Roman Catholism
-
i was a Catholic. I dun leave RC because the priest molest me or ppl call me heretic.....i simple study and understanding of the Bible...not sunday missal will help you know. of course if one day RC turns biblical..i wont hesitate to join it again...but look at the enforcement of blasphemous doctrines...Immaculate Conception is not found in Bible, invented by men and endorsed by the Pope...and now has been one of the dogma of the church...cannot...impossible to reconcile such a church.Originally posted by sliew:Beware of things you read that accuses the Catholic Church and formulate all kinds fo stories. They may be ex-catholics who because of their heretical views got expelled and they go for a revenge.
Even if the person is neutral as in the case of a jounalist who wrote a book to bad mouth Mother Theresa works. Some people write all this to earn money, create sensation and a name for themselves.
Afterall, who will be more famous ? a person who create sensation or a humble servant of the Lord ?
Christ has promised that the Church will prevail. God will not allow a evil church to survive. The RC church is the only Church who has survived and still growing strong for 2000 years. I agree that there are many evil people who had run the church. But the beauty is God always raise good and holy people to chanllenge the church and reform like Martin Luthur ( too bad he set up his own) But we need to learn from others to enhance the Catholic Church.
I can see books written by pastors in our book stores but not vice versa. Recently i went into a Christian book store and asked for Mother Theresa movie. They don't have any.
The best way to know the Catholic Church and to dispel fears and misunderstanding is to visit one and participant in some of our services. -
Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Hmm, in Jeremiah 44 it also mentions the phrase ‘Queen of Heaven’ a number of times. Maybe you are right….
Absolutely not!!
To begin with the "queen of heaven" found in the book of Jeremiah has no bearing or relation with Mary. The text in question has to do with Ishtar, the Assyro-Babylonian goddess of fertility. This pagan worship was initiated under Manasseh and was restored after the death of Josiah. Pagan worship, then as now, is considered an abomination by Jews and Christians alike, including the first Christians, Catholics. Catholics do not regard the Blessed Mother of the Lord as a god, or goddess, or anything of the sort!
This whole Protestant argument is not the Biblical text or true history, it is simply based on the similarity in the title, "Queen of Heaven", and is a very weak position. The fact that a pagan deity was known, as the "queen of heaven" doesn't mean this term can't rightfully be applied, in another sense altogether, to Mary.
In the second place, the fact that a pagan deity was known as the queen of heaven doesn't mean this term can't rightfully be applied, in another sense altogether, to Mary. The pagan king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, is called the king of kings by Daniel (Daniel 2:37), yet this doesn't preclude Jesus from being called by the same title (Rev. 17:14; 19:16).
Thirdly, Mary, whom all generations "shall call blessed." (Luke 1:4
has a legitimate claim to the title of QUEEN OF HEAVEN. As Christians we acknowledge Christ as the king of heaven (Matt. 19:23-24). And a King of the Davidic Royal line "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David"(Luke: 1:32) The Sacred Scriptures specifically refer to Mary as the mother of Christ over 25 times.
Next, we must note "The mother of the ruling monarch is known as the Queen Mother," (World Book Encyclopedia 2000) So we see that "Queen Mother" refers to the mother (Mary) of a reigning monarch (The Divine King, Jesus Christ).
The Queen Mother, "Gebi Rah" in Hebrew, was a distinct honor, and a tradition began by the son of David, Solomon. The Sacred Scriptures show in Ancient Israel or Judah the mother of the designated heir enjoyed a special status. Nathan enlisted Bathsheba rather than Solomon in his plan to have Solomon confirmed as king (1 Kings 1:11-40). Queen mother was an official position in Israel and Judah. Great care was taken in preserving the names of the queen mothers (1 Kings 14:21; 15:2, 13; 22:42; 2 Kings 8:26). AsaÂ’s removal of his mother from the office for idolatry (1 Kings 15:13) points to its official character. On her sonÂ’s death, Athaliah murdered her own grandsons, the legitimate heirs, in order to retain the power she had enjoyed as queen mother (2 Kings 11:1-2). The queen mother served as a trusted counsel for her son Proverbs: 31:1). In the Scriptures God heavily, heavily emphasized the queen mother's of the Davidic Royal line. In Scriptures over 25 times that after the introduction of the Jewish king, the queen mother is recognized Each Time. In all of these verses notice the words, "and his mother's name was". Notice what the king does for his mother, he stands to greet her, pays homage to her, and had a throne built for her at his right hand side.
So we see that Mary has a right to the title of "Queen of Heaven" but were does scripture say God say he will have a Queen? In Psalms: 45:9, 12, and 17 we read:
"Kings' daughters were among thy honourable women: upon thy right hand did stand the QUEEN in gold of Ophir...even the rich among the people SHALL INTREAT THY FAVOUR. I will make THY NAME TO BE REMEMBERED IN ALL GENERATIONS: therefore shall the people PRAISE THEE for ever and ever."
Her name remembered in all generations. Ring a bell? The prophecy comes to fulfillment in Luke 1:48: "For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth ALL GENERATATIONS SHALL CALL ME blessed". In the Book of Revelation we read.
"A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Rev. 12:1-2)
What kinds of women wear crowns? Queens wear crowns, but this woman seems to be crowned with the 'highest jewels' of creation, the stars, with the sun itself as her royal robes.
"Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus."(Rev. 12:17)
Satan could not get the woman (enmity Gen 3:16) so he went to fight her spiritual children, Christians, people who bear witness to Jesus the Christ.
Even Martin Luther preached after his break with Rome on the Feast of the Visitation (July 2, 1532) --
"She, the Lady above heaven and earth, must have a heart so humble that she might have no shame in washing the swaddling clothes or preparing a bath for St. John the Baptist, like a servant girl. What humility! It would surely have been more just to have arranged for her a golden coach, pulled by 4,000 horses, and to cry and proclaim as the carriage proceeded: 'Here passes the woman who is raised FAR ABOVE all women, indeed above the WHOLE human race.'"
Five years later, preaching on the same feast day, Luther said --
"She was not filled with pride by this praise...this immense praise: 'No woman is like unto thee! Thou art more than an EMPRESS or a QUEEN....blessed above all nobility, wisdom, or saintliness!'"
Some people just like to use similarities and judge it as absolute truth. I know a pastor who said that Buddhism is devil because the chinese word for Buddha look like a snake. What childish theology ? how superficial -
true ...some theology are childish...but those mature ones u r not open to?Originally posted by sliew:
we r not inventing something against this mary and child thing. but to expose the trickery behind this pagan worship. -
I was a Buddhist first then a Methodist, then a Catholic. I am sorry that you were a victim. But you see we can't judge that all priests are like these. I also heard of pastors who are like this.. so no end to it. Itis your personal faith. If you encounter, you should bring it up and not just leave the church. The Church need people like you to change for the better.Originally posted by NeonTetra:i was a Catholic. I dun leave RC because the priest molest me or ppl call me heretic.....i simple study and understanding of the Bible...not sunday missal will help you know. of course if one day RC turns biblical..i wont hesitate to join it again...but look at the enforcement of blasphemous doctrines...Immaculate Conception is not found in Bible, invented by men and endorsed by the Pope...and now has been one of the dogma of the church...cannot...impossible to reconcile such a church.
You fall into the bible only mentality. There are so many traditions not written in the Bible. The Catholic Church is both bible and tradition. Other churches lack this because they were started from ground ero with no history to support them. Christianity is not a religion of a book. If you are biblical, then let me ask did JESUS IN THE BIBLE SAID YOU FOLLOW THE BIBLE OR HIS WORD ? HIS WORD DOES NOT ONLY MEAN THE WRITTEN WORD BUT THE SPIRIT ITSELF. DID THE WORD BIBLE IN THE BIBLE ?
Now i am not saying that other churches are inferior. We have much to learn from protestants. I too read many of them and benefitted from it.
You may also read the works of St John of the cross, St theresa of the child jesus, the Carmelites comtemplative tradition and see the richness of the Christian faith. Or even Russian and Greek Christian spirituality. They will enhance your understanding of the bible -
I was a Buddhist first then a Methodist, then a Catholic. I am sorry that you were a victim. But you see we can't judge that all priests are like these. I also heard of pastors who are like this.. so no end to it. Itis your personal faith. If you encounter, you should bring it up and not just leave the church. The Church need people like you to change for the better.Originally posted by NeonTetra:i was a Catholic. I dun leave RC because the priest molest me or ppl call me heretic.....i simple study and understanding of the Bible...not sunday missal will help you know. of course if one day RC turns biblical..i wont hesitate to join it again...but look at the enforcement of blasphemous doctrines...Immaculate Conception is not found in Bible, invented by men and endorsed by the Pope...and now has been one of the dogma of the church...cannot...impossible to reconcile such a church.
You fall into the bible only mentality. There are so many traditions not written in the Bible. The Catholic Church is both bible and tradition. Other churches lack this because they were started from ground ero with no history to support them. Christianity is not a religion of a book. If you are biblical, then let me ask did JESUS IN THE BIBLE SAID YOU FOLLOW THE BIBLE OR HIS WORD ? HIS WORD DOES NOT ONLY MEAN THE WRITTEN WORD BUT THE SPIRIT ITSELF. DID THE WORD BIBLE IN THE BIBLE ?
Now i am not saying that other churches are inferior. We have much to learn from protestants. I too read many of them and benefitted from it.
You may also read the works of St John of the cross, St theresa of the child jesus, the Carmelites comtemplative tradition and see the richness of the Christian faith. Or even Russian and Greek Christian spirituality. They will enhance your understanding of the bible
I don't see the concept of the immaculate conception hinder my personal relationship with Christ. I still regard him as my one savior and Lord.
In fact, it enriched my faith. Thsi belief is not new . there are historical references that i can't write here now - too long may be when i know where is it i let you -
Anglicanism also has our tradition....but these have no way in conflict with the Bible. RC traditions however...some of them are blasphemous in nature and contrary to the Bible.
since Bible is not regarded as fully authoritative in the RC faith and doctrine but is subjected to human changes. i shall not discuss with you further. there is no basis anyway. and perhaps God shldnt have given us the Bible...ppl dun see it as holy anyway. -
Actually it remains debatable whether the "church" is an institutional body like you said.Originally posted by sliew:Christ has promised that the Church will prevail. God will not allow a evil church to survive. The RC church is the only Church who has survived and still growing strong for 2000 years.
I agree that there are many evil people who had run the church. But the beauty is God always raise good and holy people to chanllenge the church and reform like Martin Luthur ( too bad he set up his own) But we need to learn from others to enhance the Catholic Church.
This is interesting. But exactly what are you saying? You're saying Luther was right or Luther was wrong but he helped to cause of the Catholic Counter-Reformation?
I can see books written by pastors in our book stores but not vice versa.
You call them pastors also?
Recently i went into a Christian book store and asked for Mother Theresa movie. They don't have any.
Then what they have? Gospel of John? Passion of Christ? Perhaps they're not into selling movies. -
The Bible is fully authoritative in the RC faith, just that it is not solely authoritative. I hope I didn't get their position wrongly.Originally posted by NeonTetra:since Bible is not regarded as fully authoritative in the RC faith and doctrine but is subjected to human changes. i shall not discuss with you further. there is no basis anyway. and perhaps God shldnt have given us the Bible...ppl dun see it as holy anyway.
The Bible must never contradict their supposed Apostolic tradition.
Hmm, then is the Papal Bull infalliable?
-
All the priests are like what? Sorry, but you're just confusing everybody who read your reply and Neon's. He admitted leaving NOT because of bad priests.Originally posted by sliew:I was a Buddhist first then a Methodist, then a Catholic. I am sorry that you were a victim. But you see we can't judge that all priests are like these. I also heard of pastors who are like this.. so no end to it. Itis your personal faith. If you encounter, you should bring it up and not just leave the church. The Church need people like you to change for the better.
You fall into the bible only mentality. There are so many traditions not written in the Bible. The Catholic Church is both bible and tradition.
Sounds like the Islam Hadith to me.
Now i am not saying that other churches are inferior. We have much to learn from protestants. I too read many of them and benefitted from it.
Wow, I love this guy! I'm sure the Pope will like him too. -
You said Anglicanism does not contradict the Bible. How do you know ? are you sure you interpret the Bible correctly, for example the real presence of Jesus.Originally posted by NeonTetra:Anglicanism also has our tradition....but these have no way in conflict with the Bible. RC traditions however...some of them are blasphemous in nature and contrary to the Bible.
since Bible is not regarded as fully authoritative in the RC faith and doctrine but is subjected to human changes. i shall not discuss with you further. there is no basis anyway. and perhaps God shldnt have given us the Bible...ppl dun see it as holy anyway.
I am sure you know how Anglicanism started. Gay bishop, does it not contradict Bible or not ? You let me know your Anglican answer.
In England, many Anglicans turned to RC because the teachings of the Anglican Church changes with the times and trends as in Gay bishop ordination and the ordination of women priest.
You may say that the RC church is not this and that but in many instances, you can see that they don't change the traditions and doctrine to follow secular ideas. -
Originally posted by NeonTetra:
Youre example falls short in any supposed comparison to Catholic piety. I will say this again, we do not worship our images as though worshipping God. We do not sacrifice anything before our images. We do not attribute to our images any qualities or works of God. Our images are not substitutes for God. Our images do not prompt us to indulge in revelry. In all these ways, Catholics are distinct and separate from the stiff-necked people who created the golden calf.
Regarding to your explanation..statues and images that direct our worship to the God of the Bible is ok....i show you wat the bible says...
Exodus 32
The Golden Calf
1 When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him."
2 Aaron answered them, "Take off the gold earrings that your wives, your sons and your daughters are wearing, and bring them to me." 3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. [b]Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."
5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, "Tomorrow there will be a festival to the LORD ." 6 So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. [3] Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.
7 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt. 8 They have been quick to turn away from what I commanded them and have made themselves an idol cast in the shape of a calf. They have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and have said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.'
9 "I have seen these people," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people. 10 Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them. Then I will make you into a great nation."
--------------------------------------------------------
When the Israelites made the golden calf..it was not some pagan gods they have in mind when they made it. Infact when u read the words in bold...they ascribe to the calf what the God of Israel did. They say....this is the 'god' who brought them out of Egypt. They worship the calf as though worshipping God and recognising what God has done for them....in the wrong manner and God hates it. Many of us can also worship the true God in a false manner....
[/b] -
Let me add one more point to your post. Every church in Christendom condemned contraception until 1930, when, at its decennial Lambeth Conference, Anglicanism gave permission for the use of contraception in a few cases. Soon all Protestant denominations had adopted the secularist position on contraception. Today not one stands with the Catholic Church to maintain the ancient Christian faith on this issue. Yet God slew Onan for spilling his seed. (Refer to Genesis 38:9-10)Originally posted by sliew:You said Anglicanism does not contradict the Bible. How do you know ? are you sure you interpret the Bible correctly, for example the real presence of Jesus.
I am sure you know how Anglicanism started. Gay bishop, does it not contradict Bible or not ? You let me know your Anglican answer.
In England, many Anglicans turned to RC because the teachings of the Anglican Church changes with the times and trends as in Gay bishop ordination and the ordination of women priest.
You may say that the RC church is not this and that but in many instances, you can see that they don't change the traditions and doctrine to follow secular ideas. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:
I know very little about Islam. Care to make the comparision for me?
Sounds like the Islam Hadith to me. -
Hey chill dude...don't get so worked up... They do not call the Bible the Holy bible for nothing...So you think that the Catholic Church denies that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God? Well, consider the following opinions:Originally posted by NeonTetra:Anglicanism also has our tradition....but these have no way in conflict with the Bible. RC traditions however...some of them are blasphemous in nature and contrary to the Bible.
since Bible is not regarded as fully authoritative in the RC faith and doctrine but is subjected to human changes. i shall not discuss with you further. there is no basis anyway. and perhaps God shldnt have given us the Bible...ppl dun see it as holy anyway.
“We have no wish either to see or hear Moses.”
“Job . . . is merely the argument of a fable.”
“Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it . . . Solomon did not, therefore, write this book.”
“The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness.”
“The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.”
“There are many things objectionable in this book [Revelation]. To my mind it bears upon it no marks of an apostolic or prophetic character.”
“St. James’ epistle . . . has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”
What Pope do you think declared this? What Cardinal dared to so condemn the Holy Word of God? What priest took it upon himself to judge the living and active Word? None at all. The above judgements were made by the founder of Protestantism himself, Martin Luther!
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has always defended the inspiration and trustworthiness of Scripture. For example, in the Vatican II document Dei Verbum, we find the following affirmation:
Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For [the Church] . . . holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. In composing the sacred books, God chose men and while employed by Him they made use of their powers and abilities, so that with Him acting in them and through them, they, as true authors, consigned to writing everything and only those things which He wanted.
Therefore since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. (Dei Verbum, Chapter 11)
Contrast the holy and reverent attitude of the Catholic Church with that of Luther:
Luther . . . freely charges the sacred writers with inaccurate statements, unsound reasonings, the use of imperfect materials and even urges the authority of Christ against that of Holy Writ. In a word, as is admitted by a recent Protestant writer: “Luther has no fixed theory of inspiration: if all his works suppose the inspiration of the Sacred Writings, all his conduct shows that he makes himself the supreme judge of it” (Rabaud, p. 42). . . . The Inspired Word of God was nothing to Luther when it could not be made to square with Lutheranism. He is prepared to assume the whole responsibility for the changes he made, and believes he has the faculty of judging the Bible without danger of error. He believes he is infallible. “My word” says he, in an exhortation to his followers, “is the word of Christ: my mouth is the mouth of Christ.” . . . Not only did Luther knowingly make additions to the text and expunge from the canon some of the Inspired Books, but he distorted the meaning of several passages by interpretations that were erroneous and nothing short of blasphemous. He even went so far as to accuse the Divine Author of playful mendacity, of irony, when no other sense of the Inspired Words would suit the Lutheran cause. (O’Hare, Luther, 202-205.)
When reverent Scripture scholars decried Luther’s improper addition of the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28, he replied, “You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word ‘alone’ is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word ‘alone,’ say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’ and say: ‘Papists and asses are one and the same thing.’ I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough.” (John Stoddard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith, (Rockford, IL: TAN Books), 136-7.)
The point of this is not to suggest that modern Protestantism should be held accountable for its founderÂ’s attitude toward Scripture. Rather, the point is simply that people who live in glass houses shouldnÂ’t throw stones. The Catholic Church has always treated the Bible with the reverence it deserves, and the heirs of LutherÂ’s reformation really arenÂ’t in a good position to allege otherwise.
The first six quotation of Martin Luther are from Patrick F. OÂ’Hare, The Facts About Luther, (Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1987), 202-205; the last one is from The Works of Martin Luther, tr. C.M. Jacobs, (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1932), copyrighted by the United Lutheran Church in America, vol. 6, 443-444. -
Basically the Hadith are the words of the Prophet. You can say this is their Tradition, since it is not found in the Qu'ran.Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:I know very little about Islam. Care to make the comparision for me? -
The above judgements were made by the founder of Protestantism himself, Martin Luther!
Hey, you forgot to bring out his most famous remark - The Book of James is an epistle of straw.
The point of this is not to suggest that modern Protestantism should be held accountable for its founderÂ’s attitude toward Scripture. Rather, the point is simply that people who live in glass houses shouldnÂ’t throw stones.
Like you said Protestants can't even agree among themselves, so it is unfair to label Luther as the founder of every Protestants. While Luther share many common ideas with Calvin and Zwingli, they still disagree, notably on the issue of eucharist. Luther actually held a view closer to the RC.
Even if he sucks, so be it. He is not Jesus Christ and Protestants don't worship him. They don't rever him like Catholics rever their popes. -
Is that a good argument for against contraception?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:Yet God slew Onan for spilling his seed. (Refer to Genesis 38:9-10)
Personally I think the innocent Onan (SIS also thinks this guy is innocent
) was slain 'cos he nearly duan4 song4 the ancestral line of David, Solomon and Jesus.
Later on, this will make every Confucianist's blood boil, still need the lao pei qing1 zhi4 chu1 ma3 to pass down the seed. The relationship is illicit. Dunno how the children addressed their parents. -
Onan disobeyed God's will, and he was selfish, because he knew the children would not belong to him. Because he disobeyed God, he was destroyed. If you want me to talk about the effects of contraception in today's society, I will show you why we should not support contraception. By the way, Natural Family Planning is not counted as contraception, but withdrawl is.Originally posted by Icemoon:Is that a good argument for against contraception?
Personally I think the innocent Onan (SIS also thinks this guy is innocent ) was slain 'cos he nearly duan4 song4 the ancestral line of David, Solomon and Jesus.
Later on, this will make every Confucianist's blood boil, still need the lao pei qing1 zhi4 chu1 ma3 to pass down the seed. The relationship is illicit. Dunno how the children addressed their parents. -
Sorry, but what exactly is the Catholic position? Is withdrawal or condom for a couple a sin?Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:... I will show you why we should not support contraception. By the way, Natural Family Planning is not counted as contraception, but withdrawl is.
I find the Jewish insistance on "producing offspring for the [eldest?] brother" a bit strange. Not sure it has incited how many younger brothers to murder their eldest brother just 'cos they want to sleep with their da4 sao3.
And does offspring mean male child or female child or can be either? -
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use artificial birth control—contraception—to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.Originally posted by Icemoon:Sorry, but what exactly is the Catholic position? Is withdrawal or condom for a couple a sin?
I find the Jewish insistance on "producing offspring for the [eldest?] brother" a bit strange. Not sure it has incited how many younger brothers to murder their eldest brother just 'cos they want to sleep with their da4 sao3.
And does offspring mean male child or female child or can be either?
Artificial birth control is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other methods of artificial contraception.
By the way, the biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, artificial contraception has historically been known as "Onanism," after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as "Sodomy," after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).
And as for offspring? I'm not very sure. I'll check. -
In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use artificial birth control—contraception—to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
Then how? Marriage experts teach and many couples agree that you need sex every week (maybe 3 times a week, sorry I not married can't comment on the frequency ) to keep the relationship healthy. And it is the duty of a wife to provide carnal pleasure to her husband.
But nobody wants the wife to become a sow with children large enough to form soccer team. Plus it is expensive to rear them in Singapore.
So how? Withdrawal also cannot. I'm sorry, but I just can't think of a better way.
He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood.
I think it is more than that. God seems to take a vested interest in this family. And it is not mentioned God expressed His will to them and Onan was so daring to ignore it. Seriously I don't think God went around killing anyone who withdrawed. If you reasoning is right, then God should strike any husband who withdrawed from his wife. That is scary! Imagine people like Judah who visited prostitutes and screwed them. Wah lao ... there would be many illegitimate children siah!
Is it mentioned the violation of the natural law constitute death?
And as for offspring? I'm not very sure. I'll check.
We know the eldest son will receive the birthright. Not sure whether the eldest daughter can receive it. Haha .... -
was busy lately... but here is the site where ppl ask about how the Catholic church is founded. do a word search for Constantine and read the revelant section. maybe by then, you will be interested to read the whole book.
http://users.aol.com/libcfl/trail.htm -
As mentioned there are many sensational stories about Constantine etc...Originally posted by ventin:was busy lately... but here is the site where ppl ask about how the Catholic church is founded. do a word search for Constantine and read the revelant section. maybe by then, you will be interested to read the whole book.
http://users.aol.com/libcfl/trail.htm
Tha fact is we can only speculate things which happened 2000 years ago. Who knows who is right ?
But one thing for sure, the Emperor Constantine was the one who legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire. Without him, you and I wouldn't be able to have the church. You see God can make use of anybody including seemly unholy people for His purpose.
The overturn decision in those days was a miracle by itself because Christians have been persecuted for years.
Do you know what was the original place of the Vatican city ? It was the palace of Emperor Nero, the one who thrown Christians into the Lions. See God was so powerful that He made Christ and his Church sit on the pagan world. Hell shall not prevail over her as Christ have promised to Peter who was the rock ( His tomb is in the Vatican city) -
Hi all,
I'm Catholic and I'm new to this forum. It's very sad to see so much anti-catholic sentiment in this forum. As some of fellow catholic and protestant brothers have mentioned, arguing about such things is going to make things better. Only with love can we overcome such problems.
Both Catholics and Protestants are guilty of malicious bigotry. Let us not judge, though it's tempting to do so. Let God be the judge.
As a Catholic I am taught that our Church represents the entire repository of the Truth. Our protestant bretheren also believe in the same Truth, but not to the full extent that we do. However, there can be only 1 Truth.
As a Catholic I am also taught to respect other denominations for it is said in the bible that, who is not against me is for with me right? There's so much good work that's come from our protestant brothers and sisters. Look at the fervour in their worship and their mission work. There's much to learn from them. Having said that, it's obvious that significant divisions exist between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches - something will not changing no matter how much we bicker here.
Accept my comments or not, it is your choice. My priest once shared a nugget of wisdom to me, which i would like to share everyone here :
"For those who believe, there is nothing that you can say to change his belief. Likewise, for those who don't believe, there is nothing you can say to make him believe. Such changes need to come from the heart, and it is through God that we are touched is such ways." -
I assume that this statement comes from an intepretation of Matt 16:18,Originally posted by sliew:Hell shall not prevail over her as Christ have promised to Peter who was the rock ( His tomb is in the Vatican city)
"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it."
This intepretation runs contrary to 1 Cor. 3:11,
"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ"
Other verses, Acts 4:11, 1 Cor. 10:4 and Eph. 2:20, expicitly state that the"rock" is Jesus. The "rock" in Matt 16:18, can be and should be in my opinion, intepreted as Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ. Christianity (including Catholism) is not found upon Peter, but upon Christ, as the name suggests.