ON FORMING THE CANON
/ Newsgroup > soc.religion.quaker / 18 Sept 1998 / Re: How does a non-Christian tell the difference? /
.
> On 18Sept98 Fred Williams wrote: <snip> When the books of the bible were put together,
.
textman say: The formation of the NT canon was a long and complex process that literally took centuries to complete. The process began round about 60CE when the authentic letters of Paul were slowly being gathered together to form simple collections. These collections were later gathered together and arranged just so, and these epistles became the backbone around which the Christian scriptures were built.
.
> (wasn't it by Constantine?),
.
No one person can claim credit for the NT, as such. What Constantine and his bishops did was to standardize the holy books; to make a canon with which we could know that *these* books are sacred and important to the Faith. Without this very necessary development we would have no NT; only an ever-growing mountain of so-called holy books, and with no way to sort out the gems from the dross.
.
> I heard that there were hundreds of gospels.
.
A gross exaggeration, of course. Mark and Peter's gospel was a very new and unprecedented thing. It did not take long for copy-cats to emerge, and soon they were everywhere. But people were not stupid then. Many could easily see that most of these so-called 'gospels' were forgeries and/or otherwise worthless (for the most part).
.
> Four were selected and the others destroyed.
.
A silly and sweeping statement that does great violence to the complex historical realities involved in all this.
.
> I doubt that we got the best ones.
.
Do you also doubt the reality of the Holy Spirit? Do you also doubt that She was subtly involved in the entire process; from the first written word to Constantine's 50 'great bibles' to Luther's revolutionary German Bible to the post-modern Reader trying to make sense of it all? ... Doubt away then. But don't make the silly mistake of supposing that "the best ones" somehow got away from us!
.
> NOTE: This was religion by governmental committee, remember!
.
Oh please don't peddle such rubbish here! The Faith never did sit well with the World. That's why it took so long, and with such patient determination, to corrupt the Truth, and tame the wild teachings of those strange and bizarre creatures called 'Christians'.
.
> They would have chose the interpretation that best kept the masses under control. <snip>
.
Yes, but the priestly interpretation had to be violently imposed, grafted, and hammered onto the Scriptures. Even then, the only way it would work was owing to the fact that the vast majority of Christians couldn't read the Bible for themselves. They trusted the priests to tell them what lay therein. ... They still do!
.
> <snip> Use your own heart and mind and soul to build your own philosophy and if you've been
> true to yourself it will probably be as close to what Christ taught as any of us can come. <snip>
> -- Peace, Siblings, Fred Williams, harry@citenet.net
.
This idea is utter nonsense, of course. Any fool or unbeliever can build his/her own 'philosophy'. Being 'true' to it means nothing at all. Christ's teachings are NOT mystical, esoteric, or obscure. If you want to be "close to what Christ taught" we must humble ourselves to his 'philosophy'. We must put on the Son of Man's heart and mind and soul. To do otherwise is to fail as a disciple of the Lord!
RE: WHY NOT?
/ Re: Why? / 4 Dec 1998 / Ngz: a.r.c.r-c, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> Geoffrey writes: Even though it was my wife who committed adultery she still receives a blessing at the
> time of communion even though she does not take it, that is assuming she bothers to go to mass. I know
> this is fact as my sons have told me.
.
> Mt.19:8, 9: "[Jesus] said to them: 'Moses, out of regard for your hardheartedness, made the concession
> to you of divorcing your wives, but such has not been the case from the beginning. I say to you that
> whoever divorces his wife, except on the ground of fornication [extramarital intercourse], and marries
> another commits adultery.
.
> It seems clear to me the "Church" has it wrong, there is a clear concession on the grounds of adultery. -- Geoff
.
Dear Geoff, quite right; God has always known the full depths of His People. Yes, and the Church also has annulment, which effectively 'rubs out' (ie. makes null and void) the marriage contract itself and all its consequences. And as if that were not enough clue for you to ponder, might I also suggest that you take a close look at the precise wording of the texts used in the marriage rite? As well as examining all the listed scripture passages available to the marriage rite (4X: for their relevance, or (as the case often is) for their irrelevance)? When you're done all that, you may be in a much better position to appreciate why the Church is so 'rough' on mere lay men and women.
/ Re: Why? / 5 Dec 1998 / Newsgroup > alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
] S.Cole wrote: Some people may be offended by what I am about to say and I make no apologies
] for it. It is the story of how I have been treated by the Catholic Church, a Church that I embraced
] completely yet it turned it's back on me. <snipped> -- S.Cole
.
My dear Cole, Cats simply do NOT want to hear about how people have been mistreated by the Church. They are quite sick of it indeed, and wish that all such complainers would 'do the Catholic thing' by just shutting up please and suffering in silence as God intend that you should amen. ... Why, I just saw yet another account on TV the other week involving three sisters. Their experiences of certain nuns and a priest are *most* shocking and upsetting to contemplate. It makes for good "red journalism", and most of the Faithful are quite able to see it as such.
.
>>> CB answers: You have my sympathy but I am not catholic.
>>> I'm sure you will be labelled a heretic in here by some other catholics.
.
>> Edward Thorne replies: You know, I don't think that I have ever seen a Catholic label anyone a heretic.
.
Dear Edward, no? Perhaps that's because 'heresy' is largely incompatible with a more open-minded and ecumenical ecclesial atmosphere. Nevertheless, it really depends on which circles you swing in (pardon my french). Yes, I myself didst hear the ol 'H' word more than once at the Heart of the Diocese. Usually it came at me from the more seminarian contingent. You can also find it here in arcr-c, where the word 'protestant' is more or less synonymous with 'heretic' (and is otherwise ill-abused).
.
>> But, some Protestants have called Catholics liars.
.
Hhuummmm? Oh! I guess that would be me ... :)
.
>> I guess that when it comes to calling names, it is a one way street for people like CB.
.
Oh, I wouldn't go quite that far, Edward. Why, someone just recently called me "a descending hulk", of all things! ...
.
> "S.Cole" wisely rebuts: So lets not call each other names or anything else.
.
But Cole! [insert histrionic displays of dismay and confusion] How so ever shall we know who we art addressing?
.
> If we are to act like the Christians we profess to be we should be turning the other cheek.
.
Well, yeah. But the human body only has a very finite number of cheeks to be turning (more than once, etc). Whatever can be done when you're fresh out of cheeks to turn? ... Use someone else's? :)
.
> This still has not answered my question.
.
Hey! I was just wondering about that!
.
> Have I missed something in the Bible that would explain the way I was treated.
.
Well no, not really. You're looking in the wrong place, Cole! Get yourself a current copy of The Code of Canon Law, and start your search from there ...
.
> I feel like a child that that has been told off but not knowing what it has done wrong. No one has
> as yet been able to tell me why the church took the stand it did. If there is other scripture that
> backs up this stance I would be grateful to know what it is. -- Steve
.
Again, the answers you seek are not in the Scriptures. At least, not directly. First, you will need to explore the fertile field of sacramental theology and practice as it relates to matrimony. There are certainly many good books on Christian marriage available, but I think you will want to focus your efforts more directly on Church teachings regarding marriage and sexuality. I hear that the Pope has some good books in this area. Might be worth checking out. Also do not neglect to consult with 'The Confessions' of St Augustine. His influence on all the churches was and remains enormous ...
.
OK THEN! Now that we have cleared the path of all miscellaneous debris, let us please turn our attention back to the Bible Byte at the heart of this mess: Mt 19:8,9. So what Matthew has done here is to expand upon his markan source (as is his custom). He adds the exception [and a lot of other stuff as well!] to Mk10. But hey, that's cool. The churches were a little older and a little wiser in that generation. The scribes and teachers were busy integrating the various traditions and teachings with the concrete business of living a Christian life within the context of the Roman Empire after the sordid business of the Jewish War (see Josephus for details). Tensions with Judaism were still high, and the 'parting of the ways' was well under way [pardon the unintended pun].
.
So the infant religion of Christianity was still seeking an identity of its own against a religious background that was both diverse and very competitive. How Christians handled the very human problems of marriage and divorce were important matters to those who heard the invitation but remained undecided. A high morality, and a lofty vision of human love, went a long way with many peoples. So did more pragmatic concerns.
.
The Gospel of Matthew is perhaps the most "Catholic" gospel of the four in that it is more accommodating to human realities. Less uncompromising in its demands and commands, if you will. It is not without good reason that this 'priestly' gospel comes first in the NT, you know. The Catholic Church has always been like this. Her 'natural' tendency is to be ever more inclusive, ever more invitational, ever more insistent that all should feast at her banquet table ...
.
Thus in the developmental and rationalistic historical process that guided the early churches as they struggled to come to grips with a sinful world, beautiful ideals sometimes had to give way to practical necessities. The original rigor and 'passion for martyrdom' were gently (but firmly) resisted. Some (like Tertullian) liked it not, and even said so, in no uncertain terms. Later on, many ran to the desert to escape this soft and compromising church that claimed so loudly to be "orthodox". They were not fooled by the edicts and decrees of emperors. ... And neither should you be!
/ Re: Catholic Documents / 21Dec98 / Ng: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
>>> Mr. Zoom wrote: The Bible IS a Catholic document.
.
textman answers: Say, is this the same mr zoom who said that the NT is a Vatican document? Why, yes, it is! ... Well then, I guess it ought to be plain to all that ol mr zoom has no real knowledge of early church history; else he would not say such absurd and ridiculous things.
.
Oh yes, the Bible is indeed a Catholic document; in the sense that various selected readings are read every day in the course of the various liturgical cycles. ... But I think mr zoom also means that the RC Church is directly responsible for the creation of the Scriptures, as well as the canon thereof. In this sense, mr zoom is quite wrong. The Christian Scriptures were simply various additions to the LXX by particular assemblies of Believers. Different churches contributed various books; which different churches assembled in various collections before gathering them among the Holy Scrolls. In other words, the various Christian books and epistles deemed holy by the churches were a collaborative effort of all the Greek churches in the first and second centuries. It was an ongoing process that did not require much input or intervention by the bishops and overseers.
.
As for the NT canon, neither did this come about by papal decree, as mr zoom implies; but rather, one man can be said to be directly responsible for the creation of the shape of the 27 canonical books that we so take for granted. That would be the Emperor Constantine. He was the one who lit a fire under the episcopal buttocks in order to motivate them to introduce a little order among the many and varied Christian scriptures that were circulating by the fourth century. If he had not ordered those fifty Great Bibles for his nice, new cathedrals, then the canon might not have been fixed until fifty or a hundred years later. Of course, by that time, a new generation of bishops would be dealing with a new crop of theological ideas and pastoral problems, which would have given an entirely different shape and look to the canon. There is nothing inevitable about the current arrangement.
.
So I guess mr zoom is an object lesson to all Christians as to what can happen when passion and conviction are divorced from knowledge and reason and impartial investigation of the various facts and concrete realities that make up Church history.
.
>> Dooley wrote: CB, is it a sin to presume you know what's in another
>> person's mind or heart? I say it is. What's your opinion?
.
> CB <thewaythetruthandthelife@yahoo.com> answers: After some thought my answer is no. When some
> one blatantly goes against the teachings of Scripture we are required to judge. John 7:24 Judge not
> according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. 1Cor6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall
> judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
> 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? It is no small matter that all the prophets that preached the
> Truth were persecuted & even murdered, much like they are today.
.
Dear CB, well said. Frankly, I couldn't agree more. I would only add that the contents of another's heart are made visible in their words and actions. All it requires is a determined and persistent PAYING ATTENTION. It is not a magic trick or a supernatural feat that requires fantastic powers of discernment. Any Christian can do it. Indeed, we all do it every day in varying degrees. We all make assumptions about what the Other is thinking and feeling. Indeed, if a person is open and honest, it is all but impossible for them to hide their true thoughts and feelings. I'm sure we all know people like this. It is only those who excel at lies and deception that make it 'problematic' to discern the contents of their twisted hearts. But again even here the truth eventually comes out, not so much in their lying words, as in their hateful and/or sinful actions.
.
] Stephanie Rendino wrote: I wish you anti-Catholic bigots would go to a mass and sit quietly through
] it at the back of the church with your mouths shut so you would know what we actually do rather
] than what anti-Catholic books say we do.
.
textman say: I quite agree. It's a good way for non-Cats to see how the Bible is treated within the context of the liturgy. Note how the brief OT snippet is read without passion and conviction, without understanding and sympathy. Note how all the readings linger not in the heart but go in one ear and out the other. Note also how the homily does nothing to explain the meaning of the readings, but is simply a brief and entertaining story-telling time for the kiddies. Note how the Word of God is quickly dispensed with in order to get to the "sum and summit" of all Christian life; namely, the turning of plastic wafers into a consumable deity that saves and sanctifies; presumably by way of osmosis from the stomach to the other organs and members. ... Oh yes, there's certainly no need to waste time reading anti-Catholic books.
.
] S: Of course, then you might convert, and lose all your anti-Catholic friends.
] That's what you're really scared of, isn't it?
.
>>> CB <thewaythetruthandthelife@yahoo.com> answered: No. I'm afraid of being
>>> molested by the "priest". I know I shouldn't be though, since I am not a minor.
.
>> Stephanie replied: Seeing that he cannot win this round, my opponent
>> backs out, tail between legs, with a below-the-belt insult.
.
And that's something you would never do, is it Steph? At least not without a virtual meathook, methinks ...
.
>> S: Come back here and fight me like a man, you coward.
.
> CB answers: You're a man?
.
Oh CB, you're so inflexible. Don't you know that gender is simply a state of mind? Liberated and enlightened Catholic theologians and pastors all know that 'gender identity' necessarily implies that things like "male" and "female" are things that one can put on and take off at whim, if you please. All their sacred psychobabble says so; and you can't argue with psychology now, can you?
.
Hmmm. I wonder if Steph has the grombaz to fight me like a man?... Ooooo, I'd give her such a pinch!
/ Re: Why So Many Churches (A Study of Mystery Babylon) / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 3Sept99 /
.
>>> becky wrote: WHY SO MANY CHURCHES AND WHICH IS RIGHT?
.
>> kjasowen@aol.com (Kjasowen) wrote: <snip irrelevant remarks>
.
> On 22Aug99 irishj replies: Your heading poses an interesting question that I have pondered for a long time.
> The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth.
.
Tondaar say: Dear irishj, yes, but only a little bit at a time; for obviously we are very unable to handle the whole truth (if it were given all at once). 4X: Even now (after 19 centuries yet), we are still fighting hard against the lies and deceptions of the Romish anti-church in order to uncover the truth behind when and why the early Christian documents were written, and who wrote them.
.
> How is it then that so many different groups that call themselves Christian claim to have truth.
> Baptists believe in eternal security, Pentecostals don't. Church of Christ believes that you must
> be baptized as well as believe in order to be saved. I could go on and on.
.
Thx for sparing us the unnecessary grief. There is no mystery to all this. Each and every denomination believes that their particular approach to the Faith is the best. This is just simple human nature. No one wants to give their allegiance to a second-rate church. We would all much rather suppose that *our* church is the *only and bestest* church of them all! ... In point of fact, however, ALL churches today are *very* inferior to the early Greek churches. This is because 2000 years of slowly creeping corruption has undermined the Faith of all True Believers such that there is no church that is not something other than a pale shadow of those churches of former times. The proof of all this is plain to see in the fact that so many post-modern 'enlightened and progressive' churches are proudly ordaining women and/or perverters of the flesh ...
.
> The point is, how could the same Holy Spirit be giving such mixed messages.
.
Hey! Don't be blaming the Holy Spirit for the rank and excessive stupidities of human beings. The Encourager is doing Her part by sending the prophets unto the People of God. If the churches refuse to listen to these men, that is because of the blindness and hard-heartedness of their leaders!
.
> Why all the denominations? I'm sure that many in these various groups feel that they are following
> the leading of the Holy Spirit. It is a mystery to me and is one that makes it difficult for me to affiliate
> myself with a church. What if it is not the right one?
.
I sympathize with your predicament completely. Many good Christians remain loyal to the Romish Mother of Whores simply because they are utterly ignorant of the corruption and perversion that possesses their leaders and ministers. Or they simply can't imagine that they (good Christians that they are) are actually supporting a system that benefits only the Wicked One. ... Now one can be a Catholic and still love the Lord, but this does NOT change the fact that their loyalty and ignorance supports and spreads the Kingdom of Wickedness. For this they *will* be held accountable (ie. their ignorance will *not* save them)!
.
Now as to the question of 'Why all the denominations?' This question is clearly based on a profound ignorance of the true nature of the Faith. Contrary to the rank lies of the Romish Whore, there never was a time when "The Church" was one big mc-happy family. Rather, what we see in the history of the early Greek churches is that there were different churches right from the get-go. Even in the thirties of the first century, Jerusalem could boast of two separate and distinct churches: the pious and conservative Aramaic believers, and the radical and offensive Hellenistic-Jewish believers. And as the Faith spread across the Roman Empire, different groups of believers developed their own unique traditions and approaches to the implications and significance of their religion. Conservative and radical tendencies have been struggling with each other ever since. This does not mean that the Faith is bad; its just the way things are.
.
And besides all that, it is very important for True Believers to constantly bear in mind that it is individuals who are saved. Churches are not saved, and churches have never saved anyone. Salvation and justification is *always* a matter between the believing heart and the Father of Lights. We are saved through faith in Jesus Christ our Lord; *not* through faith in our churches! ...
.
Furthermore, the denominations are merely spiritless and worldly corporations, and not really churches at all in the strictest sense of the word. The Word of the Lord tells us very plainly what a real church is. Wherever and whenever two or three believers gather in the name of the Lord, there is the Spirit of Christ among them. Therefore, two or three believers together constitute an assembly of Faith; which is to say: a church. Thus the more churches we have, the better! In the same way, this ecclesiology applies directly to the cyber-saints in that when we gather online in a particular forum we are creating and participating in a unique cyber-church that is open to all manner of believers (and even unbelievers)!
.
Too many churches? ... I think NOT!
/ Topic: questions for non-Catholics / Forum: TheologyOnLine-Religion / 23Sept99 /
.
> On 22Sept99 Magdalene dares present the cyber-prophet with: Some questions for non-Catholics
> Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?
.
Tondaar say: Nowhere; because he did no such thing. However, the ancient Hebrew, and the modern Jewish, faith *were* very much a part of the Torah. The Book of Books is the flash point between providential revelation and the spiritual lives of countless peoples and traditions ... As literate and mature post-modern Christians we understand ourselves to be not just the inheriters of a book, but the inheritors of a living tradition that goes back to the ancient Egyptian slaves (and beyond). Thus we simply cannot afford to be merely a 'People of the Book' anymore. We must also be a 'People of History' also. Thus the external history of the Faith from Moses to the NT is as much a part of the Word as the written text itself.
.
> Where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down?
.
Nowhere; because he did no such thing. Moreover, the first generations of believers (say between 30-80CE) felt no need or desire to write anything down for future generations. The first canonical book to be composed with a longer time-view in mind was the Gospel of Mark (which was written during the Jewish Wars (66-70CE). This is an important fact for bible students to always bear in mind and appreciate. Aside from this first gospel and the authentic pauline epistles, all the remaining NT books were written as the initial certainty of the imminent Parousia began to cool off. In Paul's early epistles the expectation is strong and alive; but in James and Jude and 2Peter there is nary a trace of that prophetic fervency to be found.
.
> Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith
> will be based on a book?
.
Nowhere; because the book-type of Christian faiths are a fairly recent development in the long history of religions. This is a good example of how a simple piece of technology has dramatically reshaped the forms and functions of religious expression and thinking. Thus it is well understood that without the printing press and the 'discovery' of gunpowder, the Reformation could not have happened, and the sixteenth (and subsequent) century could not have been the violently apocalyptic age that it was. Thus the major difference between Christians living after Luther's German Bible, and those before, is that the Faith was not based on 'The Book'; because the scriptures could not be cheeply made, or abundantly made, or handily and conventiently made, or widely read and studied and known.
.
Christians today can pick up a book that looks like any other, and have in their hands the entire sacred scriptures of the Judeo-Christian tradition! This is Tyndale's dream come true. This is what he lived - and died - for! He thought that if the Word of God could just be placed into the hands of every sincere believer all would be well. ... He was basically a romantic at heart (and such is the stuff saints are made of). Little did he realize the nightmare of conflicting readings and interpretations that would ensue when every insincere believer was able to stick their beaks into the holy text only to discover that, lo, the Word of God can be made to serve the whims and fancies of all manner of disordered wills!
.
> Protestants claim that Jesus categorically condemned all oral tradition (Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:813).
.
Since the Lord himself relied exclusively on the oral tradition in order to preach the coming Kingdom of the Heavenly Father, I would have to say that it is very unlikely that *all* so-called "Protestants" make such a claim. Therefore it is your claim that must be questioned as to motive and sincerity ...
.
> If so, why does He bind His listeners to oral tradition by telling them that to obey the
> scribes and Pharisees when they "sit on Moses' seat" (Mt.23:2)?
.
Because these matters were of pressing concern to the author/editor of Matthew's Gospel, and his church (in Antioch?); ie. at a time when the 'parting of the ways' was not yet accomplished, and it still seemed possible to 'win over' the Diaspora Jews.
.
> Protestants claim that St. Paul categorically condemned all oral tradition (Col 2:8).
.
Not so.
.
> If so, why does he tell the Thessalonians to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which
> you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15)
.
Because the opening words of the NT (ie. the Vituperatio/c.49CE/Athens) were causing problems among the Thessalonian believers. Some of them read the first of the four Thessalonian letters to mean that the Wrath was upon them. This is not what Paulos and Silvanus meant when they wrote those verses (1Th.2:13-16), but it could certainly be misread that way by careless readers. Thus we see that even before the NT books had barely begun, believers were already jumping to all the wrong conclusions due to a silly and childish reading of the text!
.
> and praises the Corinthians because they "hold firmly to the traditions" (1 Cor 11:2)?
.
Because that is precisely what he fervently wished and desired and hoped and prayed that they would do!
.
> If the authors of the New Testament believed in sola Scriptura,
.
You gotta be kidding me! Lutherans in the first and second centuries?! ... LOL ... I don't thimk so!
.
> why did they sometimes draw on oral Tradition as authoritative and as God's
> Word (Matt 2:23; 23:2; 1 Cor 10:4; 1 Pet 3:19; Jude 9, 14 15)?
.
Because mayhaps they were quite right to do so ... ?
.
> Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?
.
The Bible makes no such claim. Why should the scriptures make such an absurd claim? The Lord is the only final authority on all matters of faith and morals. For it is our faith in the Son of Man, the Lord Jesus Christ, the prophet Jesus of Nazareth in Galilee, that is the Rock and Foundation of all our faith, hope, and love.
.
> If the meaning of the Bible is so clear,
.
It *IS* clear! To those who open their hearts to the truth. To those who rid their minds of all evil and unworthy intentions and sentiments. To those who can see beyond our personal vanities, and put aside our most cherished illusions. To those who gladly submit their lives to the Lord and his People. To those who daily test themselves on the Lord's impossible commands; and find themselves wanting ... All this can only mean that the percentage of those who can *rightly* read the sacred text (as opposed to those who misread and/or abuse the text) is *very* small indeed ... Think about it!
.
> so easily interpreted,
.
HA! That's a hot one!
.
> and if the Holy Spirit leads every Christian to interpret it rightly,
.
There is no support in the Bible for such a view. On the contrary, the prophet Paulos makes it quite clear that not all are given the gift of interpretation. Check it out!
.
> then why are there over 23,000 Protestant denominations, and millions of
> individual Protestants, all interpreting the Bible differently?
.
LOL ... [Timeout for ROFL] ... Oh Good Grief! ... I won't even bother addressing this silly query.
.
> Just some questions
.
Uh huh; riiight. Well I have 2questions for you, dear Magdalene: Do you seriously suppose that this sort of silly Catholic apologetics is going to impress anyone? ... Like whom perchance?
/ Topic: Re: questions for non-Catholics / Forum: TheologyOnLine-Religion / 26Sept99 /
.
>> On 23Sept99 Magdalene replies: I look to impress no one on this board. I did do this however
>> to in kind of a reverse tables thing. On many threads on this site it is non-catholics asking many
>> questions of catholics.
.
Tondaar comments: Non-cats have no business asking *any* sort of questions of Catholics. Those that *do* apparently have "better" things to do with their time than studying the scriptures and the long and fascinating history of the Faith.
.
>> Asking why we believe what we believe.
.
Non-cats should not care what Cats believe, let alone why. They should just leave the sad and unfortunate Cats alone, and stick to learning and knowing the truth of things.
.
>> I have no problem answering it just when it is turned into
>> ugly things such as we are ungodly, blinded and diabolical.
.
Well, I have no argument with those who recognize the blindness of Cats in general.
After all, Catholicism is indeed a very ugly thing.
.
>> I thought it would be nice to hear answers to these questions.
>> Thanks for your answers. Sorry you felt they were silly.
.
Huh? What do you mean? I do not feel that my answers were silly. Rather I think that my answers are reasonable and appropriate, and gave your silly questions more respect and seriousness than they merit. ... You thank me for my answers to your list of silly Cat-questions, but you do not bother to let us all know what you think of them. The impression I get is that you already have all the answers to your questions (ie. Cat-answers to Cat-questions), and that any other answers that do not match yours are (and for that very reason) irrelevant, and therefore not even worth commenting upon.
.
> On 23Sept99 temple2000 wrote: Barry and Tondar - Gee I wish I had all the answers like ya'll do.
.
Tondaar replies: Dear temple2000, I don't have *all* the answers; not by a long shot! My study of scripture and early Church history is thus an ongoing project that is not likely to be completed in whatever little remains of the time left to me. Therefore it is important that as many True Believers as possible can be persuaded to a more adequate vision of the scriptures, such that when I am gone others will be able to step forth and carry on the fight for the truth and integrity of the Faith.
.
> It would make life much easier for me.
.
Really? And why should you suppose that, eh? I have many answers to many of the mysteries of the Bible, but they have not made my life easier by so much as a fraction. Knowledge *can* lead to wisdom, but anyone who supposes that knowledge and wisdom will make their lives easier obviously has a lot to learn about life, especially Christian life, and the way the World works!
.
Hey temple, don't get a life, but make the one you have pleasing unto the Lord. It is to that end that you ought to direct all your energies.
/ Topic > Re: questions for non-Catholics / Forum > TheologyOnLine-Religion / Date > 27 Sept 1999 /
.
> On 26Sept99 Magdalene replies: I did not mean your answers were silly...
> I was sorry you thought my questions were silly.
.
Tondaar lamely answers: Dear Magdalene, oh ... uh, okay ... It's true that I think those questions to be quite silly. However, I do sympathize with your frustration that led you to write that article. As you can see from my answers to your questions, I do not believe in sola scriptura either. But this does not mean that I agree with the Catholic understanding of the scriptures. ... Far from it!
.
In any case, may I now assume that we are at least agreed upon the following two items? ... (1) That not all non-catholics are protestants. (2) That not all protestants subcribe to the foolishness of sola scriptura. ... If you disagree with either or both of these assertions, please do let me know at once!
/ Topic > Re: questions for non-Catholics / Forum > TheologyOnLine-Religion / Dare > 27 Sept 1999 /
.
> On 27Sept99 Thomas S wrote: Tondar: Remember our Lord tells us to witness with love.
.
Tondaar say: Dear Thomas, I remember this very well, and at all times. However, there are various sorts of love with which one can witness. One can witness with the sort of smurf-love that closes its eyes to all sin and evil and iniquity (in the name of freedom, diversity, and "infinite compassion"). Or one can witness with an authentic Christian "tough-love" that refuses to compromise with the Wicked One in order to make the Faith more appealing in the eyes of the World. Personally, I much prefer the latter over the former false and deceptive and politically correct "love" ... You can decide for yourself which of these two contrasting ways of witnessing is the more "Christian".
.
> I am glad to read that you are looking into Church history,
.
I seriously doubt that you would be so glad if you were at all familiar with the cyber-prophet's various scribblings
regarding many matters relating to church history!
.
> because the more you do you will lose some of your apparent hatred for the Catholic Church.
.
It is incredibly arrogant and presumptuous of you to say so, Thomas. The fact is that the more I study the history of the Faith, the more I am made aware that the Romish Communion is the slave of the Evil One, and so the enemy of all true Christian faith ...
.
Let me give you just one example of what I mean; (and rest assured that I can easily multiply such episodes unto the ends of the earth). In 1414-17 the Emperor Sigismund finally managed to gather the bishops together for the Council of Constance. The purpose of the council was to "end the Great Schism, reform the Church, and combat heresy" (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of The Christian Church, p.127). Needless to say, it failed miserably in the latter two areas, but did manage to reduce the number of competing popes from three to one. But the significance of this council lies in its treatment of John Huss (the Bohemian reformer), who went to the council under the promise of a safe-conduct (issued by the emperor). But the moment he got there, he was seized, imprisoned, condemned as a heretic, and burnt. In this we see not only the bishops contempt for the emperor, but precisely what is meant by "combating heresy". By killing the great preacher they not only failed to 'combat his heresy', but actually made a national hero out of him. Thus we see in this episode the true nature of the episcopal vision of the faith; and all true believers would do well to bear in mind the real value of promises made by Catholic authorities.
