Poor Theology - God Told Me / You're Arguing With God

[popsthebuilder]

Your post says "blasphemy" and your faith icon says "agnostic" so I am wondering which is it, are you an agnostic?

No I am not an agnostic. I do not know how to access my settings on my phone using Tapatalk to change from agnostic. I am Christian

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[popsthebuilder]

No, you blasphem in that you state the RCC is over men. Thenceforth, not of men. But it is of men. The pope is a man, and fallible. Only through Christ under the direction of God is infallibility possible.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, you blasphem in that you state the RCC is over men. Thenceforth, not of men. But it is of men. The pope is a man, and fallible. Only through Christ under the direction of God is infallibility possible.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

The Catholic Church is 'men' and not over men. Yet God promises to guide the church into all truth and I choose to believe God more than I believe the opinions of people on discussion boards.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The Catholic Church is 'men' and not over men. Yet God promises to guide the church into all truth and I choose to believe God more than I believe the opinions of people on discussion boards.

Yes, God promises direction of the Gentiles and man through the church and, or body of Christ. Literally the congregation of Christ under the direction of the one God and creator. This in no way is to be interpreted as any man's power over another for any selfish, prideful, manipulative means that are not the written teachings of Christ. Thank you.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, God promises direction of the Gentiles and man through the church and, or body of Christ. Literally the congregation of Christ under the direction of the one God and creator. This in no way is to be interpreted as any man's power over another for any selfish, prideful, manipulative means that are not the written teachings of Christ. Thank you.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

The church is more than a congregation. But it certainly is comprised of congregations and people in groups of all sorts. So now that that matter is settled let's return to the thread's topic as explained in the first post.

 

[popsthebuilder]

The church is more than a congregation. But it certainly is comprised of congregations and people in groups of all sorts. So now that that matter is settled let's return to the thread's topic as explained in the first post.

I'm glad we have an understanding. However, you seam to have skipped over the part where I said no man is over another, especially one derived from thousands of years of corruption through manipulation by the helpers of satan, all while posing as the one link to God, which is knowing blasphemy and wholly and eternally damning.

Your thoughts?

This has nothing to do with Catholicism in general. Just evil in general.

Thank you.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm glad we have an understanding. However, you seam to have skipped over the part where I said no man is over another, especially one derived from thousands of years of corruption through manipulation by the helpers of satan, all while posing as the one link to God, which is knowing blasphemy and wholly and eternally damning.

Your thoughts?

This has nothing to do with Catholicism in general. Just evil in general.

Thank you.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

Seems that your posts do little else than attack others as 'evil for thousands of years'. I doubt the truth of such sweeping claims. Certainly some men in every walk of life do wicked things and some of those men may well be evil in their intent but the main thrust of your posts appears to be that somebody other than you is terrible and doing terrible things ... what is the point of that?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Seems that your posts do little else than attack others as 'evil for thousands of years'. I doubt the truth of such sweeping claims. Certainly some men in every walk of life do wicked things and some of those men may well be evil in their intent but the main thrust of your posts appears to be that somebody other than you is terrible and doing terrible things ... what is the point of that?

I am sorry. I do not attack the faithful in God. My anger and vengeance is separate from the faithful. It is towards the ones who slain our Lord, and the ones who sided with evil for their personal profit. Th a ones who knowingly shut out the Lord while posing. I direct nothing but selfless charity, mercy, and Faith to those who were unknowingly manipulated. If you have had Faith in God through Christ all the while being deceived then you are truly blessed, and the Lord knows you well. However , if you allow yourself to remain deceived for some selfish reason after knowledge has been laid out, then you are responsible for your actions and beliefs.

Praise the Lord under God.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[Josiah]

I think Josiah was intending to say something about infallibility. I'll find the relevant material and post it in here.

No. I'm discussing the issue of this thread. Read what the individual RC Denomination states/claims in the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of it itself, # 87. Note what it instructs people to do. Note what it itself claims about it itself. Now read the opening post and consider the issue we are discussing.


Thank you.


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am sorry. I do not attack the faithful in God. My anger and vengeance is separate from the faithful. It is towards the ones who slain our Lord, and the ones who sided with evil for their personal profit. Th a ones who knowingly shut out the Lord while posing. I direct nothing but selfless charity, mercy, and Faith to those who were unknowingly manipulated. If you have had Faith in God through Christ all the while being deceived then you are truly blessed, and the Lord knows you well. However , if you allow yourself to remain deceived for some selfish reason after knowledge has been laid out, then you are responsible for your actions and beliefs.

Praise the Lord under God.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

It was the Jews and the Romans who killed the Lord. I see no link between them and the claims your posts make.

 

[Josiah]

God promises to guide the church

Several notations....

1. That promise becomes irrelevant if one (person, denomination, sect, cult) simply equates it itself exclusively with "church" in an egotistical, power-grabbing, accountability-evading move... when "church" or "you" is deleted from His promise and replaced with "ME - individually, exclusively, especially."

2. If you actually quoted Jesus (and I understand why you chose not to), it would be obvious He didn't promise the individual, exclusive RC Denomination anything whatsoever.... a point the RC Denomination must evade and ignore.

3. To LEAD is not the same thing as to FOLLOW. When I studied several US "cults," one of the strongest common denominators was a sense that God leads ME (see the opening post of this thread).... and the claims that ME ergo infallible FOLLOWS that lead. Both are entirely unfounded. Both are entirely missing from what Jesus promised. God lead Adam and Eve... did that mean ERGO both were infallible/unaccountable followers? God lead the Hebrews in the wilderness... God lead Saul and David and Solomon... did that make them ERGO infallible/unaccountable followers? Just because one is lead correctly, does that mandate an infallible following?

4. To TEACH is not the same thing as to LEARN (ask any school teacher). It's just absurd to ASSUME that since God teaches inerrantly, ERGO there is going to be ONE (person, church, sect, cult, denomination - such as the RCC or LDS or Jim Jones or Joseph Smith or Pope Whoever) that is THE one, individual, exclusive infallible/unaccountable STUDENT. God taught His people the Ten Commandments on the mountain... was there therefore one among the crowd at the base of the mountain who was perfect, infallible, unaccountable in terms of those 10 things? And is one THE infallible/unaccountable STUDENT if the self same claims such for self uniquely, exclusively, only? See the opening post and title of this thread. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination # 87. See "The Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle/Prophet Bruce McConkie.



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Several notations....

...

Irrelevant, I think.

 

[Josiah]

Irrelevant, I think.

Only if truth is.... replaced by the docilic submission to the unmitigated, unaccountable POWER that ONE insists that SELF has..... Perhaps you have a need to evade all the points raised?


As posted (as a part of the discussion of this thread)....


1. That promise [The Holy Spirit will teach and lead] becomes irrelevant if one (person, denomination, sect, cult) simply equates it itself exclusively with "church" in an egotistical, power-grabbing, accountability-evading move... when "church" or "you" is deleted from His promise and replaced with "ME - individually, exclusively, especially." See the Opening Post. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the individual RC Denomination #87.


2. If you actually quoted Jesus (and I understand why you chose not to), it would be obvious He didn't promise the individual, exclusive RC Denomination anything whatsoever.... a point the RC Denomination must evade and ignore.


3. To LEAD is not the same thing as to FOLLOW. When I studied several US "cults," one of the strongest common denominators was a sense that God leads ME (see the opening post of this thread).... and the claims that ME ergo infallible FOLLOWS that lead. Both are entirely unfounded. Both are entirely missing from what Jesus promised. God lead Adam and Eve... did that mean ERGO both were infallible/unaccountable followers? God lead the Hebrews in the wilderness... God lead Saul and David and Solomon... did that make them ERGO infallible/unaccountable followers? Just because one is lead correctly, does that mandate an infallible following?


4. To TEACH is not the same thing as to LEARN (ask any school teacher). It's just absurd to ASSUME that since God teaches inerrantly, ERGO there is going to be ONE (person, church, sect, cult, denomination - such as the RCC or LDS or Jim Jones or Joseph Smith or Pope Whoever) that is THE one, individual, exclusive infallible/unaccountable STUDENT. God taught His people the Ten Commandments on the mountain... was there therefore one among the crowd at the base of the mountain who was perfect, infallible, unaccountable in terms of those 10 things? And is one THE infallible/unaccountable STUDENT if the self same claims such for self uniquely, exclusively, only? See the opening post and title of this thread. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination # 87. See "The Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle/Prophet Bruce McConkie.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Only if truth is....

Not really. It is irrelevant because it is mainly baseless complaining and name calling.

 

[Josiah]

It is irrelevant because it is mainly baseless complaining

IF I was wrong, you would document that. Your obsession with EVADING the points suggests to me your felt need to.



As posted (as a part of the discussion of this thread)....


1. That promise [The Holy Spirit will teach and lead] becomes irrelevant if one (person, denomination, sect, cult) simply equates it itself exclusively with "church" in an egotistical, power-grabbing, accountability-evading move... when "church" or "you" is deleted from His promise and replaced with "ME - individually, exclusively, especially." See the Opening Post. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the individual RC Denomination #87.


2. If you actually quoted Jesus (and I understand why you chose not to), it would be obvious He didn't promise the individual, exclusive RC Denomination anything whatsoever.... a point the RC Denomination must evade and ignore.


3. To LEAD is not the same thing as to FOLLOW. When I studied several US "cults," one of the strongest common denominators was a sense that God leads ME (see the opening post of this thread).... and the claims that ME ergo infallible FOLLOWS that lead. Both are entirely unfounded. Both are entirely missing from what Jesus promised. God lead Adam and Eve... did that mean ERGO both were infallible/unaccountable followers? God lead the Hebrews in the wilderness... God lead Saul and David and Solomon... did that make them ERGO infallible/unaccountable followers? Just because one is lead correctly, does that mandate an infallible following?


4. To TEACH is not the same thing as to LEARN (ask any school teacher). It's just absurd to ASSUME that since God teaches inerrantly, ERGO there is going to be ONE (person, church, sect, cult, denomination - such as the RCC or LDS or Jim Jones or Joseph Smith or Pope Whoever) that is THE one, individual, exclusive infallible/unaccountable STUDENT. God taught His people the Ten Commandments on the mountain... was there therefore one among the crowd at the base of the mountain who was perfect, infallible, unaccountable in terms of those 10 things? And is one THE infallible/unaccountable STUDENT if the self same claims such for self uniquely, exclusively, only? See the opening post and title of this thread. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination # 87. See "The Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle/Prophet Bruce McConkie.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

IF I was wrong, you would document that. ...

It is already documented in the CCC and in the other references I gave in the Catholic subforum here.

 

[Josiah]

It is already documented in the CCC

I agree. See the opening post, see the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination for it itself, # 87. Note what it itself claims for it itself, what it itself tells all to do in relation to it itself individually.



As for your reference to the promise to lead and teach.... As posted (as a part of the discussion of this thread)....


1. That promise [The Holy Spirit will teach and lead] becomes irrelevant if one (person, denomination, sect, cult) simply equates it itself exclusively with "church" in an egotistical, power-grabbing, accountability-evading move... when "church" or "you" is deleted from His promise and replaced with "ME - individually, exclusively, especially." See the Opening Post. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the individual RC Denomination #87.


2. If you actually quoted Jesus (and I understand why you chose not to), it would be obvious He didn't promise the individual, exclusive RC Denomination anything whatsoever.... a point the RC Denomination must evade and ignore.


3. To LEAD is not the same thing as to FOLLOW. When I studied several US "cults," one of the strongest common denominators was a sense that God leads ME (see the opening post of this thread).... and the claims that ME ergo infallible FOLLOWS that lead. Both are entirely unfounded. Both are entirely missing from what Jesus promised. God lead Adam and Eve... did that mean ERGO both were infallible/unaccountable followers? God lead the Hebrews in the wilderness... God lead Saul and David and Solomon... did that make them ERGO infallible/unaccountable followers? Just because one is lead correctly, does that mandate an infallible following?


4. To TEACH is not the same thing as to LEARN (ask any school teacher). It's just absurd to ASSUME that since God teaches inerrantly, ERGO there is going to be ONE (person, church, sect, cult, denomination - such as the RCC or LDS or Jim Jones or Joseph Smith or Pope Whoever) that is THE one, individual, exclusive infallible/unaccountable STUDENT. God taught His people the Ten Commandments on the mountain... was there therefore one among the crowd at the base of the mountain who was perfect, infallible, unaccountable in terms of those 10 things? And is one THE infallible/unaccountable STUDENT if the self same claims such for self uniquely, exclusively, only? See the opening post and title of this thread. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination # 87. See "The Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle/Prophet Bruce McConkie.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[king of the unknown]

I will admit I haven't read the entire thread. So I hope I don't say something stupid but I probably will anyway.


I think there is a disconnect between what happened in the bible, what happened in the past, what "happened" somewhere, and where we are as a church now. Most Christians are baby Christians living on the words and idea of others instead of growing into their own mature ideas as a Christians. Like a child they don't understand the reasoning behind something instead they only understand the concept. The see what all the "adults" are doing and try and copy/paste the Christian life into their own lives. Who's fault is this? Everyone's fault. Growing as a Christ is not a quick process and it takes time. We as child Christian or adult Christian need to understand the process and prevent the distortions from happening. The idea of "God told me" is something that takes time and knowledge. From my experience when God speaks to someone it is a person experience not a banner to show off to all your friends. It isn't a sign that you are a Christian to hear from God. In fact I think there is something specials about someone who doesn't hear but instead experiences God. God wants a personal relationship with someone not a business relationship.

tada there you go.

 

[tango]

Your post is long so I shall reply in parts as time permits and I hope that some points raised in the earlier parts may be answered and thus make unnecessary giving answers to some later parts because the matter is already cleared away in the earlier answers.

Understood, when I have a lot of questions I struggle not to present someone with a wall of text.

Just so you know, I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. I disagree with your stance on at least some issues (as you probably noticed) but in a situation like this what I want to do is find the truth rather than score points for the sake of points.

Apostles are not and were not infallible as people, the gift of infallibility no more makes a prophet or an apostle personally incapable of error than the same gift makes them personally incapable of sins. One is not impeccable simply because the grace of infallibility resides in some things that one says or writes while the grace is active because what is said or written is doctrine for the whole church.

So how can we say that "the church" is infallible if it is made up of people who make mistakes? If Peter did one thing and Paul considered it to be sufficiently in error that he publicly rebuked Peter over it, how can we say that the early church was infallible? It seems to be doing little more than acknowledging that any given person might make mistakes but then claiming that the sum of fallible individuals is an infallible church.

In truth the gift of infallibility is given to the church much more than to any individual, so saint Peter could err and saint Paul could forget who he baptised yet the letters of saints Paul and Peter are infallible and inerrant as well as inspired. So we come to the nature of the Church's infallibility and how it is expressed.

Again, this looks like saying "I sometimes get it wrong, you sometimes get it wrong, but between us we're always right".

James Cardinal Gibbons says this in his chapter (the one I quoted) on infallibility but the Catechism of the Catholic Church and other church documents make it abundantly clear that infallibility resides in the whole church (clergy and laity taken together) but finds expression in the teaching of the bishops and especially in the teaching of church councils and of the pope. None act alone and none is impeccable and infallible personally as if they were made perfect. Thus one can easily find clergy teaching error and whole districts and even nations following bad moral examples doing wicked things in the name of God yet even so the church remains infallible and the wickedness of her members (even her office bearers) cannot remove that quality from her.

How can the church as a collection of people be infallible when the people who make up that collection are demonstrably fallible? It seems to keep coming back to saying "I'm sometimes wrong, you're sometimes wrong, but between us we're always right". Certainly if you put enough people together the chances are they do have the truth between them but that doesn't make it any easier to figure out what is true and what is false among a mass of conflicting beliefs.

The scriptures teach us that the Church is the body of Christ and the bride of Christ and in these things she is spoken of as pure, without blemish, and holy all of which is true even though there was a Judas among the twelve chosen by Christ and a Borgia among the Popes. So the meaning of infallibility is that the whole church enjoys this charism yet that it is expressed by one part of her (her mouth, so to speak) and this is what one would expect in the body of Christ which has many members and not just one. The answer to your first question then, is that infallibility does not appertain to a person as if that person were always right and never in the wrong yet when saint Peter spoke from God he spoke infallible truth just as Isaiah the Prophet did when his lips were cleansed by the coal from the heavenly altar and as saint Paul's letters are when he writes as a command received from the Lord and not as his own frail recollection or in his own apostolic opinion.

I'm really struggling to see this as anything other than taking an example and trying to make it universal. I had tacos for dinner last night but it doesn't mean that any time you swing by at dinner time I'll be eating tacos. Ezekiel spoke to the valley of dry bones saying "Hear the word of the Sovereign Lord" but that doesn't mean every time he opened his mouth he was speaking for God. If one evening he was sitting at home and asked Mrs Ezekiel for some bread he was speaking on his behalf, not on God's behalf.

Can we not say that Peter's letters were inspired by God even though Peter himself was a fallible human? And if Peter was a fallible human, Paul was a fallible human, the early church was made up of fallible humans, then I'm struggling to see how a collection of fallible humans can become infallible.

 

[tango]

You ask about being self referential (basically, that infallibility is a circular argument because the very Church which lays claim to it uses it as proof of her infallibility) and I will answer this way. The church is infallible as I explained in my previous post but not as some (who are usually not in communion with her) say as individuals who have some special (near magical) claim on personal infallibility. As I mentioned not even the apostles of our Lord could claim a permanent personal inability to err yet they were infallible teachers of the gospel as the holy scriptures affirm. Now it is true that this claim to infallibility appears to be circular, even the claim in saint Paul's second letter to saint Timothy is circular when it says that all scripture is inspired of God and is useful for teaching and so forth.

Paul's letter isn't really self-referencing because when he wrote the letter it wasn't considered to be part of Scripture.

Non-Christians sometimes complain that Christians accept the Bible as being the inspired word of God because, well, the Bible says it's God's word. And so the circular reasoning begins for them, and unless the Bible can be validated using sources other than the Bible they will struggle to believe it. In some regards it's like the teachings of some of the relatively new hypercharismatic groups where you see lots of teachings that are consistent with each other and so build up a large block of teaching, and unless you take a point of reference from outside the block you never realise that what they teach doesn't align with what Scripture teaches. If you look at a large enough loop of circular reasoning it seems to make sense, but when viewed from outside the circle it doesn't make sense.

The claim to infallibility, when it is credible, always comes from the mouth of one who claims it for himself but it is not from himself insofar as it is God who gives the gift and it is time and history as well as God himself who shows it to be true. Thus the prophets of the old covenant were infallible when they spoke the word of the Lord to the people and the kings of their times but the proof of their infallibility was not present immediately in their own time; some of the proof had to wait for events to unfold and some events did not unfold for centuries.

Where OT prophecies took many centuries to come to pass (I'm thinking specifically of Isaiah's "the virgin shall conceive and bring forth a child", and Daniel's visions of the end times that have still not come to pass) we can see that the prophets in question established a track record. Had they not established a track record it is hard to see their writings being preserved for so long - there have been untold numbers of false prophets who spoke a lot of fine-sounding words but whose predictions did not come to pass and so they were forgotten.

This comes back to the issue that prophets did some crazy stuff but not everybody who does crazy things are prophets. All apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples.

The same is true of the Catholic Church's claim to infallibility; the proof unfolds and some of it is yet to be unfolded but the proof is not from the church about herself it is from history and from God. Some doubt and some deny this doctrine of infallibility, that is to be expected; some denied the infallibility of our Lord Jesus Christ and some deny it even now yet we who are Christians take it to heart and believe it not only outwardly but also inwardly as an article of our personal faith that we cannot deny without denying the very faith that defines us as Christian. So the answer to your question is that the Catholic Church's claim to infallibility appears to be circular in exactly the same sort of way that the prophets's claims did and that the Lord Jesus Christ's claims did and as our own claims about the holy scriptures do yet we (who are Christians) do not believe the claim to be circular because at its root is God and he is the proof and supplies the proofs in history and in the unfolding of things in this world and the next.

I'm struggling to see God at the root of the reasoning. It just seems like a statement without evidence, paired with "wait and see, God said so".

I don't dispute that Jesus Christ was infallible, I just don't see how our attempts to follow Jesus make us infallible. It seems like expecting the perfection associated with the new heaven and the new earth, but wanting it in this earth.