Attitude Towards The Jewish People

[Aloysius]

no, it's what de-nom-ination means.

de- of/from
nom- name
ination- noun form

it must be 1 of or from something and 2 take a common name to be a denomination.

it's not rediculous, it's how you actually look at definitions in debates (you don't just go to #1 in websters and think you have something). denomination as you use it has evolved out of a modernist philosophy and a protestant philosophy which is attempting to justify the existence of each denomination by applying it to every group within Christianity. as the word actually indicates, it can only apply to groups which came from other groups within Christianity.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1088167' date='Oct 10 2006, 10:19 AM']
no, it's what de-nom-ination means.

de- of/from
nom- name
ination- noun form

it must be 1 of or from something and 2 take a common name to be a denomination.

it's not rediculous, it's how you actually look at definitions in debates (you don't just go to #1 in websters and think you have something). denomination as you use it has evolved out of a modernist philosophy and a protestant philosophy which is attempting to justify the existence of each denomination by applying it to every group within Christianity. as the word actually indicates, it can only apply to groups which came from other groups within Christianity.
[/quote]
It's spelt 'ridiculous', with an "i".
I'm not college educated so I just use the dictionary to define words so that other people know what I'm talking about. Besides, I think you are confusing 'derivative' with 'denomination'.

Using your word play, "detail" cannot mean a smal part, it is poopy.

de- of/from
tail- end; rear;

from the rear: poo poo.

Edited October 10, 2006 by Anomaly

[Aloysius]

hahaha funny stuff... if "tail" was actually derived from the english word "tail" then you might be right

1603, from Fr. détail, from O.Fr. detail "small piece or quantity," from detaillier "cut in pieces," from de- "entirely" + taillier "to cut in pieces." Modern sense is from Fr. en détail "piece by piece, item by item" (as opposed to en gros), a commercial term used where we would today use retail. Military sense is 1708, from notion of "distribution in detail of the daily orders first given in general," including assignment of specific duties. The verb is from 1637.

whereas "de-nomination" does come from the prefix "de" and the latin for "name", it comes from something and distinguishes itself by a different name.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1088179' date='Oct 10 2006, 10:40 AM']
hahaha funny stuff... if "tail" was actually derived from the english word "tail" then you might be right

1603, from Fr. détail, from O.Fr. detail "small piece or quantity," from detaillier "cut in pieces," from de- "entirely" + taillier "to cut in pieces." Modern sense is from Fr. en détail "piece by piece, item by item" (as opposed to en gros), a commercial term used where we would today use retail. Military sense is 1708, from notion of "distribution in detail of the daily orders first given in general," including assignment of specific duties. The verb is from 1637.

whereas "de-nomination" does come from the prefix "de" and the latin for "name", it comes from something and distinguishes itself by a different name.
[/quote]Really, now. So when I take my car to the detailler, is he chopping it up to sell it? At least I know he isn't going to mushy mud pie in the seat. (And the poo poo post IS funny. I keep chuckling to myself. I often find it's more satisfying to be clever than smart.)

[Cam42]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1088158' date='Oct 10 2006, 10:14 AM']
Take it up with Webster, the dictionary guy. Creating some arcane definition and assuming everyone should know it is like Clinton asking what "is" is or Euty asking what "Church" means. If you have some other way to define denomination than what is used in standard english and is found in an english dictionary, please feel free to establish and define it so that others may know what you mean. Within my household, family and certain friends, 'gar' has a clear and identifible meaning we all comprehend, know, but has nothing to do with the type of fish people associate with the word.
[/quote]

Actually, "Gar" means cat.

But you haven't answered my questions yet Anomoly. Based upon how denomination is rendered, you have to speak to my questions. Good Luck, buddy, you'll need it.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1088199' date='Oct 10 2006, 11:16 AM']
Actually, "Gar" means cat.

But you haven't answered my questions yet Anomoly. Based upon how denomination is rendered, you have to speak to my questions. Good Luck, buddy, you'll need it.
[/quote]Case in point. [url="http://www.floridaconservation.org/Fishing/Fishes/gar.html"][b][size=5][u][color="#990000"]GARFISH[/color][/u][/size][/b][/url]
Garfish.

So, what's your definition of denomination?

Edited October 10, 2006 by Anomaly

[Aloysius]

[quote]is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity.[/quote] -Cam

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1088148' date='Oct 10 2006, 10:00 AM']
A religious denomination, Anomoly, is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity. So, would you like to show me how Catholicism is a "subgroup" of Christianity?

Catholicism is a dirivative of what religion? Care to trace the lineage back for me? Yes, Catholics are like-minded, for the most part, and yes, Catholics are part of a congregation, but that is where the similarities end.

In order for the Catholic Church to meet the definition of a religious denomination, it must be a subgroup and I argue that the Church is not a subgroup, but rather the Master group and all Protestant denominations are a subgroup, to a greater or lesser degree of the Catholic Church.

Good Luck.
[/quote]
dANG. i MISSED YOUR POST.

You said "So, would you like to show me how Catholicism is a "subgroup" of Christianity?"
Christianity is known as all groups that profess Jesus as Christ. ergo, catholics are a sub-group of Christianity since they're not baptists or pentecostals (who are recognized as Christians, but not catholics)

[CatholicCid]

He also asked "Catholicism is a dirivative of what religion? Care to trace the lineage back for me?"

One probably could argue that Christianity came from Catholicism

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1087975' date='Oct 9 2006, 10:54 PM']
Augustine's view of predestination is perfectly within the bounds of Catholic Teaching. It is Calvinist misinterpretation of both him and St. Paul which is heretical.

One may agree with everything St. Augustine said about predestination and not be a heretic.

Of course, this is a tangent..
[/quote]
Hrm, I'm skeptical of this.... Augustine said some pretty strict things about predestination that the Church does not hold to, i.e. he calls the human race (several times) a "massa damnata" (the damned masses).

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm[/url]
[quote]The Eastern Fathers, absolutely all of them, and Westerners before Augustine, and even after him, saw that there is no reprobation, not even negative, except in consideration of demerits. Augustine did not see that, and the unfortunate massa damnata theory, which said the whole human race by original sin became a massa damnata et damnabilis: God could throw the whole damned race into hell for original sin alone, without waiting for any personal sin.

God wanted to display mercy and justice. To display mercy, He chose a small percent to rescue; the rest He deserted and so they would go to hell.

He thought God picked those to rescue blindly, without any consideration of how they lived. He picked them not that He had any love for them, but merely to make a point. Augustine did not see it, but that was a denial of God's love. For to love is to will good to another for the other's sake. If I will good to another not for that other's sake, but for some outside purpose of mine, I am not loving that person, but using him.

So in that theory, God does not really love anyone, He merely uses the few for His own purposes, not for their sake. Hence, as we shall son see, he explicitly denied several times that "God wills all to be saved: (1 Tim 2:4) . He even said, as we shall soon see below, that it means nothing to God that most persons are damned, without a chance.

Of course Augustine did not see this fact, or he would surely have stayed away from his theory. Actually, as we shall see later on, in about six places he implies the opposite of that theory, when his sense of God's goodness took over his thinking.

Further, he reached this theory from a collection of reasons, chiefly, the fact that he misunderstood the passage in Romans 8:29 through chapter 11. He thought it all referred to predestination to heaven or hell. (Hence, within that framework, he thought that the words of Romans 9:13,"I have loved Jacob and hated Esau" meant that God really hated Esau. And without even looking at Esau's life wanted to beaver dam him) . Actually, St. Paul does not speak of any such thing, but only of predestination to full membership in the Church. (We will; explain below why we use that word full) . By allegory—without any support in the text or context, he thought that in the image of the potter in Romans 9:19-24 the gob of clay on the potter's table meant the whole human race, made into a massa damnata et damnabilis by original sin.
[/quote]

Quotes from Augustine:
[quote](1) Enchiridion 103: "When we hear and read [b]in sacred Scripture that He wills all men to be saved . . . we must . . . so understand [it] . . . as if it were said that no man is saved except whom He wants [to be saved][/b]. . . . Or certainly it was so said . . . not that there is no man whom He is unwilling to have saved, He who was unwilling to perform the wonders of miracles among those whom He says would have done penance it He had done them: but in such a way that we understand 'all men' to mean the whole human race, distributed into various categories: kings, private citizens, nobles, ordinary men, lofty, lowly, learned, unlearned. . . ."

(2) De correptione et gratia 14. 44: "And that which is written that which is written that 'he wills all men to be saved and yet not all are saved, can be understood in many ways, of which we have mentioned some in other works, but I shall give one here. It is said in such a way . . . that all the predestined are meant: for the whole human race is in them."

(3) De correptione et gratia 15, 47: "That 'God wills all men to be saved' can be understood also in this way: that He causes us to wish [that all men be saved]. . . ."

(4) Epistle 217, 6, 19: ". . . and so that which is said, 'God wills all men to be saved' [b]although He is unwilling that so many be saved[/b], is said for this reason: that all who are saved, are not saved except by His will."
[/quote]

[Cam42]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1088202' date='Oct 10 2006, 11:32 AM']
Case in point. [url="http://www.floridaconservation.org/Fishing/Fishes/gar.html"][b][size=5][u][color="#990000"]GARFISH[/color][/u][/size][/b][/url]
Garfish.

So, what's your definition of denomination?
[/quote]

That was an inside joke with hot stuff, Gar was the name of his cat who passed away. But we don't talk about that, he is very sensitive about losing Gar. They were bestest of friends, mister no sense of humor.....sheesh....

And I have already given the definition of denomination, perhaps you should read my previous post then you can be informed like the rest. Thanks. You have yet to answer my questions in regard to the posted definition of denomination.

Again, Good Luck.

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1088210' date='Oct 10 2006, 11:45 AM']
dANG. i MISSED YOUR POST.

You said "So, would you like to show me how Catholicism is a "subgroup" of Christianity?"
Christianity is known as all groups that profess Jesus as Christ. ergo, catholics are a sub-group of Christianity since they're not baptists or pentecostals (who are recognized as Christians, but not catholics)
[/quote]


Care to prove that? You are essentially restating my question in a non-question format.

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1088219' date='Oct 10 2006, 11:55 AM']
He also asked "Catholicism is a dirivative of what religion? Care to trace the lineage back for me?"

One probably could argue that Christianity came from Catholicism
[/quote]


Now CatholicCid is on to something......"Christianity" as defined in the modern (heresy) sense did come from Catholicism. However, I would still like to see you, Anomoly, argue yourself out of this paper bag.....

Again, Good Luck.

[Aloysius]

[quote]Of course Augustine did not see this fact, or he would surely have stayed away from his theory.[/quote]
precisely, because it's not a fact that Augustine intended, it's a later interpretation of his writings which says this

have any Augustine quotes where he actually says God picks them "blindly" or that He did not pick them because He had a "love for them" or that he picked them [b]merely[/b] to make a point (he may have said, and I am not sure, that he picked them to make a point; but not that that was the only reason), these sound like later critiques and charecterizations... he certainly says he does not pick them based upon their own merits, which is perfectly within Catholic doctrine. it is God's will which elects those who are saved, and this is well within the bounds of Catholic soteriology to say this. the only thing really outside the bounds of Catholic soteriology would be to say that by will He chooses those who He wants to be reprobate... I see no evidence Augustine said this...

[quote]Actually, as we shall see later on, in about six places he implies the opposite of that theory, when his sense of God's goodness took over his thinking[/quote]

This artical assumes that these were just lapses away from his calvinist ways... perhaps they in fact show that the quotes from which anyone derives calvinism are just reactions against pelagianism so it overemphasizes some things, but it does not deny anything and these other quotes indicate his complete balanced view.

All the quotes you provided above would fit perfectly within an orthodox catholic soteriology. Those who are saved are saved by God's will, and those who are saved are not chosen based upon their own merits. show me where Augustine taught that God chooses to beaver dam people at random and save other people at random, and I'll agree he was wrong. but Augustine does not say this, he says that those who He elects He does not elect based upon their merit but upon His will (love); and perhaps that part of the reason for this (but not the entire reason) is to make a point

Augustine would be correct to say that original sin alone, without any actual sin, is enough to beaver dam us to hell for eternity. He indicates later that God chooses not to do this, to show mercy, to save people, and he never says, to the best of my knowledge, that he arbitrarily actively damns.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Cam42' post='1088277' date='Oct 10 2006, 12:51 PM']
That was an inside joke with hot stuff, Gar was the name of his cat who passed away. But we don't talk about that, he is very sensitive about losing Gar. They were bestest of friends, mister no sense of humor.....sheesh....

And I have already given the definition of denomination, perhaps you should read my previous post then you can be informed like the rest. Thanks. You have yet to answer my questions in regard to the posted definition of denomination.

Again, Good Luck.
Care to prove that? You are essentially restating my question in a non-question format.
Now CatholicCid is on to something......"Christianity" as defined in the modern (heresy) sense did come from Catholicism. However, I would still like to see you, Anomoly, argue yourself out of this paper bag.....

Again, Good Luck.
[/quote]
Well, let's see here. If you knew who is called Gar, and why and how long that's been going on in my family, you would see the humour in it. It was one of those teenage nicknames that was misunderstood and picked up by multiple sets of parents. The original Gar (now a corporate lawyer), actually became known by that name by her parents and my parents. And people say pot isn't dangerous.


But back to the subject at hand.

If we use "your" definition, it is discovered that it is for 'religious denomination' and that it came from Wikpedia and is incomplete. Scroll down a bit to complete the definition:
"[b]A religious denomination, (also simply denomination) is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity. In Islam such subgroups are referred to as "sects" rather than denominations.

The term is frequently used to describe various groupings of Christian churches ( for example, Eastern Orthodoxy, Catholicism and the many varieties of Protestantism) (Main article: Christian denomination.) It is also used to describe the four organised branches of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist), and (less often, though it would not be inappropriate) to describe the two main branches of Islam (Sunni and Shia)."[/b]

Wikpedia then suggests to go to Denomination for other senses of the word. We see a similar definition but we also see the problem caths have with the accepted usage and definition of the word.

[b]DENOMINATION
A denomination, in the Christian sense of the word, is an identifiable religious body under a common name, structure, and/or doctrine.


Denominations
Christianity is composed of four major divisions of Churches: Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Protestant. [b]Denomination typically refers to one of the many Christian churches.[/b]
Denominationalism is an ideology which views some or all Christian groups as being, in some sense, versions of the same thing regardless of their distinguishing labels. Not all churches teach this. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches do not use this term as its implication of interchangeability does not agree with their theological teachings. There are some groups which practically all others would view as apostate or heretical, and not legitimate versions of Christianity.

There were some movements considered heresies by the early church which do not exist today and are not generally referred to as denominations. Examples include the Gnostics (who had believed in an esoteric dualism), the Ebionites (who venerated Christ's blood relatives), and the Arians. The greatest divisions in Christianity today however are between Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and various denominations formed during and after the Protestant Reformation. There also exists in Protestantism and Orthodoxy various degrees of unity and division.[/b]

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Perhaps this ought to be another thread..

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1088307' date='Oct 10 2006, 02:03 PM']
precisely, because it's not a fact that Augustine intended, it's a later interpretation of his writings which says this[/quote]
We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I would argue it's too lenient an interpretation of Augustine that says he doesn't hold to a stricter view of predestination than does the Church.

[quote]have any Augustine quotes where he actually says God picks them "blindly" or that He did not pick them because He had a "love for them" or that he picked them [b]merely[/b] to make a point (he may have said, and I am not sure, that he picked them to make a point; but not that that was the only reason), these sound like later critiques and charecterizations... [/quote]
It's the logical conclusion of Augustine's "massa damnata" (i.e., total depravity of man)--which right off the bat this is not a term the Church would use to describe humanity. If Original Sin is enough to condemn us, and our merits are nothing to save us from this certain damnation of the race, then God's predestination of the elect can be nothing but arbitrary. From whence does He pick and choose the saved and the reprobate? [b]Some[/b], by God's gratuitous grace, are saved from the "massa damnata" while the rest are left as the "massa damnata"... yet, there's no criteria for who gets to be part of the lucky [b]some [/b] who are saved from the damned masses?

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm[/url]
[quote]CHAP. II [VI.]--THAT SOME MEN ARE ELECTED IS OF GOD'S MERCY.

" Many hear the word of truth; but some believe, while others contradict. Therefore, the former will to believe; the latter do not will." Who does not know this? Who can deny this? But since in some the win is prepared by the Lord, in others it is not prepared, we must assuredly be able to distinguish what comes from God's mercy, and what from His judgment. "What Israel sought for," says the apostle, "he hath not obtained, but the election hath obtained it; and the rest were blinded, as it is written, God gave to them the spirit of compunction,--eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear, even to this day. And David said, Let their table be made a snare, a retribution, and a stumblingblock to them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see; and bow down their back always." Here is mercy and judgment,--mercy towards the election which has obtained the righteousness of God, but judgment to the rest which have been blinded. And yet the former, because they willed, believed; the latter, because they did not will believed not. Therefore mercy and judgment were manifested in the very wills themselves. Certainly such an election is of grace, not at all of merits. For he had before said, "So, therefore, even at this present time, the remnant has been saved by the election of grace. And if by grace, now it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace." Therefore the election obtained what it obtained gratuitously; there preceded none of those things which they might first give, and it should be given to them again. [b]He saved them for nothing. But to the rest who were blinded, as is there plainly declared, it was done in recompense. [/b] "All the paths of the Lord are mercy and truth." But His ways are unsearchable. Therefore the mercy by which He freely delivers, and the truth by which He righteously judges, are equally unsearchable.
[/quote]


[quote]Augustine would be correct to say that original sin alone, without any actual sin, is enough to beaver dam us to hell for eternity. He indicates later that God chooses not to do this, to show mercy, to save people, and he never says, to the best of my knowledge, that he arbitrarily actively damns.
[/quote]
I strongly disagree that Original Sin would be enough to beaver dam us to Hell... (unless we include Limbo as part of Hell).

And Fr. Most quotes Pope Pius IX on this point: "Because [b]God[/b] knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency [b]do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments[/b]." ( [url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm"]http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm[/url] )

Original Sin is not a delibrate (i.e., voluntary) sin. It's a privation. Saying Orignal sin alone is enough to beaver dam us to Hell is akin to saying that God would beaver dam us for being involuntarily defective.

[thessalonian]

EENS,

You said this a couple of pages back.

[quote]We are not all children of God. Only those Baptized into the Body of Christ are children of God.[/quote]

In a sense you are right. For we are not all spiritually reborn, adopted sons and daughters. (though Cornelius is an interesting case study, as is Cyrus and the Good Samaritan) But all of man kind is in some sense his children or Paul is wrong.

Acts 17
28: for `In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, `[b]For we are indeed his offspring[/b].'
29: Being then [b]God's offspring[/b], we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man.
30: The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent,
31: because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead."

Offspring are children last I checked. This is the RSV, which I prefer. Some versions including the NAB render it children. Paul is speaking to pagan athenians here and even quotes them. So perhaps you want to tailor your statement a bit.

Blessings

Edited October 10, 2006 by thessalonian