homeschoolmom Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 With the written word, emotion and demeanor are communicated not only with words and smileys, but also with formating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budge Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 Seems like pretty direct thread. My answer to the questions are... YES TO ALL THREE. Any Evangelical who rejects any of those is not a true evangelical and more fits an ecumenical liberal neo-evangelist. Sadly liberalism, modernism and Catholic ecumenicalism have snuck their way even into some Baptist churches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Eutychus' post='1095684' date='Oct 19 2006, 10:32 AM']I rather thought they were quite direct, simple, and pertinate to a forum that bills itself as INTERRELIGIOUS dialogue. So, what EXACTLY about these three questions causes you such reaction that you are wary of answering them?[/quote]Frankly, your initial post is quite clear: your goal isn't to learn by questioning; but to play the role of socratic teacher (i.e. "I will post WHY after some answers are given"). While dialogue is open to all, I think it's hard for anyone to play socratic student to someone who has shown so much disregard for basic Christian charity and civility. I'd love to see you turn a new leaf, though. As an ex-Catholic who thinks he knows so much more than Catholics (I'll omit the specific name-calling that you have used against Catholics), you should at least know what faithful Catholics believe about these questions. On the other hand, if you're looking for a great number of cafeteria Catholics to answer "no" to your questions, I think you might have come to the wrong place. Side comment: Skimming through the website, I find it interesting that an evangelical Christian ([url="http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=17"]link[/url]), according to the Barna definition, doesn't have to believe in the divinity of Jesus. Would you agree that Our Lord's divinity is an optional belief for evangelical Christians? Edited October 19, 2006 by Mateo el Feo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 [quote name='Eutychus' post='1095665' date='Oct 19 2006, 09:14 AM']I will post WHY after some answers are given. [/quote] This says to me: I have an agenda in asking these questions. If the agenda is to point out that some "Catholics" are poorly educated, you are not telling us anything we don't already know. If the agenda is to point out that the questions are somewhat loaded (the last one), then I would agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 The hook and line were visible in the Baited Question. If I remember correctly, you and Budge were asked some questions that you refused to respond to. Why are you getting your panites in a wad when the caths don't want to respond to your baiting? Besides, what's the point in baiting the field, you are already smack dab in the middle of a herd of catholics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jswranch Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 [quote name='Eutychus' post='1095665' date='Oct 19 2006, 08:14 AM'] There are three questions I want to pose here: [size=3][b] [color="#990000"]ONE - "Is satan a real entity?"[/color] [color="#000099"] TWO - "Was Christ sinless?"[/color] [color="#663366"]THREE - "Is the bible totally accurate?"[/color][/b][/size] [/quote] 1. Satan is real 2. Christ was sinless (and still is) 3. Bad question. The bible is truth. It is not always total fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 hmmm in response to such a wise teacher I will post my own questions ONE - Do Catholics Sin? TWO- Are there 'Catholics' who don't believe all the Church teaches? THREE- Does this diminish the truth in the Church in any way? And since the title was about Biblical Beliefs.... FOUR- Is the Catholic Church the Church Christ instituted (Matt 16:18)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Eutychus' post='1095665' date='Oct 19 2006, 08:14 AM'] I just got a report from BARNA, the premier religious polling firm that was most disturbing. There are three questions I want to pose here: [size=3][b] [color="#990000"]ONE - "Is satan a real entity?"[/color] [color="#000099"] TWO - "Was Christ sinless?"[/color] [color="#663366"]THREE - "Is the bible totally accurate?"[/color][/b][/size] I will post WHY after some answers are given. [/quote] 1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Which Bible? The Vulgate? The KJV? The NIV? You are too vague. If it is the KJV, the answer is no. If it is the NIV, the answer is no. If it is the Vulgate, the answer is that it is inerrant. God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more." (Dei Verbum 11) The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures." (DV 11) Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living". If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures." (St. Bernard, S. missus est hom. 4,11:PL 183,86; Cf. Lk 24:45) Have a nice day. [color="#FF0000"]"NOW WHY?!?!?!?!?"[/color][mod]Text size increase in debate -Raphael[/mod] (was that enough of a "code shocker" for ya?) Edited October 20, 2006 by Raphael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 [quote name='Budge' post='1095737' date='Oct 19 2006, 11:57 AM']Any Evangelical who rejects any of those is not a true evangelical and more fits an ecumenical liberal neo-evangelist. Sadly liberalism, modernism and Catholic ecumenicalism have snuck their way even into some Baptist churches.[/quote]What is the consequence of fitting into "an ecumenical liberal neo-evangelist"? Does this mean no salvation for them? Just FYI, according to this website, 45% of so-called born-again Christians deny the existence of Satan. 33% believe that they can earn heaven. 28% believe that Our Lord sinned when he was on earth (maybe he's not divine for them?). 14% believe that the Bible is inaccurate. Also, some funny number inflation. Depending on the page you visit ([url="http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=8"]link[/url] and [url="http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=15"]link[/url]), the Barna site is pushing up the "Born Again" population by including anywhere from 21% to 30% of all Catholics. According to the website, 9% of us were born again between 2004 and 2006. Wow... Maybe it's becoming obvious that religious polls aren't terribly helpful. This website made me immediately think of the book "How to Lie With Statistics" ([url="http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/sr=8-14/qid=1161271478/ref=sr_1_14/102-4973128-6279347?ie=UTF8&s=books"]link[/url]). Sure, statistics are interesting. But, what do we do when someone says that 92% of the Apostles abandoned Our Lord when he was dying on the Cross of Calvary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 (edited) [quote name='Eutychus' post='1095665' date='Oct 19 2006, 09:14 AM'] I just got a report from BARNA, the premier religious polling firm that was most disturbing. There are three questions I want to pose here: [size=3][b] [color="#990000"]ONE - "Is satan a real entity?"[/color] [color="#000099"] TWO - "Was Christ sinless?"[/color] [color="#663366"]THREE - "Is the bible totally accurate?"[/color][/b][/size] I will post WHY after some answers are given. [/quote] Hmm... 1. define entity 2. tell me first what hue of blue that is, so that I may better answer the question 3. who's bible? The Holy Bible, the Computer Tech Bible, etc... thank you for your time PS - who the heck declared BARNA to be 'premier'? Is that a membership level in AARP or the AAA, ? Choo gots some splaining to do, loocy... Edited October 19, 2006 by Groo the Wanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 It's thanks to Eutychus that I get to read all these great responses... [quote name='Cam42']If it is the KJV, the answer is no. If it is the NIV, the answer is no. If it is the Vulgate, the answer is that it is inerrant.[/quote]Interestingly, the only really substantial negative description of the KJV's errors was layed out in the preface of my mom's old RSV from 1952. It described the KJV as having "grave defects" and "that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation" ([url="http://www.ncccusa.org/newbtu/aboutrsv.html"]link[/url]) It took two revisions to get from the KJV to the original RSV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 The original KJV was not deformed by the removal of books as the present one is. Imagine the amount of sin started by altering the Word of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eutychus Posted October 19, 2006 Author Share Posted October 19, 2006 It all depends on how reliable you think Origen was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budge Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 I can see how Barna got some pretty low percentages from the responses here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted October 19, 2006 Share Posted October 19, 2006 and I can see that you two have yet to answer my questions about your questions? *launches into Church Lady mode* Isn't that special? What could be the problem? What is causing such a non-response? Could it be, oh I don't know....Satan!? *exits Church Lady mode* LORF! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now