of a single battle, it would have in common the battle, the place it occurred, who probably won, and who held the territory after the battle. The single event in Matthew and Luke was the birth and following events. They are divergent and irreconcible no matter how far away you get from the page to read it.

3 - Luke does so have a genealogy see Luke 3: 23-38 Douay-Rheims.

 

The book of Luke is dated to about 80 to 90 CE, source - Raymond Brown, Intro to the Anchor Bible; The list of sources at the end of the link for earlychristianwritings indicate the 80s perhaps the 90s for a date- see here - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html

Newadvent, the Catholic website of course suggests in the 60s, but even with that most of the "witnesses" would have far exceeded the normal life expectancy of the time.

If the date is in the 80s or 90s which most scholars support then most if not all of the supposed 1st hand witnesses would be dead.

Life expectancy in the 1st century CE = 40 years. Granted many lived longer such as the mythical heroes of the Hebrews and the Sumerian kings, but we are talking average in the real world.

Let's consider the supposed 1st hand witnesses and the traditional legendary fates by 80 CE:

Luke 1 - Elizabeth, Zechariah, Mary - Elizabeth was described as very old much older than Mary and would be dead. Zechariah was already old he'd be dead. Mary was a teenager, let's say 13, she'd be 93 or dead.

Luke 2 - Mary, Joseph, Herod, unnamed shepherds, Simeon (an old man), Anna (a very old prophetess) - Mary - dead, Joseph much older than Mary was likely dead before Jesus was 30. Herod died in 4 BCE. Simeon and Anna were virtually dead when the encounter happened, so dead.

Luke 3 - John the Baptist and Jesus - John the baptist was executed as was Jesus - dead

Luke 4 - Jesus - dead

Luke 5 - Simon Peter, James & John Zebedee, leper, paralyzed man, unnamed pharisees and Levi. Fate - Peter died in about 64 - 67 CE, James in 44 CE his brother John in 54-68, Levi (Matthew)- either out of the country in Persia or Ethiopia or well over 100 by 80 CE.

Luke 6 - unnamed pharisees, man with shriveled hand, Simon aka Peter, Andrew, James, John, Phillip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Simon  the Zealot, Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot.  fate - Peter - see above, Andrew - out of the country, Northern Greece, Ukraine, or Russia. Supposedly crucified spread eagled-dead by 80 ce. James & John, see above, Phillip - out of the country in Phrygia martyred perhaps at Hieropolis before 80 CE, Thomas aka Didymus left the country in Iran, Iraq & India, died about 72 CE in India, Bartholomew - executed out of country by being skinned alive in Iraq, Iran, Arabia, or India before 80 CE, Matthew- see above, Simon the Zealot and Jude aka Judas son of James executed in Persia, James (Alphaeus) killed in Egypt, and Judas either dead in 30 CE or continued to live, see last chapter of John until??

Luke 7 - unnamed centurion, unnamed servants of the centurion, unnamed dead son, unnamed widow, unnamed people that were healed, unnamed Pharisees, unnamed disciples of John the baptist, unnamed sinful massage woman, and Simon the Pharisee. - No idea how long Simon the Pharisee lived, however as a learned teacher he'd be well over 30 at this point so one can safely consider him and all the rest of those unnamed to be dead by 80 CE.

Luke 8 - Mary Magdelene dead before 80 CE, Joanna and Susanna were middle age and dead before 80 CE.

Luke 9 - No new names in this chapter.

Luke 10 - Mary and Martha - mid 20's to 30 - dead by 80 CE

Luke 11 - No new names in this chapter

Luke 12 -18  No new names in these chapters

Luke 19 - Zacchaeus- a tax collector approx 30-40 years old- dead by 80 CE

Luke 20 - 22 - No new names in these chapters

Luke 23 - Pilate - left Palestine in 36 CE, tradition has him dying in Gaul in 41 CE

Luke 24 - Mary the mother of James - dead before 80 CE, Cleopas - not known, but if over 30, dead by 80 CE.

It would appear to the average person that there were no persons for Luke to interview, therefore his information more than likely came from hearsay.

 

 

I'm aware that many date Luke even later as Mark and Q are both utilized. I'd generally agree but in my response to Cliffjumper I was showing conservatism to make my point. He will no doubt use the Catholic Church's dating from the 60s which still is marginal and doesn't allow for both Mark and Q.

In fact Luke has a very interesting encounter with 2 disciples of John in Luke 7:18-20 where they were sent to ask if Jesus is the one to come. However, if John and Jesus were related he'd sure know. In addition, in Matthew 3 John told Jesus he should baptize him and recognized him. In John 1:29-31 he knows Jesus to be "the lamb of God" come to save man from his sins. Luke OTOH has sent disciples to ask. Very poor research on the part of the Gospel writers to be consistent.

 

If it'll help the Raymond E. Brown quote is from a Catholic scholar who was an excellent historian given his constraints.  Also  J.A. Fitzmyer is an excellent Catholic Scholar on Luke who would accurately date Luke.

 

Your choice to see contradictory accounts to be the same.

I won't bother to post all of the differences that contradict one another as you have already demonstrated your lack of knowledge in regard to the New Testament where you denied that Luke had a genealogy in your post #173 where it surely does as indicated in Luke 3:23-38. My advice to you is you actually need to read the Bible and take notes, as you have shown that you don't know what it actually contains.

I believe that Tom Harpur asserts that there are NO written accounts of the mythical Jesus character, in ANY scriptures, that are less than 200 yrs old, from the date of the crucifixion, IIRC.

 

William Lane Craig claims that he believes that there are written accounts as close as 5 yrs old, from the date of the crucifixion.

But not 1 person have I ever come across, that claims there are ANY eyewitness testimony of the mythical Jesus, at the time, or prior, to the supposed crucifixion of the supposed Jesus.

 

No 1 st hand eyewitness testimony= No case

 

End of story.

It should be clear that responsibilty lies with the one that instigated the action, Urban II did so. The request from Alexius was for a few hundred knights, the result was crazed fanatics whipped up by the pope's call and the likes of Peter the Hermit. It's very clear that the pope gave sanction to warfare by his call, therefore he and the Church he represented are liable and responsible for everything that resulted.

The call was immoral, even according to the Jesus of the Gospels.

I realize that the Church does not have rules and regulations for murder and mayheim. I also realize the leaders of the Church did many actions that were immoral and contributed to millions of deaths, over it's history.

What you don't understand is liability and responsibility. A company that has leaders and directors that sanction and instigate murder and mayheim is just as guilty as the leaders that ordered it.

I did listen to the link a few months ago. I've done many years of research and study, I've never actually stopped. I'm aware the actual church teaching is against that which has occurred, but in the end the Church bears the responsibility for what it's leaders did. Some of church teaching is expost facto.

The Crusades I'm the most critical about are the 1st and 4th as well as the Albigensian Crusade.

A Crusade was technically called by the Pope and the Church, though they morphed into other directions. The originator of the action still bears the responsibility for what occurs.  In my discussion of Bad Popes, I gave Alexander VI points for defending the Jews.