Anti-Catholic Bigotry

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Look, you have a baby, you are so OBVIOUSLY not a virgin. I mean, c'mon, think about it. I was just adding that note to this thread.

You can't pick-and-choose what to believe out of the Bible. You either believe all of it or none of it. If you believe it, then you must believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. For the sake of this conversation, we're banking on people believing the Bible.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Look, you have a baby, you are so OBVIOUSLY not a virgin. I mean, c'mon, think about it. I was just adding that note to this thread.

You can't pick-and-choose what to believe out of the Bible. You either believe all of it or none of it. If you believe it, then you must believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. For the sake of this conversation, we're banking on people believing the Bible.

Wouldn't that make Jesus a bastard son? I mean, if god is so smart, wouldn't be try to line it up so his son isn't illigitimate?

 

[Mo0o]

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=429

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze

Originally posted by: JujuFish

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze
bible page of said information?

Matthew 13:55

Edit: Killed nested quotes.

holy crap. Never knew.

aahahahahahaha, pwned

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
Well, the problem is, is that some christians believe the King James bible word for word is straight out of the mouth of god himself. 'cept it isn't, and the earliest copies of the bible were first commited to paper nearly 100 years after christ died. So no living members of the apostate actually had any hand in writing the bible. So much confusion, and twisting of words to suit people's purposes...

The last book of the Bible as we know it was written around 300 years after his death, but it wasn't 100 years after his death that the first began writing. Some books of the new testament were written relatively soon after his death.

However, I'm of the belief that if God is powerful enough to create everything, he's probably smart enough to make sure the gospel stays in tact.

The basic message (love thy brother, etc) stays the same, but some of the facts and what not undoubtebly have changed. They're not all that important though. Its the message that matters.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Wouldn't that make Jesus a bastard son? I mean, if god is so smart, wouldn't be try to line it up so his son isn't illigitimate?

No, because he wasn't conceived and born out of wedlock. They were married.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
Well, the problem is, is that some christians believe the King James bible word for word is straight out of the mouth of god himself. 'cept it isn't, and the earliest copies of the bible were first commited to paper nearly 100 years after christ died. So no living members of the apostate actually had any hand in writing the bible. So much confusion, and twisting of words to suit people's purposes...

The last book of the Bible as we know it was written around 300 years after his death, but it wasn't 100 years after his death that the first began writing. Some books of the new testament were written relatively soon after his death.

However, I'm of the belief that if God is powerful enough to create everything, he's probably smart enough to make sure the gospel stays in tact.

The basic message (love thy brother, etc) stays the same, but some of the facts and what not undoubtebly have changed. They're not all that important though. Its the message that matters.

If "the facts and whatnot" have undoubtedly changed, then on what, exactly, are you basing your assertion that "the message" has not?

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
Well, the problem is, is that some christians believe the King James bible word for word is straight out of the mouth of god himself. 'cept it isn't, and the earliest copies of the bible were first commited to paper nearly 100 years after christ died. So no living members of the apostate actually had any hand in writing the bible. So much confusion, and twisting of words to suit people's purposes...

The last book of the Bible as we know it was written around 300 years after his death, but it wasn't 100 years after his death that the first began writing. Some books of the new testament were written relatively soon after his death.

However, I'm of the belief that if God is powerful enough to create everything, he's probably smart enough to make sure the gospel stays in tact.

The basic message (love thy brother, etc) stays the same, but some of the facts and what not undoubtebly have changed. They're not all that important though. Its the message that matters.

I agree, it's better to this of the Bible as a book of allegories with certain historical references as oppose to an accurate chronicle

 

[Spamela]

Originally posted by: mAdMaLuDaWg
Just like to clear some things up as a practicing Catholic.

No where in the Bible does it say that you aren't allowed to Pray to anybody but God. Worship and Prayer are not the same thing. When Catholics pray to Mary/Saints/anyone else, they intercede to God through the said person. Again, there is a big difference between worshipping and praying.

Also about the Brother quote in the Bible, you can attribute that to Lost in Translation in Hebrew. There are other verses in the Bible that show that Jesus was the only son (Jesus entrusting his Mother Mary to another disciple at the time of his death instead of his "brother" comes to mind).

it also helps to mention dulia, hyperdulia, and latria, and point
out that Marian devotion precedes Protestantism by > 1000 years.

you could also ask why his alleged brothers were NOT at the cross,
point out that in mid-eastern tribal cultures "brother" is not used solely
the way we use it, and ask where is it that the brothers are
called children of Mary?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
If "the facts and whatnot" have undoubtedly changed, then on what, exactly, are you basing your assertion that "the message" has not?

Exactly. You can't be wishy washy about the Bible. You have to believe that it's X% accurate and X% true and accept X% of it where X is either 0 or 100.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Spamela
it also helps to mention dulia, hyperdulia, and latria, and point
out that Marian devotion precedes Protestantism by > 1000 years.

That makes Marian Devotion okay then?

you could also ask why his alleged brothers were NOT at the cross,
point out that in mid-eastern tribal cultures "brother" is not used solely
the way we use it, and ask where is it that the brothers are
called children of Mary?

It doesn't matter if they were at the cross or not. I think some of the ideas can be interpreted differently (like love being either eros, agape, etc), but Jesus had more friends than just those four "siblings" and by those same mid-eastern tribal cultures, the friends would also be called siblings, but they're not (Jesus's best friend). Besides, these weren't tribes we're talking about here. These were more civilized, primary civilizations on the planet at the time -not naked and painted dancing around a bonfire or something.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah
Well, the problem is, is that some christians believe the King James bible word for word is straight out of the mouth of god himself. 'cept it isn't, and the earliest copies of the bible were first commited to paper nearly 100 years after christ died. So no living members of the apostate actually had any hand in writing the bible. So much confusion, and twisting of words to suit people's purposes...

The last book of the Bible as we know it was written around 300 years after his death, but it wasn't 100 years after his death that the first began writing. Some books of the new testament were written relatively soon after his death.

However, I'm of the belief that if God is powerful enough to create everything, he's probably smart enough to make sure the gospel stays in tact.

The basic message (love thy brother, etc) stays the same, but some of the facts and what not undoubtebly have changed. They're not all that important though. Its the message that matters.

If "the facts and whatnot" have undoubtedly changed, then on what, exactly, are you basing your assertion that "the message" has not?

Hey, I'm not even christian, but if all the islamic people and the christian people actually sat down and read the sh1t about peace and fellowship and brotherhood, then there would be alot less fvcked up sh1t going down. Its like Mo0o said.

 

[Cruisin1]

Man that was one funny episode I was on the fllor laughing my ass off when the pope got the blood all over his face. Then when he pope had the press release saying it wasn't a miracle I about died laughing.

 

[ThisIsMatt]

I find it "BLASPHEMOUS" that catholics hold Mary in such high regard.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

n/m

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Hyperblaze

Originally posted by: MaxDepth
Well...your religion is all about how great the Saints are, and we all know they sucked this year, even without the hurricane.

not really.

I believe you have a misconception about what the catholic faith is.

I believe you missed the joke...

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Look, you have a baby, you are so OBVIOUSLY not a virgin. I mean, c'mon, think about it. I was just adding that note to this thread.

You can't pick-and-choose what to believe out of the Bible. You either believe all of it or none of it. If you believe it, then you must believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. For the sake of this conversation, we're banking on people believing the Bible.

Actually, the bible is what it is because people picked and chose what to put in it. Men created the bible, and they did it with their own personal and political biases. It just so happens that the faction in love with paul won out and got to choose the books. The current beliefs of christians as a whole are what they are because these choices of dogma were backed up by the sword of the christian roman emperors of the 4th, 5th, & 6th centuries.

BTW many early christians believed that Jesus and Jude, or Judas Thomas, were twins. Jesus was supposedly the son of God and Mary, but Jude was the son of Joseph. This is hell of a lot more believable than Mary suddenly getting pregnant before Joseph fvcked her. If that had really happened she would have been stoned to death or something. Joseph screwing her, and her having twins, one of which showing signs of a divine gift, doesn't strain the realism too much. But, of course, give a religion decades and centuries to develop, and any crazy claims can become acceptable with the help of that wonderful force... dogma.

 

[Eeezee]

Okay, so this Catholic group got upset at this episode but didn't get upset with that episode that said only Mormons go to heaven? Isn't that slightly more serious?

"You're going to hell" - Cathlic group says: "Okay"
"*makes a vague reference to mother mary havinga period*" - Cathlic group says: "OMGWTF F4Gz0RZ"

 

[Spamela]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Spamela
it also helps to mention dulia, hyperdulia, and latria, and point
out that Marian devotion precedes Protestantism by > 1000 years.

That makes Marian Devotion okay then?

you could also ask why his alleged brothers were NOT at the cross,
point out that in mid-eastern tribal cultures "brother" is not used solely
the way we use it, and ask where is it that the brothers are
called children of Mary?

It doesn't matter if they were at the cross or not. I think some of the ideas can be interpreted differently (like love being either eros, agape, etc), but Jesus had more friends than just those four "siblings" and by those same mid-eastern tribal cultures, the friends would also be called siblings, but they're not (Jesus's best friend). Besides, these weren't tribes we're talking about here. These were more civilized, primary civilizations on the planet at the time -not naked and painted dancing around a bonfire or something.

"That makes Marian Devotion okay then?" - martin luther was down
with it, see here.
it was a practice accepted & encouraged by the early church.
why should it become NOT ok just because some Protestants said it wasn't?

do you honestly think that if your sibling were being executed publicly
you woudn't be there?
btw, tribal doesn't mean primitive, more like very extended clan
(true in the mideast today, too).

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Spamela
"That makes Marian Devotion okay then?" - martin luther was down
with it, see here.
it was a practice accepted & encouraged by the early church.
why should it become NOT ok just because some Protestants said it wasn't?

Because Christ taught that it's not okay. That's why. Just because the church says it's cool doesn't mean it is -which is exactly the point of what Luther nailed to the church doors.

do you honestly think that if your sibling were being executed publicly
you woudn't be there?
btw, tribal doesn't mean primitive, more like very extended clan
(true in the mideast today, too).

I've got family members that I wouldn't attend their execution. That doesn't mean I'm not their family member. The Bible still fails to call Jesus's best friend his brother or sibling or anything. It stands to reason that, in context, the passages describing his siblings are blood relatives.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Wouldn't that make Jesus a bastard son? I mean, if god is so smart, wouldn't be try to line it up so his son isn't illigitimate?

No, because he wasn't conceived and born out of wedlock. They were married.

But it's not Joseph's son.

Also, Mary was engaged at the time of the Annunciation, not married.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: mwtgg
Wouldn't that make Jesus a bastard son? I mean, if god is so smart, wouldn't be try to line it up so his son isn't illigitimate?

No, because he wasn't conceived and born out of wedlock. They were married.

But it's not Joseph's son.

Also, Mary was engaged at the time of the Annunciation, not married.

They would have been called married, but it wouldn't have been what we concider marriage. Joseph considered divorcing her when she became pregnant. You can't get a divorce without being married. Jewish betrothal was very very similar to being married. Basically the same thing.

Matthew 1:18-22

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph [married], before they came together [done the horizontal polka], she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

In biblical times, to be 'betrothed' was like saying that short of death, they're going to be married, only the ceremony hadn't taken place. It was a lot more serious than being engaged is today.

 

[DougK62]

I find it hilarious that these Protestant "Christians" attack Catholics for praying to Mary. EVERY mass I've been to - including every Protestant church I've visited - has somewhere in there that they ask for you to pray for someone who is sick/injured/etc. This is EXACTLY what Catholics do with Mary - they ask her to pray for the sick/injured/etc. Explain to me how that's different.

Hypocrite, elitist idiots.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: DougK62
I find it hilarious that these Protestant "Christians" attack Catholics for praying to Mary. EVERY mass I've been to - including every Protestant church I've visited - has somewhere in there that they ask for you to pray for someone who is sick/injured/etc. This is EXACTLY what Catholics do with Mary - they ask her to pray for the sick/injured/etc. Explain to me how that's different.

Hypocrite, elitist idiots.

1) Mary is dead. Mary isn't alive. She cannot pray. Her soul is sleeping, according to how the Bible describes death. She won't wake until the 2nd coming.

2) Why ask Mary to pray for you when you can pray right to God to begin with?

3) Did you miss the whole "but through me" thing that Jesus said?

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: DougK62
I find it hilarious that these Protestant "Christians" attack Catholics for praying to Mary. EVERY mass I've been to - including every Protestant church I've visited - has somewhere in there that they ask for you to pray for someone who is sick/injured/etc. This is EXACTLY what Catholics do with Mary - they ask her to pray for the sick/injured/etc. Explain to me how that's different.

Hypocrite, elitist idiots.

And yet, it's the Catholics who flock to freeway overpass stains that bear a remote resemblance to Mary, and get all emotional about these "miracles"...