Catholics and Confessions

[AgeofKnowledge]

In my learned opinion Diva, your post was a ridiculous mashup of supposition, falliciousness, ad hominem, and nonsense that isn't a worthy reply to my own; however, you're free to it of course and I in no way love you less. This is not a salvation issue. If someone comes to me and says monotheism came down on a pink cloud and is a genuine Christian then I care about them. Peace and God bless.

 

[SantoSubito]

That was one of the many points of discussion between the secular and Christian proponents of monotheism and secular proponents of polytheism for the original Urreligion in the 19th and 20th century; however, those discussions were limited in their scope to certain arguments such as whether or not polytheism contained evidence of monotheism, etc... and attempted to work backwards.

The Catholic Church, fundamentalist Christian scholars, and certain secular scholars still engage in that discussion in that manner despite the predominant view in academia asserting the predominant model which I already introduced.

But it's important to understand that the argument for primitive monotheism has two threads associated with it. The older well documented academic thread began by Wilhelm Schmidt which approaches the argument in the above manner and a much newer ever-evolving science-based thread that doesn't limit itself to trying to find monotheism in polytheism but views that entire thread as but a minor subset of the overall discussion.

This modern thread has been strongly resisted by the atheists who control academia today yet continues to gain momentum amongst an increasing number of scientists, researchers, and scholars (both secular and non-secular) who believe the aggregate of available evidence fits better into primitive monotheism.

The two threads clouds the issue for many people because, at secular universities, they are only exposed to the older thread up to the Phd level, in a negative way, and if you want to have a successful career in secular academia and not be blacklisted, then you are only permitted to hold and teach the predominant view. Those who do otherwise within that environment are often denied tenure, let go, blocked from publication, denied references, etc...

But outside of the secular classroom environment, they are free to pursue the argument in an honest way and more everyday are joining the ranks of dissention and doing exactly that within the context of the newer thread/movement.

Honestly it seems to me that primitive monotheism was more likely to have existed before or alongside polytheism. Since it is much easier to conceive the idea of one "great spirit" if you will, as opposed to a bunch of different spirits each controlling a different facet of life.

 

[jonathanbchristian]

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervant prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervant prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Thanks, Jonathan.

Unfortunately, we've pointed this and many other Scriptures to others, and they still insist that somehow we're pagan. Not sure when following the Bible became pagan, but that seems to be the thought of a lot of anti-Catholics here.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The different models initially all have access to the same evidence. It's the theory that decides what evidence is accepted and dismissed and guides the way evidence is applied according to the theory's epistemological preconditions. These epistemological conditions provide the basis for each theory's frame of reference and subsequent assertions.

Good models are open to dismissing and changing epistemological conditions as the evidence itself warrants. The very best models take that a step further and are open to dismissing or changing the very theory they were built to support as the evidence warrants.

But of course, we don't see that in the status quo today among academia anymore. They have their theory and their epistemological conditions and they are going to ride it right to the end just like the scholars Einstein upended did... resisting his theory right to the bitter end.

But back to the point. Someone has to make those decisions and someone always seems to have their own biased frame of reference for a particular theory and certain epistemological conditions.

If we are honest men then you and I are no different, in this way, from the professor who stands up and asserts to a roomful of freshman students that "God is dead" and all religious manuscripts ever discovered are pure myth if he truly believes in his mind and heart that the evidence shows that to be a truthful representation for reality.

Yet there is only one reality... as multilayered and complex as it is. The struggle should be over what that really is and not how to make a career from the status quo of reductive materialism because it offers the best opportunity, financial incentive, provides a justification for their ungodly choices and lifestyles, and is supposed to be somehow "neutral" (hint: it is not). Unfortunately, this bureacracy is exactly what many scientists and scholars in the world today have chosen for themselves.

Fortunately, there is a new breed arising that sees the status quo stifling the scientific enterprise and asks the reallly big questions. These are the ones joining the ranks of dissenters in increasingly greater numbers. Keep your eye on them for it is from their number that arise the ones that eventually bring scientific revolution.

Honestly it seems to me that primitive monotheism was more likely to have existed before or alongside polytheism. Since it is much easier to conceive the idea of one "great spirit" if you will, as opposed to a bunch of different spirits each controlling a different facet of life.

 

[Consumed]

I was not going to respond to this, because we have gotten so off topic as to make it downright silly. I am fairly certain that any evidence I supply to support my position you will dismiss as "atheistic" and "ignoring Scriptural evidence," and I can promise you that any evidence you submit I will dismiss as being unscientific, trying to find evidence to support a thesis rather than the other way around. So I really didn't think it was worth driving to my storage facility to dig up my old textbooks and find relevant information for you, since you would have dismissed it anyway.

That said, your lengthy response indicated that in all fairness I really do owe you something. So a few quick google searches revealed, as I indicated, overwhelming evidence for my assertions. Perhaps the easiest link would be Monotheism and Polytheism for Kids!

The EVIDENCE indicates that the earliest Hebrews developed their religion around 1000 BC (give or take a few centuries). This was only barely monotheistic. They clearly believed in other gods, but chose to worship only one, which was different enough from the norm at the time to be noteworthy by multiple sources.

If monotheism had been around before that, other cultures would not have scoffed at the Hebrews for their beliefs, because they wouldn't have been that different from others. The fact that other cultures ridiculed the Hebrews, calling them atheist because they only worshiped one God, FURTHER SUPPORTS the evidence of polytheism predating monotheism.

The EVIDENCE indicates that humans as long ago as 40 thousand years ago had religion, and that that religion was polytheistic, and would remain so for about 37,000 years.

To say that you believe monotheism was around before, because "well, that belief fits with theistic evolution, and I want to believe in that," is just simply not scientific. You can believe that if you want. You can believe that the moon is made of green cheese for all I care. But you will not get anyone in the scientific community to take you seriously with that belief.

That said, there is no point in discussing this further. You will not convince me, short of finding some record proved to be more than 4,000 years old that mentions monotheism. I'm sure I will not convince you, because you have all the evidence before you and still don't accept it, so what's the point.

This thread is for the discussion of Catholics and confession. If you have something pertinent to that topic, I eagerly await hearing it. Otherwise, I am done.

40,000 yes ago, 37,000 years ago you sure the world has been around that long, even millions just because some "learned" people say so.

Bible gives a time line of creation to revelations of the end and a new earth I thought.
Far too intellectual carnal minded influenced thinking for my mind to entertain any thing other than what the bible says.
Gen 1 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

[Grandpa]

No, you have not. You have talked at me. You have never asked me a direct question. If you have a direct question, I will be happy to answer it for you.



No, you haven't. You haven't even bothered to learn what I believe, how could you possibly make statements about any errors there may be? You don't even know what the Catholic Church teaches, let alone what I may or may not believe.

What you have done, repeatedly, is stated what YOU THINK Catholics believe, and then stated how those beliefs are in error.

However, you have been informed, REPEATEDLY, that what YOU THINK Catholics believe is not, actually, what the Catholic Church teaches. And rather than say, "Oh, sorry, I was mistaken. I'm glad you are not accepting of these erroneous beliefs," you say, "No, you don't know what you believe. You actually believe this other false thing, not what you think you believe."

And you wonder why we're calling you to the carpet for it? Not only is that rude, and VERY un-Christ-like behavior, it is false witness in any sense of the word. And the more you deny it, the more you sin.



And once again, I will state that the Catholic Church does not teach this. Anyone who told you that the Catholic Church teaches this was either mistaken or just plain lying (I could believe either). How many times am I going to have to tell you that the Catholic Church does not teach this before you decide maybe your information is incorrect?



As you, and others, have pointed out, there is a difference between "atoning for ones sins" and "forgiving the sins of someone else." Any human can, and according to Scripture MUST, forgive the sins of others who have wronged them. When I forgive the sins of someone who has wronged me, I am not atoning for his sins. When God forgives my sins, God is not atoning for my sins, but is forgiving them. Jesus atoned for my sins on the cross. Once for all.

I'm not sure why you can't get it through your thick skull. If you could just admit that you were mistaken about this, we could probably make great inroads to open, honest discussion. But you refuse, like an ostrich with your head in the sand, insisting that it's night just because you see darkness. Honestly, it's infuriating.

Wow. Nice apology. I accept??

If you read your posts you will see that you told me what catholics believe. I told you, you and your church are in error. You told me I was bearing false witness. Now you say I was wrong about your initial error because you have changed your mind?

Start with this one. Post #61 http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/31071-catholics-confessions-4.html#post549415

Let me know what you think.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Wow. Nice apology. I accept??

If and when I have something to apologize for, I will offer it.

Let me know what you think.

I think you have a problem with reading comprehension. In that very post you pointed me to,
1. You stated that a priest cannot atone but only forgive.
2. I stated that this was true, and that this was what the Catholic Church teaches.

I can kind of see how you might have thought that I meant "the Catholic Church teaches that a priest CAN atone," rather than, "The Catholic Church teaches the same thing you said." If your mind was already set up to assume the worst, then it might have tricked you into misunderstanding what was said.

If that is what happened, then perhaps you can re-read the post(s) recognizing that the Catholic Church does not teach anything that you have stated to be in error.

Even taking that misunderstanding on your part, at NO POINT did I EVER state that I was Catholic, or that I agreed with that policy. So, even if you thought I was saying that the Catholic Church was teaching something in error, I never stated that I agreed with it.

So, when you decide you want to remove your blinders and hear what other people are actually saying, and not what you think they are saying, perhaps we can have an intelligent conversation.

Until then, I have nothing to apologize for, and very little additional to say to you.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I just want to share a few relevant links from the Catholic Encyclopedia for the benefit of the discussion:

1. Doctrine of Atonement.
Link: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Doctrine of the Atonement

2. Absolution
Link: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Absolution

3. The Sacrament of Penance
Link: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Sacrament of Penance

I know it's a couple hours of study Grandpa, but you'll have a good base of what the Catholic Church teaches on this topic after carefully reading through those three links. God bless.

 

[zone]

AoK
pretty impressive storehouse of knowledge you have bud.
enjoying your posts.

how come you don't know who did 9-11 though?
or do you?
z

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

AoK
pretty impressive storehouse of knowledge you have bud.
enjoying your posts.

how come you don't know who did 9-11 though?
or do you?
z

What does that have to do with Catholics or with confession?

I do appreciate Age of Knowledge's links. I wonder if Grandpa and others who have been bearing false witness will read it?

 

[zone]

What does that have to do with Catholics or with confession?

I do appreciate Age of Knowledge's links. I wonder if Grandpa and others who have been bearing false witness will read it?

uh....cool.

Grandpa hasn't been bearing false witness.
lots of catholics use the same defensive line: 'you only think you know what we believe'.

the trouble is RC doctrine and dogma is published. so if individuals don't know what the See says, is that Grandpa's fault?

anyways....

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

the trouble is RC doctrine and dogma is published.

True, which is why I don't understand why people like Grandpa continue to spread untruths, and why people continue to believe it, despite the evidence to the contrary.

lots of catholics use the same defensive line: 'you only think you know what we believe'.

Well, anyone who says "I know what X believes" and then spouts of things that are NOT what X believes, then they only think they know what X believes, but they are mistaken.

Yes, a lot of people spout of things that aren't true. And a lot of people call them on the carpet for it.

Were you going somewhere with that?

so if individuals don't know what the See says, is that Grandpa's fault?

No, if Grandpa doesn't know what the See says, then it's Grandpa's fault. I don't hold him responsible for anyone else but himself.

 

[Grandpa]

True, which is why I don't understand why people like Grandpa continue to spread untruths, and why people continue to believe it, despite the evidence to the contrary.



Well, anyone who says "I know what X believes" and then spouts of things that are NOT what X believes, then they only think they know what X believes, but they are mistaken.

Yes, a lot of people spout of things that aren't true. And a lot of people call them on the carpet for it.

Were you going somewhere with that?



No, if Grandpa doesn't know what the See says, then it's Grandpa's fault. I don't hold him responsible for anyone else but himself.

Spreading untruths? You need to go back through and read your posts. You are the one bearing false witness. I was clarifying what is true and what is not. Read my posts and see if I put anything that is not true. I know you did. And then claimed you didn't. That is false witness.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Spreading untruths? You need to go back through and read your posts. You are the one bearing false witness. I was clarifying what is true and what is not. Read my posts and see if I put anything that is not true. I know you did. And then claimed you didn't. That is false witness.

Here are a few examples of untruths you have spread, even after being notified that they were not true:

1. You claim that the Catholic Church teaches that a priest can atone for a parishoner's sin. The Catholic Church does not teach this. You were told that the Catholic Church does not teach this, but continued to spout it anyway, claiming that the posts some people linked to the actual Catholic teaching were wrong, and that you knew better than the Pope what he teaches.

2. You claim that the Catholic Church teaches that we need another mediator besides Jesus. The Catholic Church does not teach this. The Catholic Church encourages people to ask others to pray for them in addition to praying directly to God. However, the Catholic Church does not tell people that they cannot pray directly to Jesus, or that Jesus is not their Savior. This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people, but you have not retracted.

Grandpa: here's how we can resolve this:

If you deny ever claiming the above, then simply say that is not what you said, that I misunderstood you, and I will apologize for misunderstanding you.

If you admit to claiming the above, but realize now that you were mistaken, apologize for the mistake. You could say, "I still disagree with the Catholic Church" -- that's fine. As I've said many times before, so do I. Feel free to post some other things that you believe the Catholic Church teaches in error, and we can discuss those. It's possible you'll find something that the Church really does teach, and then we can debate, in a friendly manner, about the teaching, and why you think it is in error, and/or why the Catholic Church teaches it.

If you admit to claiming the above, and continue to insist that the Catholic Church teaches the above, despite the evidence to the contrary, then I'm sorry, but I will continue to accuse you of lying, because that is exactly what you are doing.

I can't think of any other options than the above 3. Pick one and move on.

 

[Grandpa]

Here are a few examples of untruths you have spread, even after being notified that they were not true:

1. You claim that the Catholic Church teaches that a priest can atone for a parishoner's sin. The Catholic Church does not teach this. You were told that the Catholic Church does not teach this, but continued to spout it anyway, claiming that the posts some people linked to the actual Catholic teaching were wrong, and that you knew better than the Pope what he teaches.

2. You claim that the Catholic Church teaches that we need another mediator besides Jesus. The Catholic Church does not teach this. The Catholic Church encourages people to ask others to pray for them in addition to praying directly to God. However, the Catholic Church does not tell people that they cannot pray directly to Jesus, or that Jesus is not their Savior. This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple people, but you have not retracted.

Grandpa: here's how we can resolve this:

If you deny ever claiming the above, then simply say that is not what you said, that I misunderstood you, and I will apologize for misunderstanding you.

If you admit to claiming the above, but realize now that you were mistaken, apologize for the mistake. You could say, "I still disagree with the Catholic Church" -- that's fine. As I've said many times before, so do I. Feel free to post some other things that you believe the Catholic Church teaches in error, and we can discuss those. It's possible you'll find something that the Church really does teach, and then we can debate, in a friendly manner, about the teaching, and why you think it is in error, and/or why the Catholic Church teaches it.

If you admit to claiming the above, and continue to insist that the Catholic Church teaches the above, despite the evidence to the contrary, then I'm sorry, but I will continue to accuse you of lying, because that is exactly what you are doing.

I can't think of any other options than the above 3. Pick one and move on.

1. I didn't claim that the Catholic church teaches that a priest can atone for a parishioners sin. You made that claim. And I told you why it was wrong.

2. I didn't claim that the Catholic church teaches we need another mediator besides Jesus Christ. You made that claim when you said a catholic priest atones for sins. I told you what happens when you claim that a Catholic priest atones for sins.

Go back and re-read your posts. I think you are getting confused between multiple threads. I'm not offended. I just want you to stop bearing false witness.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

You don't find it dangerous to replace the Lord Jesus Christ with your priests and bishops?

I have just combed through the entire 6 pages of this thread, and this is the ONLY thing that could even remotely be considered a "direct question" from Grandpa to me. And any question starting with "don't you think..." or "don't you believe..." is highly questionably a "direct" question.

I answered that question honestly in my next post to him, and will do so again:

Yes, I find it dangerous when anyone tries to replace Jesus with something else. Whether that "something else" is a priest, pastor, or even a Bible, it is dangerous.

Since the Catholic Church does NOT teach that priests or bishops replace Jesus, it is a moot point.

So, two more untruths that Grandpa has told:

1) The Catholic Church is attempting to replace Jesus and his authority.
2) Grandpa has asked me "many" direct questions and I have ignored him.

The first one could be a mistake rather than a lie. If you don't realize that the Church does not do this, you have simply been misinformed. However, the fact that you continue to insist it, despite being told repeatedly that it is not true, you're treading dangerously into "lie" territory.

The second is simply dishonest and rude.

I await your apologies.

 

[Grandpa]

Post #61 by GrungeDiva


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpa

We can forgive people but we can do nothing for their soul. Only Jesus can do that.

TheGrungeDiva - And, as you have been reminded several times, this is exactly what priests in the Catholic Church (and many other churches) do. You are aware that bearing false witness is a sin, aren't you? When will you stop sinning?

You have stated that the Catholic priests atone for the soul of their parishioners in this post. I have shown you why you are wrong. You are bearing false witness. And you continue to do so.

I don't know why you continue to bear false witness. Go look at post #61 and you will see that you say the Catholic church teaches priests can atone for souls. This is wrong teaching and you now know it. Just because you now know that it is wrong teaching does not mean you didn't lie about it in post #61.

I apologize if you think I was being rude to you. That was not my intent. I only wanted to point out your incorrect teaching. Some people can take that personally. I would like you to detract your false statement of me bearing false witness. But if you don't, you don't.

 

[TheGrungeDiva]

Post #61 by GrungeDiva

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpa

We can forgive people but we can do nothing for their soul. Only Jesus can do that.

Once again, reading comprehension is an important skill. You may consider taking some remedial courses to improve on yours.

You said, "People can only forgive sins, not atone for souls. Only Jesus can do that."
I said, "And that is exactly what priests in the Catholic Church do."

Clearly, to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together, what I meant was, "Priests in the Catholic Church forgive sins, not atone for souls."

You interpreted my statement to mean "Priests in the Catholic Church atone for souls." Even after I had stated that I agreed with your first statement, and that you were mistaken in your assessment of the Catholic Church.

I can understand how you might have misunderstood the first time. But after I corrected you 2 more times, you continued to insist in your "misunderstanding."

The only way you could have HONESTLY misunderstood what I was saying was to be so utterly and completely idiotic that I wonder how you remember to breathe. I do not think you're that stupid. I think you knew exactly what I meant, and rather than apologize or admit to any wrong-doing, you continue to twist my words.

What I don't understand is why you're so insistent on continuing in your sin, when it has been pointed out to you repeatedly. What I don't understand is why the Christ in you, if there is indeed any (which I must believe), hasn't told you to stop your lying and repent already.

You also have not addressed the lie that you "asked me several direct questions which I ignored" which I revealed to you to be false.

Not to mention several other falsehoods about the Catholic Church which you were told were false but you continued to restate, after being told they were false.

Now, I can -- and do -- apologize for being unclear. I did not realize that your reading comprehension skills were so shaky. Now that I know, I will be try to be very clear in responding to you, or writing things that you may read.

I eagerly await your response.

 

[Grandpa]

Once again, reading comprehension is an important skill. You may consider taking some remedial courses to improve on yours.

You said, "People can only forgive sins, not atone for souls. Only Jesus can do that."
I said, "And that is exactly what priests in the Catholic Church do."

Clearly, to anyone with more than two brain cells to rub together, what I meant was, "Priests in the Catholic Church forgive sins, not atone for souls."

You interpreted my statement to mean "Priests in the Catholic Church atone for souls." Even after I had stated that I agreed with your first statement, and that you were mistaken in your assessment of the Catholic Church.

I can understand how you might have misunderstood the first time. But after I corrected you 2 more times, you continued to insist in your "misunderstanding."

The only way you could have HONESTLY misunderstood what I was saying was to be so utterly and completely idiotic that I wonder how you remember to breathe. I do not think you're that stupid. I think you knew exactly what I meant, and rather than apologize or admit to any wrong-doing, you continue to twist my words.

What I don't understand is why you're so insistent on continuing in your sin, when it has been pointed out to you repeatedly. What I don't understand is why the Christ in you, if there is indeed any (which I must believe), hasn't told you to stop your lying and repent already.

You also have not addressed the lie that you "asked me several direct questions which I ignored" which I revealed to you to be false.

Not to mention several other falsehoods about the Catholic Church which you were told were false but you continued to restate, after being told they were false.

Now, I can -- and do -- apologize for being unclear. I did not realize that your reading comprehension skills were so shaky. Now that I know, I will be try to be very clear in responding to you, or writing things that you may read.

I eagerly await your response.

Clearly what you mean Now is Catholic priests cannot atone for the soul. And clearly what you meant in post #61 was that I was lying about the Catholic church and Catholic priests could indeed atone for the soul.

If you were agreeing with someones post why would you say they are bearing false witness???

My reading comprehension skills are just fine. I just don't understand you, although I am starting to.

This is silly. You are obviously never going to admit you were wrong. Let's just say you are never wrong and your posts mean whatever you want them to, and go on.