Heaven's eternity or eternal earthly wealth?

[mjw47]

There were other Christians beside the Catholic church - and even schisms within the Catholic church(Novatians being an example who had their own Church and Pope). The Catholic church became the arbiters of whether or not someone was Christian when they gained political power in the Roman Empire; before then Christians simply argued with each other over theology and sent each other to hell. Once they'd gained political power, they made Christianity, other than what the Catholic church dictated, a crime against the state (crimen maiestatis): Paganism and non-Catholic Christianity became punishable by death.

 

The above occurred from the 4th century(Theodosius) to the 6th century (Justinian I) - long before the Crusades.

 

The Catholic Church however, has history on it's side to back up its claim.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Farchive%2Fccc_css%2Farchive%2Fcatechism%2Fp123a9p3.htm&ei=AIy_VKnGG4jZas3SgKAC&usg=AFQjCNEyH-xvsWoA0aKPdDzvQKlFgceQcA&bvm=bv.83829542,d.bGQ&cad=rja

 

Read the first words at 811. " This is the sole Church of Christ".

 

Read the words in italics at 813. " The Church is one because of her source " and " The church is one because of her founder ".

 

No one, not even the most rabid bigoted protestant such as Ian Paisley tried to claim that it wasn't, and he had a vicious unreasoning hatred of Catholicism.

 

Therefore, whether you or anyone else likes it that is simply the way it is.

 

Other denominations may claim to be what they wish but it don't make it so.

 

To make it simple, an analogy would be if SWFC have an official supporters club recognized by the club itself and then other sets of supporters groups started to claim that they were the official one, it wouldn't make it so would it?

 

Only the original one recognized by the club itself would be official wouldn't it?

 

Now I'm a Blade, so whilst I wouldn't be overly concerned about it, if asked I would have to agree that the first and recognized one was the official one.

 

And so it is with the 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' the Pope is the 266th successor to Peter the Apostle.

 

Accept no substitutes!

 

I'm Agnostic so whilst the faith side of it doesn't concern me the practical facts are still the facts.

[Ryedo40]

The Catholic Church however, has history on it's side to back up its claim.

 

Read the first words at 811. " This is the sole Church of Christ".

 

 

But that's Catholics re-enforcing and speaking for themselves. Most sects/denominations do that. The fact is other Christians and schisms did exist before the Crusades. And it was only the Catholic dominance within the political structure of the Roman Empire that saw the Catholic Church being the arbiters of the faith. Before then it was variants of Christian pitted against each other over differences in the theology they were inventing; some of whom established their own Church with their own Popes.

[mjw47]

But that's Catholics re-enforcing and speaking for themselves. Most sects/denominations do that. The fact is other Christians and schisms did exist before the Crusades. And it was only the Catholic dominance within the political structure of the Roman Empire that saw the Catholic Church being the arbiters of the faith. Before then it was variants of Christian pitted against each other over differences in the theology they were inventing; some of whom established their own Church with their own Popes.

 

Does any other Church, Sect or Denomination claim to be successors to the Apostles?

 

Do any of them contest the claim that Pope Francis is the 266th successor to St Peter?

 

Can any of them produce a list to compare with this?

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDgQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F12272b.htm&ei=fLS_VJKtKsf8UKTPgPgC&usg=AFQjCNE9_te3EJvDRcxy4Gfu4pRNa_xdGg&bvm=bv.83829542,d.bGQ&cad=rja

 

As I've already said, the theocracy and theology of it all has no interest to me, but the very tenet of Catholicism is that it is the original and Apostolic church.

 

There have been many people over the years who have hated Catholics, I've even had the experience of meeting a few, don't you think that if it could be proven that the claim was false someone would have done so?

[Ryedo40]

..but the very tenet of Catholicism is that it is the original and Apostolic church.

 

Never said that wasn't the case. What I'm saying, and kind of using your football club analogy, Christians existed before the club. Some Christians got together to try and establish a club. Some had arguments - leaving those who did not agree to establish their own. All that occurred within the 2nd, 3rd & 4th centuries. There was never "One Church" - and there was never unity; they all had disagreements.

 

The Catholic club only really became the "authority" on what is Christian after numerous schisms within and because it clung closely to the powerful political structure of the times: forcing baptisms, conversions and making other variants of Christianity - as well as other faiths - a crime punishable by death.

 

Centuries later other schisms occur and even more clubs form who emulate the tyrannical model that their Catholic counterparts employed: forcing baptisms, conversions and making other variants of Christianity - including the Catholic variant - punishable by death.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Ryedo40

[mjw47]

Never said that wasn't the case. What I'm saying, and kind of using your football club analogy, Christians existed before the club.

 

Christians existed before the Apostles? Who were they?

 

The twelve Apostles knew Jesus Christ, the person for whom Christianity was named.

 

Peter, formerly known as Simon was instructed by the Lord, " Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and I give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of heaven"

 

The Papal flag is gold with two crossed keys symbolising that command.

 

You appear to be unaware of the meaning of 'Apostolic' in the Catholic Churches title.

[flamingjimmy]

And what does any of that matter?

 

You obviously have no concept whatsoever of how religious theology works do you?

 

My upbringing gave me an insight into the way the 'One Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church' to give it it's full title thinks.

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCcQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vatican.va%2Farchive%2Fccc_css%2Farchive%2Fcatechism%2Fp123a9p3.htm&ei=AIy_VKnGG4jZas3SgKAC&usg=AFQjCNEyH-xvsWoA0aKPdDzvQKlFgceQcA&bvm=bv.83829542,d.bGQ&cad=rja

 

Your view is based upon ignorance, which is perfectly illustrated and proven by your inane remark " they got you good".

 

Of my own free will, with no outside coercion I turned my back and walked away from Catholic teaching and doctrine.

 

Do you know what the result of that action of mine will mean upon my death according to Catholic belief?

 

Eternal damnation and hellfire is what they believe I am in for.

 

Oh yes they 'got me good' alright!

 

What I meant is that whilst you may have been able to drop the supernatural nonsense you've been indoctrinated very well into myths about the catholic church itself.

 

Like I said, the way that you (as a lapsed catholic and current agnostic atheist) are still so vociferously defending the catholic church as 'the one true church' as if you're a bishop or something is really quite shocking. Only someone who'd been through a catholic education could be so misinformed.

 

I'll not bother actually trying to convince you of it as I think you have a closed mind and will at some point in the debate just start going 'nah nah nah I'm not listening anymore' so this post is just for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread.

 

For anyone else still reading this thread the claim that 'there were no other denominations [of Christianity except the catholic church] at the time of the crusades' is completely absurd, 15 seconds of googling could tell you that.

Edited January 21, 2015 by flamingjimmy

[Ryedo40]

Christians existed before the Apostles? Who were they?

 

You do understand I'm just giving a superficial summery, don't you? I never made the claim Christians existed before the apostles. I said Christians got together to form the club(the club didn't pre-exist.) That would include the apostles. As a side note, there were more than 12 apostles(the Bible mentions more than 12) - and other variants of Christianity have far more(sometimes 70 apostles). Christianity didn't just go West, it went East too - further showing there were different variants of the faith before and during the 3rd century - long before the Crusades.

 

Whilst the gospels were being put together, along with the various theologies, schisms occurred - giving rise to different variants of the faith/theology.

 

The twelve Apostles knew Jesus Christ, the person for whom Christianity was named.

 

Not all of the 12 apostles knew Jesus. The apostle Paul converted because he had a vision of him - not because he actually met the guy.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Ryedo40

[mjw47]

What I meant is that whilst you may have been able to drop the supernatural nonsense you've been indoctrinated very well into myths about the catholic church itself.

 

Like I said, the way that you (as a lapsed catholic and current agnostic atheist) are still so vociferously defending the catholic church as 'the one true church' as if you're a bishop or something is really quite shocking. Only someone who'd been through a catholic education could be so misinformed.

 

I'll not bother actually trying to convince you of it as I think you have a closed mind and will at some point in the debate just start going 'nah nah nah I'm not listening anymore' so this post is just for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread.

 

For anyone else still reading this thread the claim that 'there were no other denominations [of Christianity except the catholic church] at the time of the crusades' is completely absurd, 15 seconds of googling could tell you that.

 

You appear to be somewhat devoid of logic, and incapable of accepting that some of us are, unlike yourself, capable of looking at something in a dispassionate manner and accept that facts are facts.

 

The Catholic church was founded by the Apostles on the instruction of the man called Jesus Christ.

 

Simple matter of fact, no need for you to get all wound up about it.

 

Whilst I don't accept the theology I do accept the history, and so does everyone else with half a brain including other religions that have no time for Catholicism.

 

Now, I notice that you just couldn't help having a pathetic little dig with the agnostic atheist crack.

 

So here's a question for you, please try to answer it, and not run away like you did with the 'Why are there three words with three definitions in the dictionaries?' question.

 

Do you accept that there are people who unequivocally believe that there is no God(s), people who have no doubt and are adamant that they are correct?

[flamingjimmy]

You appear to be somewhat devoid of logic, and incapable of accepting that some of us are, unlike yourself, capable of looking at something in a dispassionate manner and accept that facts are facts.

Not at all, I just don't think you've done that at all. I think you're carrying a lot of baggage and bias to this topic.

 

Now, I notice that you just couldn't help having a pathetic little dig with the agnostic atheist crack.

 

So here's a question for you, please try to answer it, and not run away like you did with the 'Why are there three words with three definitions in the dictionaries?' question.

 

Do you accept that there are people who unequivocally believe that there is no God(s), people who have no doubt and are adamant that they are correct?

I've already answered that question without needing you to prompt me, as part of one of the arguments that I made that you steadfastly ignored on this thread, directly and with unambiguous language, in a vain attempt to get you to actually engage me in debate.

 

You are only confirming to me that you did not read and understand my posts properly. Here I'll quote myself for you:

 

Did you read my post where I said here's "the main reason why I think my definition is much better than yours"?

 

Because you have not at all addressed the point that followed.

 

"if we use your [definition], then atheism doesn't really describe anyone. It doesn't describe the world's most famous (and possibly most annoying) atheist Richard Dawkins, it doesn't describe me, in fact it doesn't describe anyone I've ever met who would call themselves an atheist. I don't know anyone who claims to know as a fact that there are no gods, and to my knowledge have never met such a person.

 

That definition only really exists as a strawman so that those of faith can be like "see! you're just as dogmatic as us!"

 

I'm sure there are a few people out there who genuinely do think they know for a fact that there are no gods, but I've never met one.

 

Now, if we use my definition then it includes every self identifying atheist ever, isn't that much better?"

 

Now, if you can please try to refrain from irrelevant insults about how you think I'd be a total bore at a party and possibly address that point that would be lovely.

[RootsBooster]

So here's a question for you, please try to answer it, and not run away like you did with the 'Why are there three words with three definitions in the dictionaries?' question.

That sounds like a very small dictionary

 

Do you accept that there are people who unequivocally believe that there is no God(s), people who have no doubt and are adamant that they are correct?

I accept it, they're called gnostic atheists.