jeudi 14 juin 2018

Is Bergoglio a Heretic?


JG
Catholics who accuse the pope of being a false prophet, a liar, a fake, a fraud, an antichrist, a false pope, a charlatan, or unholy are really treading a narrow line. They need to think of their own sinfulness before accusing somebody else, especially the pope, of such a serious thing.

Omitting
some comments. They were by people known to JG, but not to me.

HGL
"They need to think of their own sinfulness before accusing somebody else, especially the pope, of such a serious thing."

Why? Would a lecher not have a right to distance himself from a heresiarch?

Would a murderer not have such a right?

At what point of personal sin excluding heresy do you lose th right to distance yourself from heresy?

JG
Except, the pope is none of those things mentioned.

The ranting and raving is all because the pope says some things on non-dogmatic issues they don't like.

It's one thing to disagree with the Pope, but quite another to vilify him for a little thing you disagree with him on.

Too many Catholics look for the tiniest flaw of the pope, but wouldn't do the same with themselves. That is the point of what I said, Hans.

HGL
"Except the Pope is none of these things"

Have you checked Bergoglio's pronouncements about Creation in 2014?

JG
There is no dogmatic teaching on how long or short the Earth was created.

HGL
JG Trent said sth about going with Church Fathers on ALL exegetic decisions.

Also, denial of God doing things directly rather than by processes (in creation for instance of certain items Genesis 1), also denies God doing them by processes of a finite number of steps, bc the first step would anyway be God doing sth directly.

JG
Again, the Church never defined dogmatically the Earth's age. Unless a pope or the Magisterium defined something as dogma, it is not dogma.

Besides some Church Fathers taught things we do not believe, some of which are wrong: e.g. Origen believed in reincarnation and Tertullian believed in Montanism.

Ever heard of theistic evolution? It does not deny God directly created all things. It says God gradually created things, just as He gradually revealed Himself and His will to us.

HGL
"Again, the Church never defined dogmatically the Earth's age. Unless a pope or the Magisterium defined something as dogma, it is not dogma."

Unless it is dogma indirectly.

"Besides some Church Fathers taught things we do not believe, some of which are wrong: e.g. Origen believed in reincarnation and Tertullian believed in Montanism."

If all Church Fathers had believed Reincarnation or all had been Montanists (not the case and the two you mentioned are not even honoured as saints), we would as per Trent be obliged to the one having Patristic consensus.

"Ever heard of theistic evolution? It does not deny God directly created all things. It says God gradually created things, just as He gradually revealed Himself and His will to us."

If by gradually you mean over millions or billions of years, it is a heresy:

  • goes against all Church Fathers
  • goes against Mark 10:6
  • goes against obvious sense of words in Genesis 1 (if a day has evening and morning, it is not metonymically for a longer period)
  • is often coupled with the idea that hagiographers (not even accepting Moses as one author) wrote in "accepting ideas of their time" which undermines the divine inspiration of the Bible if extended to erroneous ones.


I think the fact that in defending Bergoglio against heresy, you show yourself heretical yourself speaks volumes about his pastoral and the pastoral of those accepting him as Pope.


Other status, JG, sharing a video:

JG
[omitting link to video]
There is no such thing as a good reason for leaving the Church. Saint Paul didn't leave because of Saint Peter's hypocrisy. Saints Catherine and Brigitte did not for for the same reason. We, the branches, cannot fall off from the vine which is the Church the mystical body of Christ. A branch that falls off withers and dies. We need the sacraments, namely the Holy Eucharist.

HGL
"Saint Paul didn't leave because of Saint Peter's hypocrisy."

We do not know that the Cephas in question was even St Peter.

It could have been another one of the name (and it seems Caiaphas and Cephas could be same name - Cephas (St Peter this time) perhaps even identified as illiterate because he pronounced it Cephas and not Caiaphas).

So, Cephas could well have been someone else's name.

"Saints Catherine and Brigitte did not for for the same reason."

They however did tell Popes what to do.

However, another saint, namely Saint Vincent Ferrer told to take care which of the Popes you accepted.

JG
There are no other Cephas known. Even so, the point still stands.

I'm aware Catherine and Brigitte rebuked the popes of their time. That's why I brought it up. But That's not the point. The point is even saints who rebuuked the popes of their time did not break communion.

HGL
"There are no other Cephas known."

Caiaphas seems to have had same name in Hebrew.

Also St Clement considered it was another (and Leo XIII considered him a Church Father) - one Church Father is sufficient unless the point is heretical (and you have no CF for Deep Time, btw).

"The point is even saints who rebuuked the popes of their time did not break communion."

The ones rebuking John XXII threatened to do so if he did not mend, that is what "withdraw obedience" reasonably means, no longer recognising him as Pope - it never came to that.

St Vincent Ferrer obviously broke communion with Avignon Popes.

Because he considered them fake Popes.

I think I read somewhere he had even been wrong on that before.

Breaking with a fake Pope is not breaking with the Church.

jeudi 31 mai 2018

I consider some people are attacking me for what I am not but without naming me.


I'll give you the two examples of Dwight Longenecker and John Horvath II.

Dwight Longenecker wrote this essay:

Are Conservative Catholics Fundamentalists?
https://dwightlongenecker.com/are-conservative-catholics-fundamentalists/


And I quote from it:

To be fair, there are some conservative Catholics on the lunatic fringe who could properly be termed “fundamentalist”. I’ve engaged with some traditionalists who really are racist, anti-semitic, ultra right wing, geo centrist conspiracy theory nut jobs.


As for nut job, that is an evaluation. As for Geocentric, that is a fact about me. As for Antisemitic, Ultra Right Wing and Conspiracy Theorist, I am such on some definitions. But I am not a Racialist.

Nor are most Fundies who are normally considered such that.

So, he is at least clearly maligning Fundies, making "racist" a prominent part of the mix, and since I am one of comparatively few Geocentrics, and I have engaged in debates with him before, I am suspecting at least that refers to me.

But since he is not naming me, he can always pretend if he likes that my responding to it and refuting the charge of racism is paranoia on my part.

John Horvath II:

Is It Immodest to Wear Deliberately Ripped Clothes?
By John Horvat II
http://www.returntoorder.org/2017/06/immodest-wear-deliberately-ripped-clothes/


However, outside this extreme, most people seem to think they can wear anything, anywhere and at any time without any consequences. Clothes don’t have to be clean anymore. People can wear clothes that are deliberately ripped, stained and full of holes without fear of rejection. Clothes don’t even have to be clothes anymore. They can be shredded rags, the dingier the better.


I am often enough forced to walk in unwashed clothes, since begging has become of late less lucrative. Even while I am offering something in return, namely reading on my blogs, or perhaps precisely because of it.

To do one task on internet may involve changing the library, and to go to where I can get hours for free involves removing myself from where I could have a shower and (after longer or shorter time) a wash for the clothes.

And I often do have to fear rejection - and John Horvath II hopes I should have to fear it even more, I find probable.

But the main point is clothes full of holes. My outer garment has such and my trousers tend to accumulate such.

Note, not holes at my nipples or breasts, and not (usually) in the crotch, but holes that I have adorned with borders that are meant to prevent them from spreading.

Obviously, there is a difference between deliberately ripping a clothing which was not ripped, and deliberately wearing clothing which was not deliberately ripped (outside one specific case I'll explain in a moment). But that difference will be lost on some.

This one exception is, if a piece of cloth is starting to rip, I will softly rip as much as gives way easily, so as to know how much I need repair - by sewing a seam or by attaching a cord with a seam. I am wise and wily of rips I repair only to find next day the rip has gone beyond my repair, and I need to extend it.

John Horvath deliberately goes out of his way to pretend that either this clothing (or rather a general description of clothing which can be applied to it) offends my dignity or proves I don't have any.

Deliberately ripped garments work against the purpose of clothes. They are caricatures of what clothing should be. Far from adorning the body, the process of ripping turns that which should be strong, beautiful and orderly into something weak, ugly and frayed. Tattered attire is disordered and therefore should not be worn.


The Landsknechte disagreed. After each battle, they saw how many rips the swords of enemies had given their clothing, and mended, leaving the rip open but sewing new cloth under its both edges. Some did indeed rip more deliberately, so as to give and impression of having been in more battles than they had.

This is my model for how I deal with clothes now, especially my coat. Except the part of adding rips just to show off.

Most people would object that as long as tattered clothes stay outside the extreme point of undress that is considered morally and socially unacceptable, you cannot say that it is immodest.


And "most people" would on this point be right.

Modesty is the virtue that safeguards the dignity of a person in association with others. It benefits both the individual and society because it governs the exterior appearance and behavior of the person and thus helps make society civil and harmonious.

Beyond dress, modesty is concerned with the manner of speech, posture, gestures, and general presentation of the person. Modesty calls upon people to behave well with others and conform to standards of decency and decorum found in the healthy customs of an ordered society.

When you present yourself properly to others, you are modest. When you control yourself in your external actions and manners in society, you are modest. When you act erratically and speak in a manner that offends and disregards others, you are immodest.


Now, here comes a point:

In matters of Catholic dress, this means holding to all that is proper to a soul that is a temple of the Holy Spirit. That is to say, you dress in a manner that is ordered, dignified and reasonable to who you are. Adults dress like adults; children dress like children. Authorities dress in accord with their office.

It also means you should not dress carelessly. Saint Thomas Aquinas states that you are immodest when you are unduly negligent in your appearance and fail to present yourself according to your state in life.


The real problem for John Horvath with me, if, as I think, he is subtly referring to me, is, by being a blogger, I am stepping outside my state in life as a beggar. Writing is for professors on full time or office clerks on spare time, but not for beggars, you know.

Never mind that I had more than 6000 articles last time I counted. Never mind that starting to print even some of them would prevent someone else from economic disaster and take me out of it.

The thing is, if trousers are ripped at the knees, I also object to this being deliberate, since it is a waste - but my objection is repairing, repairing and repairing - not in invisible ways as my grandmother would have done, but in very visible and undiscreet ones. And when knees of some trousers are beyond repair, they become shorts - and I have more cloth to repair my coat with.

But his and his friends attitude to trousers torn at the knees is probably throwing them away. Why do I say so? Well, look at how he deals with a writer "torn at the knees" by the life of begging ... he knows I agree with him on sufficient things for it to make sense to publish me ... except, perhaps, his disagreement on this one. And similar ones.

But even a disagreement could be handled by polemising openly against a much read rival writer. He, like Dwight, seems to prefer "not to give me a platform" as the presumably Jewish and certainly Protestant description of this tactic goes.

Perhaps if I said, as I will not say "sorry, I realise I am a nobody, give me a decent job, even if not a very intellectual nor a very well paid one," he would think I were doing according to my station in life. I think such an attitude to a poor man's temporary station in life as poor is a Protestant one, confusing "estate" (the classic ones being clergy, nobility and commoners, sometimes these are subdivided into burghers and rural commoners) with "situation".

[posted on FB on Corpus Christi 2018]

mercredi 30 mai 2018

On Palestinian Origin


MH
God gave Ishmael an inheritance. He gave Esau an inheritance. God gave Israel an inheritance. Why are Ishmael and Esau trying to remove Israel from their promised land?

HGL
"Why are Ishmael and Esau trying to remove Israel from their promised land?"

Why are you calling Christian and Muslim Palestinians Esau and Ishmael?

MH
Palestinians are from Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, etc. Most Christian and Muslim Palestinians identify as Arab. They came to the land centuries after Rome expelled Israel. The Arabs are Semites, but not Israelites. The children of Israel are traced from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob.

HGL
MH "Palestinians are from Egypt, the Arabian Peninsula, etc."

Source please?

I'd say Palestinians are from Palestine, that is from Holy Land.

Is that what you dismiss as "etc"?

"Most Christian and Muslim Palestinians identify as Arab."

So? Identifying as "Arab" does not mean tracing your genealogy to Ishmael.

It means identifying Arabic as your native language and Beduinism as at least one native (if not your own) lifestyle.

In a Protestant Bible* there are two "blessed among women", Jael and the Blessed Virgin. In the case of the Blessed Virgin, there is no limiting qualification to women, but in the case of Jael there is "who live in tents". So, Beduinism is a lifestyle possible to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I suppose that you agree Jael was as Israelite as she was Beduin. Obviously the one most blessed among all women was not a Beduin. So, the most blessed Beduin woman was Jael.

And Jael was not an Ishmaelite.

"They came to the land centuries after Rome expelled Israel."

If you mean in the invasion of Omar, no. That invasion of Omar gave Muslim Palestinians an admixture of Ishmaelites / Madianites from mid-Arabic peninsula and probably some Joctanites from South Arabic peninsula. But it did not introduce the CHRISTIAN Beduins of which SOME were forced to become Muslim.

"The Arabs are Semites, but not Israelites."

You are confusing "Arab" with "Peninsular Arab" + "Jordan Arab".

"The children of Israel are traced from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob."

Yes, I know that VERY well, and the Palestinians as much as Jael belong to that people.

By Jael, I have proven the lineage from Abraham to Isaac to Jacob can have a Beduin lifestyle. As for the Arabic language, some of Talmudic confession of that lineage have spoken a kind of German or a kind of Spanish (Yiddish, Ladino) which means that speaking a language other than Hebrew or Aramaic doesn't remove you from that lineage either.

*(In a Catholic Bible there is a third "blessed among women", Judith, who is "blessed among women of Israel" while the Blessed Virgin was of Judah).

samedi 26 mai 2018

On Praying to or for departed and involving statues


BS
It's actually pointless to argue with Catholics.

I guess if I made my own book then I could definitely my whole argument off of that book and if I appeal to that book as my authority over the Bible then I could make the Bible say whatever I wanted it to say.

JL
HGL

You have gotten me dizzy but not by dazzling brilliance.

The conversation has gotten defensive and nonsensical.

We are giving you scripture (God's Word) to show you that what Catholics do displeases God.

Your answer is to deny, deny, deny that that is what you are doing when clearly, that is exactly what you are doing.

You pray TO Saints. (I gave you a prayer entitled "To Saint Jude").

You kneel before statues. You said it is no different than a family photo. NOT!

You said Jesus doesn't use the word repetitive. Fine. You pick a word to describe a prayer that is read, chanted, over and over again. What was Jesus saying in that scripture?

Προσευχόμενοι Praying
δὲ but
μὴ not
βατταλογήσητε YOU should multiply words
ὥσπερ as-even
οἱ the
ἐθνικοί, nationals,
δοκοῦσιν they are imagining
γὰρ for
ὅτι that
ἐν in
τῇ the
πολυλογίᾳ much speaking
αὐτῶν of them
εἰσακουσθήσονται· they will be heard.

Many words, multiply words, vain repetitions, over and over again. These are the thoughts conveyed by the Greek text.

Do you really think it means not to make long prayers?

There are some very long prayers recorded in the Bible that pleases God very much. Jesus sometimes prayed all night.

It is the type of many words that bores God, REPETITIONS, not our heartfelt petitions, that displeases him.

I fear you do not get the sense of what we say because you choose not to really think about what God wants. You only consider what your church wants and that's good enough for you.

BS
The Catholic ignorance is deep.

2 Timothy 1:16-18 ESV
May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me earnestly and found me- [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day!-and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

Where does this constitute praying to the dead?
Shew we!

http://biblehub.com/lexicon/2_timothy/1-16.htm
2 Timothy 1:16 Lexicon: The Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often…

Please show me where someone prays to someone that left earth!

The only time it is ever mentioned is when it is in context with sorcery, witch craft, divination, ect.

Twist not the scriptures lest you be like Satan!

CF
BS
It's actually pointless to argue with Catholics.

I guess if I made my own book then I could definitely my whole argument off of that book and if I appeal to that book as my authority over the Bible then I could make the Bible say whatever I wanted it to say....

i have to lol cause that about sums it up with catholics .
and its by there own admission that they say and do it and say its wrong ..

BS
CF I'm with you. I have just gotten to the point now where it's more about showing them how wrong it is than anything.

JL
Not all Catholics.

I live in a Spanish community primarily Catholic. They are so sweet and humble and love to learn about the Bible.

Where they have trouble is that their whole families are Catholic and they are very close knit. It is hard to break away from their traditions, but some do.

CF
BS i know I get like that sometimes to..they are stubborn in there ways just like the other religions

BS
JL you're right. I sometimes forget that when I use the term "Catholic" that I need to define it so people don't get the wrong idea.

Although I am completely against labels. I believe you either seek out the truth or you live a lie.

JL
HGL

Statues and false gods are the exact same thing! That is my point.

If you pray to a person other that the Father, you are making someone your god, even if they are a Saint.

That is wrong.

"You must not make for yourself a carved image or a form like anything that is in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth.

You must not bow down to them nor be enticed to serve them, for I, Jehovah your God, am a God who requires exclusive devotion."
Exodus 20:4, 5.

HGL
JL thank you for the translation:

βατταλογήσητε YOU should multiply words

Multiply words and repeat same words is not the same thing.

JL "Many words, multiply words,"

Yes.

"vain repetitions, over and over again."

No.

"These are the thoughts conveyed by the Greek text."

The former yes, the latter no.

JL "Do you really think it means not to make long prayers?

"There are some very long prayers recorded in the Bible that pleases God very much. Jesus sometimes prayed all night.

"It is the type of many words that bores God, REPETITIONS, not our heartfelt petitions, that displeases him."


Christ probably all night through repeated the words of King David.

BS "Where does this constitute praying to the dead?"

FOR, not too.

"May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus"

Mercy to the household.

"may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day!-"

Mercy on that day to him ... it is in prayers for the dead that judgement day is mentioned.

"Please show me where someone prays to someone that left earth!"

Luke 16. Abraham had already left earth millennia ago and he was even still in limbo.

JL "Statues and false gods are the exact same thing!"

No.

"If you pray to a person other that the Father, you are making someone your god, even if they are a Saint."

If you adore some person other than Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

We are not allowed to do that with saints.

"Exodus 20:4, 5"

On your theory, dulia of saints would be licit if divorced from images.

However, back when Moses wrote what God spoke, God could not be depicted. Since 2000 years, that has changed.

JL
to one part
HGL No. Some of the words in one prayer is recorders in John 17

HGL
JL - the words are not sufficient for hours of a prayer, and we do not have a record saying He quoted nothing or very little from King David.

They were probably recorded as standing out from the psalms.

BS
HGL this crap with these circular arguments need to stop. We don't need a bunch of junk being typed that doesn't address anything nor does it address the topic. That's not how you debate.

You Catholics always do this crap. You bounce around from subject to subject and never really address a subject with any evidence.

You always go off of what you think it means instead of letting it speak for itself.

This does not constitute praying to or praying for the dead.

οικω noun - dative singular masculine
oikos oy'-kos: a dwelling (more or less extensive, literal or figurative); by implication, a family (more or less related, literally or figuratively) -- home, house(-hold), temple

http://biblehub.com/lexicon/2_timothy/1-16.htm

No where does that constitute praying to or for the dead.

Check mate.

2 Timothy 1:16 Lexicon: The Lord grant mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains;

HGL
to JL
Here is "many words" in action:

Let our book be concluded with a prayer. O Jupiter Capitolinus, O Jupiter Stator! O Mars Gradivus, author of the Roman name! O Vesta, guardian of the eternal fire! O all ye deities who have exalted the present magnitude of the Roman empire to a position of supremacy over the world, guard, preserve, and protect, I entreat and conjure you, in the name of the Commonwealth, our present state, our present peace, [our present prince[104]!] And when he shall have completed a long course on earth, grant him successors to the remotest ages, and such as shall have abilities to support the empire of the world as powerfully as we have seen him support it! All the just designs of our countrymen * * * *

Velleius Paterculus probably even dropped the pen when Christ said "do not"

HGL
to BS
"You Catholics always do this crap. You bounce around from subject to subject and never really address a subject with any evidence."

Actually, if you honestly think that and are not lying, you are handicapped when recognising relevance.

The point is, St Paul made ONE prayer for the household, and another one, referring to judgement day, for Onesiphorus himself, because Onesiphorus was deceased and his household was still alive.

Update

BS
This is not a prayer. It's a letter. How dumb does one person have to be?

2 Timothy 1:15-18 ESV
You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, among whom are Phygelus and Hermogenes. [16] May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains, [17] but when he arrived in Rome he searched for me earnestly and found me- [18] may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that day!-and you well know all the service he rendered at Ephesus.

Again, you have failed to prove your point.

2 Timothy 1:2 ESV
To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

Hey Hand my the Lord grant your great grandparents mercy for having anything to do with you bloodline.

See, that's not a prayer.

HGL
It is. And I thank you for it.

However, you failed to see St Paul was making different prayers for Onesiphorus' family and for himself. Still haven't adressed that.

It was also even a prayer for departed, since they are not alive anymore on earth, as far as I know.

It also involves an unnecessary clause, "for having anything to do with you[r] bloodline" - since men are not responsible for whom they bring about beyond the parental situation.

BS
👉You👈 Timothy - he prayers for and he longs to see.

2 Timothy 1:2-4 ESV
To Timothy, my beloved child: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. [3] I thank God whom I serve, as did my ancestors, with a clear conscience, as I remember you constantly in my prayers night and day. [4] As I remember your tears, I long to see you, that I may be filled with joy.

His ancestors served God, he prayed for Timothy.

2 Timothy 1:5-7 ESV
I am reminded of your sincere faith, a faith that dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice and now, I am sure, dwells in you as well. [6] For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands, [7] for God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.

Don't worry Han's we will get through this. I'm not giving up on you just yet

HGL
Quoting the bits and pieces which did not relate to Onesiphorus already being departed or "Lord grant mercy" being a prayer is irrelevant to the question at hand.

BS
Now reread it all at once Han's

2 Timothy 1:1-18 ESV

[Skipping, I am not taking BS as a task master.]

He is writing a letter to Timothy.

2 Timothy 1:16 ESV
May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, for he often refreshed me and was not ashamed of my chains,

He is speaking it just as I gave you a illustration.

It is a letter written from one person to another.

It is not a prayer

It does not constitute praying to or for the dead.

HGL
BS, you are NOT just praying to God when you adress God in second person, but also when you say to someone other : "may God grant".

The one mentioning Onesiphorus himself was a very clear prayer for the departed.

BS
Ok, this is where you're on your own.

HGL
Btw, what you quoted about praying for Timothy for the sake of his just ancestors, is an explanation on the prayer for Onesiphorus' household.

I am with St Paul and Onesiphorus, since with the Catholic Church.

BS
What in the Hell would Mary need you or anyone else to pray for her about? She has everything God already promised to her. And what makes this even more ignorant is the fact that you Catholics think she's sinless so that's even more idiotic.

HGL
BS " What in the Hell would Mary need you or anyone else to pray for her about?"

I didn't say I was praying FOR her.

HGL
[Shared this and previous post so the co-authors could see it.]

BS
Or to her.

You take a letter written to a individual about praying for the individual that it's written to and you constitute it as praying to or for someone not on this Earth.

That's like me saying even though this bag doesn't have a label on it and it looks like sugar it's still ok to drink.

Again, another brainwashed Catholic with no solid foundational evidence to back any claim.

HGL
"You take a letter written to a individual about praying for the individual that it's written to and you constitute it as praying to or for someone not on this Earth."

Timothy is Onesiphorus? Don't think so.

St Paul is praying for three different people : Timothy, Onesiphorus' household, Onesiphorus himself.

You have still not adressed the evidence the prayer for Onesiphorus himself is FOR a deceased person, namely it being a separate one from prayers for his household and involving prayers about "mercy on that day".

The praying TO Her after She left earth was not about Onesiphorus, but about Abraham in Luke 16.

In case you flatter yourself by thinking me confused about what I said, check out the whole debate.

BS
Luke 16

par·a·ble
ˈperəb(ə)l/Submit
noun
a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson, as told by Jesus in the Gospels.
synonyms: allegory, moral story/tale, fable, exemplum
"the parable of the prodigal son"

You're all over the place. You still have not used grammar, scripture, or any evidence to back any claim about praying to the dead. You have used misqouted scripture, parables, and made up Catholic dogma.

This really isn't a date at all with you, disproving you is easy all I have to do is let you talk and you disprove yourself, all Catholics do.

HGL
BS, where in any epistle is St Paul said to have prayed or saying a "may God grant" anything at all to "Onesiphorus with household"?

That is a very simple contextual question. It does not need deep points in Greek grammar.

Next question : if St Paul is always praying separately for Onesiphorus' household and for Onesiphorus, is that not because prayers for the living and prayers for the dead are liturgically and morally different?

Third question, isn't there also a place where he actually sends a greeting to the household, but not to Onesiphorus?

Fourth question: is there ANY place at all where St Paul sends a greeting to Onesiphorus himself?

Fifth question: if St Paul greets Onesiphorus' family but not himself, if he speakd of Onesiphorus' good deeds in past tense, isn't the simplest explanation that Onesiphorus already died, as a martyr or otherwise? I'd even say preferrably otherwise, since, if he had died a martyr, St Paul would instead have prayed "sancte Onesiphore ora pro nobis" but for this debate at this point I could leave this as not proven.

None of above questions needs special knowledge of Greek. We already know and agree that oikos means not the building but the household, family members in our sense and possibly also slaves.

As for Luke 16, it would seem Christ's other parables are realistic in the story, also we cannot take it for granted (at least it is not in the Bible) that it was a made up parable.

BS
HGL it's pointless even debating with you you never prove any points.

Parables- so when Christ says to pluck your eye out if it causes you to sin I guess you should do it then.

You have still yet to point any valid point in this argument with using the Bible.

HGL
BS "so when Christ says to pluck your eye out if it causes you to sin I guess you should do it then."

Are you using this against taking the six days as 6*24 hours too?

Are you lumping metaphor in a command together with content of a story?

Are you as far as that is concerned, lumping literality of commands together with literality of story (as if believing the Flood obliged you to never eat shrimps)?

But once again, on that one : you haven't proven your point. The previous parable in Luke 16 (but there is a non-parable between) is indeed not very certainly told for the literal truth of the events, but it is realistic. Stewards were in the Orient as they still are in the Orient capable of blatant favouritism. This implies that the next one if also a parable (but verses 14 to 18 are not parables, so final part need not be a parable just because 1 to 13 is one), should at least be a realistic one.

If there was no Dives who asked that of Abraham, anyone at least could have spoken to Abraham like that. Which is enough to prove my point.

"it's pointless even debating with you you never prove any points."

You wouldn't know a proof if it was big as a barn and one yard away, sorry to be personal, but you have been so more than once and this one was one too much, unpleasant "gent"!

Also, we do not have patristic unity on Dives and Lazarus being a parable. Pope St Gregory thinks the poor Lazarus was in fact the one Christ was resurrecting in Bethany.

On Honours to the Blessed Virgin


BS
What are some true facts we have to tell that the Roman Catholic Chruch is a cult?

Please no opinions, only facts.

WA
define a cult ...

BS
cult
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object made by man without inspiration from God.

I.e. following man's way over God's way.

This would be appealing to the Holy Bible as the main source of information to determine what is what.

Subthread
starts a bit down:

JF
Mary worship being taught as honoring God by loving his mother.

BS
Do you know where it says that in the Catholic book?

JF
I was a Catholic. Giving up my rosary and images was the hardest things i found to seperate from. It actually inflicts fear/anxiety.

BS
Amen, that God brought you out of it

JF
Amen.
Not a day goes by i don't go back to Bethel and thank Him for it.

BS
Can you show me where in the Catholic book it talks about worshipping Mary?

SJ
She can’t because offering latria (worship) to Mary is strictly forbidden in the Catholic Church.

HGL
BS - have you considered the criterium you stated "without inspiration from God"?

Holy Ghost is God and inspired the Blessed Virgin to say "henceforth all generations shall call me blessed".

SJ
If we are brothers and sisters of Christ, adopted into His family, and if Jesus is His mother, and if we are commanded to honor our father and mother, and
if Jesus never sinned which means He would have honored His mother giving us an example, then is it not logical that we honor her too?

CF
SJ
um no its not logical to honor a dead person scripture is against it...

the dead know nothing and there thoughts jealousy and evys have parished

its also not logical to worship each other...

scripture is against it

SJ
It is illogical to honor a dead person, but are the saved “dead” or alive in heaven?

As stated earlier, worship of anyone but God is forbidden in the Catholic Church.

BS
SJ do Catholics pray to Mary?

HGL just because someone is insipred by God doesn't mean that every word from that person is insipred by God.

People are not infallible.

SJ
Prayer is petitioning. Petitioning like asking a friend or a pastor to join you in prayer. In that sense, yes.

Praying to Mary because she individually has the power and authority to answer a prayer and fulfill it would be error.

Nobody claims that anyone is infallible in all they say. Please look up what is meant by papal infallibility.

BS
SJ can you show me one instance in the Bible where someone was prayed to or for after they left this earth?

SJ I was not addressing "papal infallibility"

I was proving my point in regards to determining what is acceptable as God's insipred truth and what's not.

Not every word someone says is God's insipred words.

SJ
If you can show me one instance where a follower of Jesus died.

CF
SJ u think praying to a dead person who knows nothing and can do nothing for u is logical?

i dont see how that could be of any benefit..

BS
SJ I'm not going to engage in a circular argument with you that's why I clarified by saying "left this earth" - now please address that question and that question alone.

Asking a question isn't addressing a question, it's avoiding a question.

JL
SJ

No. It is not acceptable form of honor.

To honor one's parents means to obey them and not expose their faults to others.

We don't erect statues to our parents or pray to them to intercede with God for us. That would change "honor" into "worship."

SJ
Well, you could have said “Stephen”, but I digress.

Not every aspect of the faith is contained in scripture.

Wait, we don’t ask our parents to pray for us? We don’t have pictures of our parents on our walls?

JL
SJ

1. A picture is memorabilia, not an object of veneration.

I don't kneel in front of that picture or feel it holds special powers to heal or hear me.

2. A parent, or anyone, can offer a group prayer to God,

BUT this is different than praying TO a dead person to intercede with God on our behalf.

Only Jesus can do that. Only Jesus is the Mediator between God and men.

Are you being silly or are you using this as a defense?

HGL
BS "just because someone is insipred by God doesn't mean that every word from that person is insipred by God."

Those said WHEN inspired by God, definitely yes.

JL "We don't erect statues to our parents OR pray to them to intercede with God for us."

To the second first : you never asked ma or pa to pray for you? That was, if they did, interceding with God for you.

As to statues, do you have photos in the wallet?

Even Kent Hovind used to have a photo with the comment "this is not my wife ... (pause) ... it is just a picture of her".

JL
HGL

You need to reread what I wrote. I assume English is not your native language. Something got lost in the translation. You have twisted and misunderstood everything I said.

I was ANSWERING. Stephens arguments. Stephen said...

"Wait, we don’t ask our parents to pray for us? We don’t have pictures of our parents on our walls?"

I argued that....

1. a picture is not an object of worship. It's memorabilia, with no power to heal or help. A statue in the church is prayed to, knelt before, and felt to have special power.

2. Praying to God together WITH someone is different from praying TO a dead person to intercede for us with God.

Do you get the difference?

HGL
"I don't kneel in front of that picture"

No, but you would tend to feel more respect when seeing it, since thinking of the person, right?

"or feel it holds special powers to heal or hear me."

We don't feel pictures of themselves hold powers. God holds them - but He honours certain pictures with miracles and plenty of heard petitions.

JL "You need to reread what I wrote."

What exact part?

"I assume English is not your native language."

Technically more or less correct. English is a dialect of my native language Germanic, but my native dialects of it are German and Swedish.

While technically correct, it is also irrelevant. People who complain of my mastery of English or French are usually nitpicking, sometimes even wrongly on their own grammar's principles, and very often simply don't like what I said.

"You have twisted came misunderstood everything I said."

Now, "you have twisted came misunderstood" seems incoherent in my mastery of English. Did you rewrite the sentence? And miss parts?

"Something got lost in the translation."

There was no translation - I think as fluently in English or French as in Swedish or German.

I am very sorry that attempts like this one to be "charitable" rather than hold me accountable for the comparisons I give, have given rise to illfounded rumours of my low mastery of non-Swedish languages.

I would also be very sorry if your "charitable" misunderstanding contributed to this rumour mongering.

JL
My apologies.

Haha. Autocorrect is stupid and sometimes I just have fat fingers. I went back and corrected. You just answered me back too fast.

HGL

Pictures are not worshipped for the reasons I gave.

Statues are used in worship. It is no different then the many statues used in Bible times by the Israelites. Their cities were conquered and the Temple destroyed for this transgression.

Reading Isaiah, Ezekiel, and especially Jeremiah really helps one understand the serious error of using a statue to worship God.

HGL
It seems you updated your comment, I'll add:

"1. a picture is not an object of worship."

Depends on definition of "worship".

"Its memorabilia"

Dito.

"with no power to heal or help."

If it were a photo of a saint, it would have such power, like the handkerchiefs touched to the clothes of Sts Paul and Barnabas.

"A statue in the church is prayed to,"

Technically incorrect.

"knelt before,"

Because one should kneel before God and before those closer to Him than one is oneself.

"and felt to have special power."

Not in itself.

"2. Praying to God together WITH someone"

Not the case I envisaged. I was not asking if you had asked your ma to pray with you, but whether you had asked her to pray for you, a k a keep you in her prayers.

"is different from praying TO"

Brings up what "praying to" means in this context.

"a dead person"

Not applicable to saints, since they are go with the lamb wheresoever he walketh. Especially not with those who are not actually dead : Henoch, Elijah, St John the Beloved and foremost the Blessed Virgin Mary.

"to intercede for us with God."

I heard you think it is different, but if you asked your ma to keep you in her prayers, you asked her to intercede for you with God.

If you counter she would have replied to keep her in your prayers too, those in Heaven don't need them and we do give prayers for those who can be presumed to be in Purgatory.

"Reading Isaiah, Ezekiel, and especially Jeremiah really helps one understand the serious error of using a statue to worship God."

You can tell me what exact passages? Do they really refer to statues intended to honour God, rather than false gods?

If yes, how about the fact that God could not be depicted before the Incarnation, but He can be depicted now, doesn't that change sth as to the situation?

BS
HGL

Someone that is insipred by God is not always correct - I guess I need to hold you hand in understanding this. - a pastor or preacher can preach a message and by insipred by God and be faulty in parts of his message. - there is a system used to determine what parts of the meathod are truth.

Catholics tend to do exactly what you are doing by never addressing the exact subject being discussed. You tend to go out into left field pulling verses way out of context.

HGL
"Autocorrect is stupid"

twisted came misunderstood = twisted and misunderstood, I suppose?

JL
HGL

Yeah. My fat finger hit the c when I hit the space bar and auto correct changed and to came.

HGL
BS "Someone that is insipred by God is not always correct"

He is WHEN so inspired.

BS
Since you want to beat around the bush with the subject of worship.

Here is the definition.

wor·ship
ˈwərSHəp/Submit
noun
1.
the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity.
"the worship of God"
synonyms: reverence, veneration, adoration, glorification, glory, exaltation

Now tell me again how you all don't "worship" statues or Mary?

HGL did you not read my example?

So every word a pastor preaches is true? After all he is inspired by God right?

Another sign of Catholic ignorance.

Being the inspired Word of God is different than being inspired by God.

in·spired
inˈspī(ə)rd/Submit
adjective
1.
of extraordinary quality, as if arising from some external creative impulse.
"they had to thank the goalie for some inspired saves"
2.
(of air or another substance) that is breathed in.
"inspired air must be humidified

Not every word Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John ever wrote was put in the Bible, now was it?

HGL
Whatever you may think of other moments than the Magnificat, all of that worship She gave to God is totally correct, since in previous verse described as under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

"So every word a pastor preaches is true?"

No.

"After all he is inspired by God right?"

At best protected from doctrinal error in Papal definitions. Inspiration is not given to preaching in that sense.

Now, the dictionary defintion you gave:

"the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity."

Since the Blessed Virgin is NOT a deity and adoration of Her is NOT allowed, there is no worship on that definition, of Her.

"Being the inspired Word of God is different than being inspired by God."

A man made dictionary of common parlance is in this case no help, since the word is heavily abused.

I actually misread, misrecalled, since the text only says that Elisabeth was inspired:

"And it came to pass, that when Elizabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the infant leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: [42] And she cried out with a loud voice, and said:"

So, her words are inspired. But usually the songs of praise in the Bible are counted as inspired as well. Hence this still applies to the Magnificat, not just to the Hail Mary.

"Not every word Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John ever wrote was put in the Bible, now was it?"

No, but every word they attributed to a person who was "filled with the Holy Ghost" just after mentioning that fact can be counted as their stamp on the divine origin of those words. Unlike a person who is bad, a person who is mistaken and later corrects himself, or a person who is corrected.

JL
HGL

Here is an example of what Protestants would object to as a prayer TO a man....

"The Prayer to St Jude

O most holy apostle, Saint Jude, faithful servant and friend of Jesus,

the Church honoureth and invoketh thee universally, as the patron of hopeless cases,

and of things almost despaired of.

Pray for me, who am so miserable. Make use, I implore thee, of that particular privilege accorded to thee, to bring visible and speedy help where help was almost despaired of.

Come to mine assistance in this great need, that I may receive the consolation and succor of Heaven in all my necessities, tribulations, and sufferings, particularly (here make your request) and that I may praise God with thee and all the elect throughout eternity.

I promise thee, O blessed Jude, to be ever mindful of this great favour, to always honour thee as my special and powerful patron, and to gratefully encourage devotion to thee.

Amen."


This is WORSHIP. You may disagree but the scriptures never show an Apostle erecting a statue of Jesus or angels or of martyred Saints and praying before them.

Jesus plainly COMMANDED US...

1. NO REPETITIVE OR WRITTEN PRAYERS.

"When praying, do not say the same things over and over again as the people of the nations do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words." Matthew 6:7

2. ONLY PRAY TO THE FATHER, NOT SAINTS.

"You must pray, then, this way:“‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified...." Matthew 6:9.

HGL

The Prayer to St Jude is a form of WORSHIP.

You may disagree but the scriptures never show an Apostle erecting a statue of Jesus or angels or of martyred Saints and praying before them.

Jesus plainly COMMANDED US...

1. NO REPETITIVE OR WRITTEN PRAYERS.

"When praying, do not say the same things over and over again as the people of the nations do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words." Matthew 6:7

2. ONLY PRAY TO THE FATHER, NOT SAINTS.

"You must pray, then, this way:“‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified...." Matthew 6:9.

HGL
"This is WORSHIP."

No, it is dulia. Asking for intercession.

"the scriptures never show"

There are lots of the things you do the scriptures never directly show either - like considering bowing down before a statue as worship.

"Jesus plainly COMMANDED US...

1. NO REPETITIVE OR WRITTEN PRAYERS"


You are using a translation which includes a Protestant interpretation in "same things over again". That is not His actual words. As to written prayers, not even in your translation are those mentioned.

"2. ONLY PRAY TO THE FATHER, NOT SAINTS."

Picking out of context. A good interpretation of the real implication as to other prayers is given by St Augustine : we may pray in other words, but not for other things. Honouring the saints involves hallowing God's name, so is not praying for another thing.

BS
"at best protected from doctrinal error" not true. - you can not tell me that every Catholic priest is never in error of their doctrinal statements.

Man is fallible. We are finite beings.

Just because a definition says deity doesn't mean that the word "deity" stands alone.

Anything that you put before God in all things is considered adultery towards God, therefore statues, Mary, anything else that is prayed to, admired, and so forth becomes idolatry.

God is a jealous God and wants all the worship and praise because he deserves nothing less than all.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all still finite beings and no matter what you say you can not back any claim that you make by "every word they attributed to a person who was filled with the Holly Ghost just after mentioning that fact can be counted as their stamp on divine origin of those words"

This is a typical Catholic argument.

Every Catholic on here continues to add to the Bible to try and prove a point thus proving that each and every single one of you do not hold to the teachings of the Bible. You don't follow God you follow the pope.

No where in the Bible does it say Mary was sinless. No where in the Greek can you prove it.

You a constantly twisting the scripture when talking about praying for and praying to someone.

It will always be a circular argument.

JL
HGL

A written prayer is written down so it can be repeated.

Seems self evident that a written prayer is a repetitive prayer

HGL
JL and first BS

BS, answering your earlier point to Stephen Johnson : SJ can you show me one instance in the Bible where someone was prayed to or for after they left this earth?

  • To : Abraham was prayed to by the rich presumable Pharisee.
  • For : Onesiphorus.


"not true. - you can not tell me that every Catholic priest is never in error of their doctrinal statements."

I never said so. I said "at best" - namely in circumstances where infallibility is claimed as per promises of Christ to His Church.

"Man is fallible. We are finite beings"

So were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Yet, they were not only infallible doctrinally but inerrant as to facts in writing the Gospels. Hence, there are occasions on which God has promised the Church infallibility. Like when recognising their inerrant inspiration.

"Just because a definition says deity doesn't mean that the word "deity" stands alone."

If you don't like the dictionary defintion, how about looking at Catholic definitions, like difference between adoration and dulia?

"Anything that you put before God in all things is considered adultery towards God,"

Yes.

"therefore"

No, doesn't follow.

"statues, Mary, anything else that is prayed to, admired, and so forth becomes idolatry."

We are not putting any of them before God in all things.

"God is a jealous God and wants all the worship and praise because he deserves nothing less than all."

God is a generous God, who, while reserving all WORSHIP for himself also shares some kinds of honour of praise with His close ones.

"Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all still finite beings and no matter what you say you can not back any claim that you make by "every word they attributed to a person who was filled with the Holly Ghost just after mentioning that fact can be counted as their stamp on divine origin of those words"

That is like saying that while the Bible is inspired, its obvious sense can be misleading.

It is not true.

"This is a typical Catholic argument."

Thank you!

"Every Catholic on here continues to add to the Bible to try and prove a point thus proving that each and every single one of you do not hold to the teachings of the Bible. You don't follow God you follow the pope."

Wild accusations. Following the Church and its appointed pastors is opposed to following God exactly how?

"No where in the Bible does it say Mary was sinless. No where in the Greek can you prove it."

That was not my point. My point was She was inspired when praising God by the Magnificat, which is therefore an inerrant text.

However, as you challenged me ...

καὶ ἔχθραν θήσω ἀνὰ μέσον σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματός σου καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον τοῦ σπέρματος αὐτῆς αὐτός σου τηρήσει κεφαλήν καὶ σὺ τηρήσεις αὐτοῦ πτέρναν

Any sin on part of the woman would have been incomplete ἔχθρα between Her and the serpent.

"You a constantly twisting the scripture when talking about praying for and praying to someone."

Like Onesiphorus and Abraham?

"It will always be a circular argument."

You pretend. So it is a circular argument to pretend you have the correct interpretation of the Bible because you have the Bible but not the interpretation from the Catholic Church.

@JL : "Seems self evident that a written prayer is a repetitive prayer"

The point is "repetitive" is not the word Christ uses in Matthew 6:7!

JL
HGL

Repetitive MEANS to repeat.

Same word, Hans

HGL
JL Repetitive or repeat is NOT the word Christ used.

προσευχόμενοι δὲ μὴ βατταλογήσητε

Battalogein does not mean "repeat".

mercredi 16 mai 2018

With TM, an Atheist Fanatic


HGL's F.B. writings : With TM, an Atheist Fanatic · New blog on the kid : Before You Call Someone (For Instance Me) a Mind Control Victim ...

Status by TM:



My answer to this begins thread III.

I
SA
Without God there would be no science.

TM
Matter can neither be created nor destroyed! Scientic law!

Man invented your fairy story God which you cannot prove exists!

II
TM
Who created your God? People that need God are dangerous!

HGL
"Matter can neither be created nor destroyed!"

Material objects and human souls are not capable of either creating or destroying matter in an observable way.

In fact, angels also cannot destroy or create matter.

"Scientic law!"

Deleting the active subject of who and what cannot do a a thing and using a passive as a lever against God is not a scientific formulation.

"Man invented your fairy story God which you cannot prove exists!"

Now you are trying to "scientifically" denigrate men into creating fairy stories and then believing them as history. Tell me if you ever meet a man who takes Lord of the Rings as history!

"Who created your God?"

There are perhaps things so caused as to cause nothing further (I don't know, something says probably not, except in same field of causation, where there are - like a bullet stopping in a tree trunk and pushing itself and matter in the way no further).

There are certainly things so caused as to also cause further (like a bullet when impacting causes displacement of whatever is in the way - hopefully not a human stomach full of liquids, I've seen a bullet through an empty tank and through a water filled one!)

At the other end of the spectrum there are causes not caused (like your finger causing a bullet to go off by pulling a trigger).

God being the ultimate one of these is per definition not created.

"People that need God are dangerous!"

Marxist clap trap, and Marxists are documentedly dangerous, sorry, that is an insult to dangerous, they are vicious.

Look up Wurmbrandt's Tortured for Christ to see what Marxists did in Romania, and stop equating Theists with Islamic State.

TM
Man is dangerous & more so when they have a "God"

HGL
Man is dangerous, because Adam fell.

Having a false "God" - including yours, the absence of God - makes him more dangerous.

TM
Islam is an abrahamic religion they beleive in talking snakes also all reigions need to be exterminated! Hence forth we will bring you terminators

All religions involve judgement & punishment they are all mind control

HGL
In other words, you equate Islamic State with all of Muslims and all of Muslims with all other Abrahamic religions.

Sounds like equating Jewish usurers and rapists with all of Jews (you know the rest of the story, I presume, your army helped end it in 1945).

There is not anything like a mind without any kind of judgement or punishment or influence by others, which could with a stretch be considered mind control.

You show some of these.

TM
No your mind is controlled that is why you need a God & a government!

HGL
Sounds like yours is fanatic.

III
HGL
According to Christianity, I am both.

That is not damaging, it is balancing.

TM
You cannot reason with religous people otherwise they won't be religious!

HGL
You mean Atheists can't reason with religious people over recruting them for atheism, right?

I am religious, and plenty of people have reasoned with me - over other subjects.

Also, atheists have actually modified my religious affiliation, when telling me my Protestant Bible is after all a gift from the Catholic Church. I set about a journey to conversion fairly promptly, even if delays made it last to c. 4 years later.

IV
HGL
I think I owe you to notify you, this debate has been blogged, you have been anonymised:

[link here - the title involving Atheist Fanatic is visible in preview]

I can add that since you said "No your mind is controlled that is why you need a God", I reported this, without anonymising, to the mayor, Madame Hidalgo. As your being suspect of being part of an atheist harrassment, along with the Muslim one I earlier complained of.

TM
I' not a fanatic you American Taliban are the fanatics I'm a scientist You'r American Empire is going to implode! Watch & see!

HGL
  • 1) I am not US American, I am Swedish, though I would not have minded being American either.

  • 2) Taliban is plural. It means students. Singular, a student, is taleeb. I am indeed a taleeb of Latin, Greek, German, Lithuanian, Polish and the cultural histories of Lithuania and of the three Baltic countries including Lithuania ... was that what you were referring to?

  • 3) "you X are the fanatics, I/we am/are scientist-s" is a very fanatic statement. I did not call you fanatic due to your beliefs, but due to how you deal with such believing what you don't - as seen in previous exchanges in this debate.

  • 4) "You'r American Empire is going to implode!"

    Possible. I am more into Holy Roman Empire, which you seem to like as well, there are so nice chalets there ... (yes, Switzerland is one of the successor states to it).

    As far as America is concerned, I am not anti-American, but I am worried for America.

    US did quite a few services to freedom during Reagan. If US go, so do a lot of free countries it has defended, some better than itself.


Also, I do have fond memories from there.

V
RL & HGL
in dialogue:


HGL as previous
better visibility:
You know, the kind of religion you are thinking of is actually what I call apostasy.