Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

[Dropkick_Pantacles]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

No, you resort to ad hominem attacks, and as such don't belong in CT.

While I disagree with many of the principles of religion and of course question its foundation, I think the way you're handling it is rather childish. The whole point of Critical Thinking is to debate. When you debate you rebut and can attack the points of others. Attacking your opponent personally is not part of debate. Leave that for The Garbage Bin.

Well I feel strongly about the point. Obviously, if someone comes up to you and insists that the sky appears pink without changing their ground, you would view them as stupid (or colourblind). Its the same thing with religion, in my eyes. Its just that stupid.

[OrganisM]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

I feel strongly about the topic as well, and I strongly feel that your point is rather shallow.

"You are stating something which to me is obviously incorrect. Therefore, you are stupid."

It's not the same, and you're taking things out of context. I can see the lot of good and bad that religion does, and if you can't, I'm sorry for your lack of life experience.

Let's not perpetuate this. It'll only turn into a mess.

[Dropkick_Pantacles]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

I feel strongly about the topic as well, and I strongly feel that your point is rather shallow.

"You are stating something which to me is obviously incorrect. Therefore, you are stupid."

It's not the same, and you're taking things out of context. I can see the lot of good and bad that religion does, and if you can't, I'm sorry for your lack of life experience.

Let's not perpetuate this. It'll only turn into a mess.

Im a scientist and an athiest. If it isnt fact, it isnt me. So its as plain as the colour of the sky, to me. I can see what religion does... provides false hopes, and causing a messload of conflict in the world.

[OrganisM]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Religion causes a lot of bad, but it does a lot of good in the world. But that's an entirely different subject.

I am agnostic, and I have a great appreciation for science. And I can safely say that your pretentiousness is definitely not characteristic of a scientist.

[Dropkick_Pantacles]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Religion causes a lot of bad, but it does a lot of good in the world. But that's an entirely different subject.

I am agnostic, and I have a great appreciation for science. And I can safely say that your pretentiousness is definitely not characteristic of a scientist.

not a scientist, just someone intolerant with stupidity. Which is why I can talk to you. Easy to tell your a great thinker and a smart guy.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Devonin-
"practices that the "true" church did"

Yes, practices that as we have established, are biblically unfounded.

Again, you have by no means proved that. I'm not asking for a conversion, here, but even if you don't agree with it, the Catholic interpretation (hardly an interpretation, though) is most definitely biblically founded.

I don't have the time at the moment, but the one point on which you rested your entire argument is shaky at best, and claiming victory in our debate because I've been too busy to respond as of late is almost a logical fallacy in and of itself.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Im a scientist

not a scientist

Riight.

haha, hes stupid.

for one, he believes in god.

secondly, he is a meanie.

Ad hominem - 5 points. Also, to whom was that directed? Claiming that "anyone who believes in God is stupid" is a fairly ignorant kind of statement to make. I've known plenty of highly intelligent people who also believe in God.

Those are your words... Catholic or Heathen. how bout... Pushover or Critical Thinker. OR, Delusionist or Logical Person. OR, why not Crackpot or Not-Stupidass.

Ad hominem again. -10 for repeat offense. I've known many non-religious pushovers, and delusional people, plenty of logical religious people, and vice versa. These statements contribute nothing.

Obviously, if someone comes up to you and insists that the sky appears pink without changing their ground, you would view them as stupid (or colourblind).

If to them, it genuinely -did- appear to be pink, they would think the exact same of you for claiming it was blue, and for much the same reason. How can you be so sure that you are the correct one?

Welcome to Critical Thinking, please review the stickies with regard to the rules, you might find the ones about personal attacks, and backing up your claims with evidence especially helpful.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Again, you have by no means proved that. I'm not asking for a conversion, here, but even if you don't agree with it, the Catholic interpretation (hardly an interpretation, though) is most definitely biblically founded.

I don't have the time at the moment, but the one point on which you rested your entire argument is shaky at best, and claiming victory in our debate because I've been too busy to respond as of late is almost a logical fallacy in and of itself.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

If what im saying is so shaky, explain to me how "abstain from things strangled, abstain from blood", would not be in use in this instance of transubstantiation?

The Bible is not a Chinese Buffet in which you pick and choose what to acknowledge.
-2 Timothy 3:16

Any interpretation of the Bible, should completely harmonize with the stated facts listed therein. 100% of the time.

ex: "Do not Kill" "Do not commit fornication" "Do not worship idols" "Abstain from blood"

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Does the lack of a response from anyone indicate that you all can understand the logical line of reasoning im using?
Getting back to my original post on this thread, Catholicism does indeed have un-scriptural practices and in my opinion the Pope should address the internal doctrinal concerns of the catholic church before calling any other church "defective".

[Relambrien]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Does the lack of a response from anyone indicate that you all can understand the logical line of reasoning im using?

Not necessarily; it just means that anybody who's cared to look at your post hasn't cared to respond to it. Those who would respond to it haven't yet looked at it.

[jakspar0w]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

My eyes are tired, so I'm going to take the easy way out without reading much and say
he isn't right unless you believe in infallibility hah!
I'll go more into it later, as this was a nooby attempt :/

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

That objection only applies if the Pope were actually speaking from office in that manner (which rarely happens)

If you consider that he's speaking from the conception that the Catholic Church is the correct faith, you can fairly easily point out where he feels justified in making that claim, even though I'm pretty sure (though you admittedly didn't read much) that we showed that he never actually said such a thing in those precise words.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

If what im saying is so shaky, explain to me how "abstain from things strangled, abstain from blood", would not be in use in this instance of transubstantiation?

Well, firstly, non-Jews were never expected to be held to the Mosaic Law. "Don't drink any blood whatsoever" was never a part of church or natural law to Christians.

According to Church scholars, the mention in Acts 15 was more of a Pastoral command; the Jerusalem Council was a big meeting of Jews and Christians, and to tell the Christians to abstain from those things that were particularly abhorrent to Jews was more of an olive branch to establish a common ground and good relations between the groups. Surely you can imagine why drinking the blood of strangled animals in front of Jews would be a bad idea.

Paul finds out that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem believe that he has encouraged them to abandon the Mosaic Law in Acts 21, but he actually had no objection to their retaining of the law there. This goes to show that he doesn't mind if they practice the Mosaic law (or, at least, the particular things mentioned at the Council), but does not extend the Mosaic Law as a command to all Christians.

This makes sense when you take into consideration how the apostles went out and professed the Real Presence of the Eucharist to the world.

There were certainly reasons to establish the abstinence from blood in the Mosaic law, but there's no reason to assume it widely applies to all people, Christian and Jew alike. Even then, blood doesn't carry some mystical "life force"; it's just a bunch of plasma, platelets, and blood cells. It's a good symbol for life, but not especially significant in any way.

Bloody sacrifices were raised up to God to indicate that all blood comes from him and is his. As such, who are we to say that he can't give his blood out when he wants?

--Guido

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Paul finds out that the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem believe that he has encouraged them to abandon the Mosaic Law in Acts 21, but he actually had no objection to their retaining of the law there. This goes to show that he doesn't mind if they practice the Mosaic law (or, at least, the particular things mentioned at the Council), but does not extend the Mosaic Law as a command to all Christians.

--Guido

Christians who had converted from Judaism were putting too much of an emphasis on the mosaic law, such as in the case of circumcision. Trying to impress upon the gentiles that they should have this procedure preformed.
(Acts 15:1)

Because of this, the convening of the apostles and older men of the congregation in Jerusalem, under divine inspiration came to this conclusion.

Acts 15:19,20
"Hence my decision is not to trouble those from the nations who are turning to God, but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood."

To say that this was merely an attempt to make Christianity more palatable to the Jews is absurd. There was no need for such a thing, with all the signs, portents and gifts of the holy spirit.

Not to mention, gentiles had no qualms about eating or drinking blood and this issue was raised largely because the new gentile proselytes were uncircumcised, and the gentiles were not preoccupied with the mosaic law.

Paul did not write, "it doesn't really matter, but if you don't want to, you don't have to drink or eat blood" He made it clear that Christians did not have to be burdened with every aspect of the exhaustive mosaic law, but of that law, this (Acts 15:20) is what they were required to adhere to, a facet of worship to God that had not changed.

Furthermore, about seven years after the Jerusalem council issued the decree, Christians continued to comply with the “decision that they should keep themselves from what is sacrificed to idols as well as from blood and what is strangled and from fornication.” (Ac 21:25) And more than a hundred years later, in 177 C.E., in Lyons (now in France), when religious enemies falsely accused Christians of eating children, a woman named Biblis said: “How would such men eat children, when they are not allowed to eat the blood even of irrational animals?”—The Ecclesiastical History, by Eusebius, V, I, 26.

Early Christians abstained from eating any sort of blood. In this regard Tertullian (c. 155-a. 220 C.E.) pointed out in his work Apology (IX, 13, 14): “Let your error blush before the Christians, for we do not include even animals’ blood in our natural diet. We abstain on that account from things strangled or that die of themselves, that we may not in any way be polluted by blood, even if it is buried in the meat. Finally, when you are testing Christians, you offer them sausages full of blood; you are thoroughly well aware, of course, that among them it is forbidden; but you want to make them transgress.” Minucius Felix, a Roman lawyer who lived until about 250 C.E., made the same point, writing: “For us it is not permissible either to see or to hear of human slaughter; we have such a shrinking from human blood that at our meals we avoid the blood of animals used for food.”—Octavius, XXX, 6

[kommisar[os]]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

If god wanted peace for us why did he create satan