Is Roman Catholicism Christianity

Originally posted by whodey
Is believing in Christ the basis for Christiantiy? After all, if this were the case then Muslims, JW's, Mormons, etc would all be considered Christian. The real question is, do they follow what Christ taught first and foremost?

As for my own thoughts, anything that focuses on anything other than Christs teachings are not Christian. In other words, if t ...[text shortened]... eader, a set of religious rituals, beliefs that counter what he taught, etc, it becomes a cult.

uh JWs and mormons are christians... and Muslims don't believe in Christ, they believe there was a man who people called Jesus Christ and they may acknowledge him as a prophet(?). Muslims would probably refer to him as Jesus of Nazareth.

Originally posted by menace71
Another million or two milliom dead?? If WW2 went on. I'm not saying I support Atomic weapons per se but in that case I think they actually saved lives on both sides. It's funny how when people get to slamming on the JW's you guys get all defensive yet your slyly trying to rip on Catholics or at least the religion of Catholicism. Just funny observation.





Manny

Well I think anybody here would get defensive of there beliefs. You do.
But since this thread is about the Catholics and not the Baptist, then it seems we should make comments about the Catholics.
I'm not on a witch hunt but it would just seem that if they teach as Jesus did about love not only for all, but especially for those in the faith as Jesus mentioned, they would not have their own religious leaders blessing weapons that will probably be used to kill others of their own religion in other countries... That's absolutly horrible to know they did that in most all the wars in the last century and will probabaly do it again.
And they had their chaplins, on each side, blessing the soldiers to go kill the other guy. So it was chaplin against chaplin it would seem...

Originally posted by daniel58
Please read my last post

I have. You wrote: "Yes, I've read The Bible, No my beliefs aren't shallow they are Christian."
Aparantly you haven't read Exodus 20:13. If you say that the christian beliefs are at the same level as yours, then you say that all christians beliefs are shallow.

Now, go and read Exodus 20:13! Tell me the words so I know you really have.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I have. You wrote: "Yes, I've read The Bible, No my beliefs aren't shallow they are Christian."
Aparantly you haven't read Exodus 20:13. If you say that the christian beliefs are at the same level as yours, then you say that all christians beliefs are shallow.

Now, go and read Exodus 20:13! Tell me the words so I know you really have.

"Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me", what does that have anything to do we've been talking about?

Originally posted by daniel58
"Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me", what does that have anything to do we've been talking about?

You quoted Exodus 20:3. I don't know from what version. But you haven't really read the bible, have you?

Now, go and read your bible. Exodus 20:13. You do have a copy, don't you? Perhaps you should go to the local library, they should have one for you to read.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well I think anybody here would get defensive of there beliefs. You do.
But since this thread is about the Catholics and not the Baptist, then it seems we should make comments about the Catholics.
I'm not on a witch hunt but it would just seem that if they teach as Jesus did about love not only for all, but especially for those in the faith as Jesus m ...[text shortened]... sing the soldiers to go kill the other guy. So it was chaplin against chaplin it would seem...

This belies the real purpose of the military ordinariate. The military chaplain is not there to bless weapons and to pray for the destruction of the enemy side. He is simply there to provide the sacraments of soldiers and offer them guidance. They do this whether their side is justified or not. So while the Vatican has denounced the Iraq war, the Church has supplied many chaplains to perform the funeral rite for the dead and offer the sacraments. Perhaps in WWII, some military chaplains got carried away, but in doing so, they were not discharging the true function of a military chaplain.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You quoted Exodus 20:3. I don't know from what version. But you haven't really read the bible, have you?

Now, go and read your bible. [b]Exodus 20:13. You do have a copy, don't you? Perhaps you should go to the local library, they should have one for you to read.[/b]

Douay Rheims Bible

Originally posted by daniel58
Douay Rheims Bible

Then go and read a more standard verson of the bible and not in a bible where the translator has mixed everything.

What cult are you a member in?

Originally posted by divegeester
Whilst the Roman Catholic Church is one of the biggest religions in the world in terms of cash and members it really does stretch Christian precepts and doctrine to the absolute ridiculous.
Your thoughts?

Dude... Roman Catholicism is the root of every Christian doctrine in the West.
They believe in Jesus... so yes, they're obviously Christians.

And believe me, once Baptism has been around for 1500 years, they'll have added a few new things to the menu themselves.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Then go and read a more standard verson of the bible and not in a bible where the translator has mixed everything.

What cult are you a member in?

More standard? That's the most accurate version, you mean more modern? He didn't mix everything up, he had some of the oldest transcripts of his time that are not even in existence any more, not counting that he knew several languages, and cleared up any "mixed up" translations that were in conflict with each other, so it is THE MOST ACCURATE BIBLE EVER IN THE WHOLE WORLD, IN FACT IT IS THE ONLY, IT IS THE BIBLE. I'm a Roman Catholic.

Originally posted by daniel58
More standard? That's the most accurate version, you mean more modern? He didn't mix everything up, he had some of the oldest transcripts of his time that are not even in existence any more, not counting that he knew several languages, and cleared up any "mixed up" translations that were in conflict with each other, so it is THE MOST ACCURATE BIBLE EVER IN THE WHOLE WORLD, IN FACT IT IS THE ONLY, IT IS THE BIBLE. I'm a Roman Catholic.

If Exodus 20:13 is the same as Exodus 20:3, then someone must have made a major screwup, don't you think?

You? Or the translator?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If Exodus 20:13 is the same as Exodus 20:3, then someone must have made a major screwup, don't you think?

You? Or the translator?

Exodus 20:3; "Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me"

Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill"

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Yet the bible contradicts itself.

The Bible, being an object, lacks the capacity for self-contradiction. It's just a collection of texts, not a philosophical argument. Hence the RCC, quite sensibly, doesn't rely solely on the Bible for its doctrines.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The Bible, being an object, lacks the capacity for self-contradiction. It's just a collection of texts, not a philosophical argument. Hence the RCC, quite sensibly, doesn't rely solely on the Bible for its doctrines.

Concerning Biblical numbers, genealogies, and dates it would be wise if both the casual and the analytical reader would consider them interesting, even fascinating events rather than crucial events requiring a higher level of precision than is evident in the Sciptures themselves. Leaving it at that, they could live at peace with their respective conclusions.

Yes, there are variations in scripture such as in specific numbers, in facts within stories, and in the words of Jesus. Let's take a look at those.

SPECIFIC VARIATIONS IN NUMBERS

Many question the number variations listed in Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. There is a slight difference in what was supposed to be two identical lists. Nehemiah's list was used nearly a century later to guide him in the resettlement of Jerusalem. Of the 42 numbers given by Ezra (v. 3-60), 18 differ from the corresponding numbers in Nehemiah 7. The differences are small, and can be explained by assuming that the lists were drawn up at different times, and that during the interval the population figures varied, owing to deaths and births, or for other reasons. There are also varying forms between the two lists that refer to certain individuals but that occurs throughout the Bible. This is particularly true in the New Testament when there are references to names in the Old Testament.

VARIATION - DEMON POSSESSED MEN

The question of the 2 demon possessed men of Matthew 8:28-34 versus the one man in Mark 5:1-20 is often disturbing to people. One Bible commentary tries to explain it in this fashion: "Matthew speaks of two men. Apparently, however, one was outstandingly fierce. Similarly, Matthew speaks of two blind men at Jericho (ch. 20:30), where Mark (ch. 10:46) and Luke (ch. 18:35) speak of but one, probably for some similar reason. It is worthy of note that Matthew, no doubt an eyewitness to both events, mentions two men in each instance."

VARIATIONS - CHRIST'S WORDS

In various places in the Gospels the writers report differently the words of Christ. They also give different accounts of certain matters, for example, the inscription on the cross. These variations have been seized upon by skeptics as proof that the Gospel writers are unreliable, even false, and thus certainly not inspired. A careful examination proves the opposite. Those who wrote the Gospels, along with the other followers of Christ, considered themselves witnesses of the events of our Lord's life. They staked everything on truthfulness of their witness.

These VARIATIONS indicate the TRUTH of the BIBLE

In a court today, if witnesses all testify precisely the same regarding an incident, the conclusion is, not that they are truthful, but that they are perjurers. Why? Because experience teaches us that no two people see an event exactly alike. One point impresses one witness; another point impresses another. Again, they may all have heard exactly the same words spoken in connection with the event, but each reports the words a little differently. One witness may even report certain parts of a conversation that the other witnesses do not report. But so long as there is no clear contradiction in the thought or meaning of the variant statements, the witnesses may be considered to have told the truth. Indeed, apparently contradictory statements may often prove to be not contradictory at all, but actually complementary.

All experience, and especially the experience of the courts through the long years, leads to the conclusion that truthful witnessing need not be - indeed, should not be - equated with carbon-copy identity of testimony of the different witnesses to an event, including their testimony as to what was said at the particular event.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The Bible, being an object, lacks the capacity for self-contradiction. It's just a collection of texts, not a philosophical argument. Hence the RCC, quite sensibly, doesn't rely solely on the Bible for its doctrines.

True. It's meaningless to blindly belive in the bible.