Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by Andrew »

Beowulf, I used to think you posted very intelligently, but your attack on Christianity for idolatry, quote mining, refusal to understand or acknowledge the actual beliefs of Christians, etc. has made me lose just about all my respect for your rationality and intelligence.
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by beowulf »

Andrew wrote:Beowulf, I used to think you posted very intelligently, but your attack on Christianity for idolatry, quote mining, refusal to understand or acknowledge the actual beliefs of Christians, etc. has made me lose just about all my respect for your rationality and intelligence.

For once I allowed myself to act as the mirror of the other person.


The bride was left behind that is true, but being the wife of god is one explanation for this hideous piece of metaphorical speech.
This is the immaculate bride of God speaking .


" We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins,
'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2],


Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. "


"The Bull lays down dogmatic propositions on the unity of the Church, the necessity of belonging to it for eternal salvation, the position of the pope as supreme head of the Church, and the duty thence arising of submission to the pope in order to belong to the Church and thus to attain salvation. The pope further emphasizes the higher position of the spiritual in comparison with the secular order. From these premises he then draws conclusions concerning the relation between the spiritual power of the Church and secular authority"


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15126a.htm


Quoting Popes to understand Catholics is a legitimate way to explain Catholicism and the excuse of being metaphorical is worthless.

The Roman Catholic Church is an idol and a nasty piece of work
Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by Andrew »

You quote mine and misunderstand the meaning of the quotes.

"[...]the excuse of being metaphorical is worthless."

What excuse, and why is it worthless? The Church is obviously metaphorically the Bride of Christ and not literally so. A religious institution cannot be literally married to its God. That's bizarre, beowulf.
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by beowulf »

Andrew wrote:You quote mine and misunderstand the meaning of the quotes.

"[...]the excuse of being metaphorical is worthless."

What excuse, and why is it worthless? The Church is obviously metaphorically the Bride of Christ and not literally so. A religious institution cannot be literally married to its God. That's bizarre, beowulf.

How does anyone know what is real and what is metaphorical in Religion?. What is really important is how these statements affect men and women.
When an institution claims to be the wife of the One Eternal God Creator of the Universe what that institution is doing is very threatening .


For example in CASTI CONNUBII (On Christian Marriage)
Pope Pius XI

"23. This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly called by St. Augustine the "faith of chastity" blooms more freely, more beautifully and more nobly, when it is rooted in that more excellent soil, the love of husband and wife which pervades all the duties of married life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage. For matrimonial faith demands that husband and wife be joined in an especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church. This precept the Apostle laid down when he said: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church,"[24] that Church which of a truth He embraced with a boundless love not for the sake of His own advantage, but seeking only the good of His Spouse.[25]"

In 55 it says

"55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Oman, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]"

The marriage of God to the RCC is used as a model that Christian married couples must imitate.
The intrusive and arrogant confession fraud is next .


"57. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.[46]"



That God is the husband of the church is used as the argument justifying the right to control the way man and wife express their love for each other,


That is "metaphorical" is a worthless excuse for that sinister and blasphemous words.
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

your pitiless and bizarre religion

Post by beowulf »

Hi Andrew,

CASTI CONNUBII (On Christian Marriage)

In 14, the metaphorical eating from a tree by Adam and Eve when partying with a serpent and a gardening god , is now used by your pitiless and bizarre religion to terrorize pregnant women and their husbands and force the believes to surrender their " offspring" into servitude .


In this pitiless and bizarre religion parents create dead souls infected with the metaphorical original sin which was metaphorically stated by Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century and considered a heresy by the Greek Fathers

"14. For although Christian spouses even if sanctified themselves cannot transmit sanctification to their progeny, nay, although the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity, nevertheless, they share to some extent in the blessings of that primeval marriage of Paradise, since it is theirs to offer their offspring to the Church in order that by this most fruitful Mother of the children of God they may be regenerated through the laver of Baptism unto supernatural justice and finally be made living members of Christ, partakers of immortal life, and heirs of that eternal glory to which we all aspire from our inmost heart."
Last edited by beowulf on Sat May 10, 2014 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by Andrew »

Beowulf, if you can be coherent, I'll answer you. I still don't understand what you're getting at. You would get your message across so much more easily if you were a little less biased and a little more clear and logical.
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by beowulf »

I don't want to get anything across . I prefer to let the popes speak and the interested readers to reflect on what has been written

The excuse of "it is metaphorical " is a worthless one in matters of religion .

The story of Adam and Eve is a metaphor from which the metaphor of the original sin proceeded and it was followed by the metaphor of the dead god
The resurrection is a metaphor and the power of men to...

Your religion is a cruel pitiless invention .
Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by Andrew »

Your understanding of the whole "metaphor" thing is flawed. I don't know how you understand those things the way you do, but you don't seem to be making much of an effort to understand. Your anti-Catholic bias seems to prevent you from making a logical argument, so I'm not going to waste my time giving a proper reply.
beowulf
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by beowulf »

Andrew wrote:Your understanding of the whole "metaphor" thing is flawed. I don't know how you understand those things the way you do, but you don't seem to be making much of an effort to understand. Your anti-Catholic bias seems to prevent you from making a logical argument, so I'm not going to waste my time giving a proper reply.

It was you who asked me a question and I the one who answered it.
I will try to speak your language : Saying God is my husband, is a mortal sin punishable with eternal hell-fire.


thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (KJV, also "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God" (NRSV) and variants) is one of the Ten Commandments. It is a prohibition of blasphemy, specifically, the misuse or "taking in vain" of the name of the God of Israel. Exodus 20:7 reads:
"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain." (KJV).[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt ... od_in_vain

Have a nice day :)
Andrew
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Mentalflatliner - what is reasonable?

Post by Andrew »

Thank you, that's what I'm looking for. A direct question instead of all this quotations from popes, etc.

Since we believe that God himself became human and fulfilled the Law of Moses, (I'm pretty sure you know the story), we Catholics obviously don't agree that that is blasphemy. You first have to tear down my belief in Jesus as the Christ/Messiah before you can call me out for blasphemy. I'm pretty sure you don't follow the Mosaic Law to the letter anyway, so why are you so convinced I'll be damned for it? Do you condone stoning, or participate in it? Because God commanded that in the same set of laws in which he defined the Ten Commandments. Christians have their reasons for no longer following that law aside from those Ten Commandments, but what reason have you to follow those ten but not most of the rest? And I thought damnation was a New Testament concept, though I could be wrong.
Post Reply