Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Hey.....  (Read 4030 times)

ruskiegirl

  • Guest
Re: Hey.....
« Reply #30 on: June 18, 2004, 09:05:15 PM »
Every institution, religious or otherwise, has made mistakes in the past.  No need to hate on the Catholic Church just because it has been around longer than most institutions and has thus had more time to make those mistakes.  The loss of life in the Crusades is miniscule compared to that of WWII and most other modern wars.

Politically speaking, (contrary to popular belief) the Catholic Church is now one of the more progressive/liberal religious institutions, accepting gays into the chuch and condemning most armed conflict.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: Hey.....
« Reply #31 on: June 18, 2004, 09:07:18 PM »
Actually, I think the Church condemns all armed conflict.  I think.  Yes, the Church stands for social, political and economic justice and peace.  It is very progressive.  Something to do with an early church leader from Nazareth.  Uhm.  Jesus something.

lexylit

  • Guest
Re: Hey.....
« Reply #32 on: June 18, 2004, 09:19:21 PM »
it's in your footer. the village needing its idiot, that whole bit.

M2

  • Guest
Re: Hey.....
« Reply #33 on: June 18, 2004, 09:29:11 PM »
Actually, I think the Church condemns all armed conflict.  I think.  Yes, the Church stands for social, political and economic justice and peace.  It is very progressive.  Something to do with an early church leader from Nazareth.  Uhm.  Jesus something.

It is debatable as to whether Jesus was an early Catholic church leader...

mpete80

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 99
  • Ave Maria Class of 2007
    • MSN Messenger - uofm97@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Hey.....
« Reply #34 on: June 18, 2004, 09:29:37 PM »
Lexy you are Sassy! :-*

ruskiegirl

  • Guest
Re: Hey.....
« Reply #35 on: June 18, 2004, 09:51:33 PM »
Actually, I think the Church condemns all armed conflict.  I think.  Yes, the Church stands for social, political and economic justice and peace.  It is very progressive.  Something to do with an early church leader from Nazareth.  Uhm.  Jesus something.

It is debatable as to whether Jesus was an early Catholic church leader...
How so?  Jesus instructed Peter to begin a church and Peter was the first Pope.  I'm not sure how this is debatable.  All other Christian denominations were a result of splits from the Catholic Church, most notably the Protestant Reformation.  The earliest split created the church now known as the Eastern Orthodox church.

Tobias Beecher

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2148
    • MSN Messenger - roger_76@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Hey.....
« Reply #36 on: June 18, 2004, 09:56:53 PM »

Politically speaking, (contrary to popular belief) the Catholic Church is now one of the more progressive/liberal religious institutions, accepting gays into the chuch and condemning most armed conflict.

that's a little stretching it.....

it has improved, no doubt....but then again, it's record of human rights are not exactly sky high to begin with ::)


IMO the catholic church is hypocrisy personified.




ruskiegirl

  • Guest
Re: Hey.....
« Reply #37 on: June 18, 2004, 10:05:02 PM »
Actually the Church is one of the few Christian denominations that is consistent on its policies.  For example, a survey of almost any Protestant group will prove that they hate abortion but love the death penalty.  The Catholic Church sees a life as a gift from God in both instances and is adamant about protecting it, thus rebuking both practices. 

I am not sure what human rights offenses you are refering to, but I would be hard pressed to find any in the last century.  Yes, there were torture chambers and such during the witch hunts, but Protestant denominations don't exactly have a clean track record on that one either. ::)

What, in your mind, distinguished the Catholic Church from every other Christian organized religion, in terms of hypocracy?

Tobias Beecher

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2148
    • MSN Messenger - roger_76@hotmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Hey.....
« Reply #38 on: June 18, 2004, 10:13:23 PM »
Actually the Church is one of the few Christian denominations that is consistent on its policies.  For example, a survey of almost any Protestant group will prove that they hate abortion but love the death penalty.  The Catholic Church sees a life as a gift from God in both instances and is adamant about protecting it, thus rebuking both practices. 

I am not sure what human rights offenses you are refering to, but I would be hard pressed to find any in the last century.  Yes, there were torture chambers and such during the witch hunts, but Protestant denominations don't exactly have a clean track record on that one either. ::)

What, in your mind, distinguished the Catholic Church from every other Christian organized religion, in terms of hypocracy?

ok...let's see...

the catholic church

1. supported gen. franco during the spanish civil war
2. supports virtually all the junta governments in south america [because they are against the "Godless" communists...including such luminaries as gen. augusto pinochet
3. continued sexual abuse and rape of children by predatory priests and the cover up of their crimes
4. contiued bashing of gays

the list goes on and on.....

of course, there are progressive elements within the church, especially the jesuit order [they did oppose the oppression in south america and try to bring out change]....but overall, the church is very reactionary IMO. [along with almost all other forms of organized religions]

M2

  • Guest
Re: Hey.....
« Reply #39 on: June 18, 2004, 10:31:13 PM »

How so?  Jesus instructed Peter to begin a church and Peter was the first Pope.  I'm not sure how this is debatable.  All other Christian denominations were a result of splits from the Catholic Church, most notably the Protestant Reformation.  The earliest split created the church now known as the Eastern Orthodox church.

This is why its debatable...i ripped this from a site. it explains it so perfectly that rewording it would only damage it.
Important stuff in Bold. I am sorry for the ridiculously long post, but you wanted the explanation...

Peter is addressed by  Jesus in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew in these words:
 "And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Because of this passage there is a vast system of religion built upon Simon Peter.
These things in this ecclesiastical system are avowed about him.


1. That Peter ruled the Church.


2. That Peter ruled the Church in Rome. Jerome (d. 240 A.D.) declared that Peter, after being first bishop at Antioch, and after labouring in Pontus, Galatia, Asia, Cappadocia and Bithynia, went to Rome in the second year of Claudius (about 42 A.D.) to oppose Simon Magus, and was bishop of that Church for 25 years, finally being crucified head downward in the last year of Nero's reign (67 A.D.) and was buried on the Vatican hill.



PETER IN THE EARLY CHURCHES


Was Peter ever the ruler of the Church? of any Church, any time, any place?


Not that anybody knows of. The pastor and leader of the Church at Jerusalem was James, the Lord's brother (Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21: 18; Gal. 2:9). This Scriptural account of James is confirmed by Josephus in his Antiquities XX, 9, 1, where James' martyrdom is described. Josephus never heard of Simon Peter, but the Jewish historian knows all about the faithful pastor and leader of the Christian Church in Jerusalem.


Notice in Acts 8:14 that Peter is "sent" by the Apostles along with John to Samaria. Peter is not doing the sending; somebody else is.


Notice in Acts 15:14-21 that at the Jerusalem conference, after Peter made his speech and Paul and Barnabas made their speeches, it is James who delivers the final verdict.


WAS PETER EVER IN ROME?


The second avowal of the Roman hierarchy concerning Peter is that he was bishop of Rome from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D., when he was crucified under Nero.


If Peter was in Rome during those years, then the New Testament cannot be relied upon. There is not the faintest, slightest historical foundation for the fiction that Peter ever saw the city of Rome.


1. Paul was converted about 37 A.D. He says in the first chapter of Galatians (Gal. 1:13-18) that after his conversion he went into Arabia, "then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and abode with him 15 days." This takes us to 40 A.D. and Peter is still in Jerusalem.


2. Sometime during these days Peter made his missionary journey through the western part of Judea, to Lydda, to Joppa, to Caesarea, and back to Jerusalem (Acts 9, 10, 11 ).Then came the imprisonment under Herod Agrippa I and the miraculous deliverance by the angel of the Lord (Acts12). Peter then "went down from Judea to Caesarea and there ebode" (Acts 12:19). Hered Agrippa died not long after these events (Acts 12:20-23). Josephus says that the death of Agrippa occurred in the fourth year of the reign of Claudius. This would be about 45 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.


3. Paul writes in the second chapter of Galatians that 14 years after his first visit to Jerusalem to visit Simon Peter, he went again to see him, The first journey was 40 A.D., 14 years later brings us to 54 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine.


4. Information about Peter is not so specific after 54 A.D., but in the opening verse of his First Epistle, the Apostle of the Jews addresses the Jewish believers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.


It may well be that the Apostle spent some years travelling and working among these "elect sojourners of the dispersion."


This we do know. When Paul wrote his first Epistle to the Corinthians (about 57 A.D.), Peter was travelling in the company of his wife (I Cor. 9:5).


The suggestion that Peter spent those years in the Provinces named accords with his residence in Babylon from whence he wrote his Epistle (I Peter 5:13).


5. In about 58 A.D. Paul wrote a letter to the Church at Rome. In the last chapter of that epistle Paul salutes 27 persons, but he never mentions Simon Peter. If Peter were "governing" the Church at Rome, it is most strange that Paul should never refer to him.


Romans 1:13 shows that the Church at Rome was a Gentile church. At the Jerusalem conference (Gal. 2:9), it was agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles.


The gospel ministry of Paul was motivated by a great principle which he clearly repeats in Romans 15:20: "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." A like avowal is made in I Corinthians 10:15,16. Where no other apostle had been, there Paul wanted to go. Having written this plainly to the people at Rome, his desire to go to the Roman city would be inexplicable if Peter were already there, or had been there for years.


6. Paul's first Roman imprisonment took place about 60 A.D. to 64 A.D. From his prison the apostle to the Gentiles wrote four letters - Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. In these letters he mentions many of his fellow Christians who are in the city, but he never once refers to Simon Peter.


7. Paul's second Roman imprisonment brought him martyrdom. This occurred about 67 A.D. Just before he died, Paul wrote a letter to Timothy, our "11 Timothy." In that final letter the Apostle mentions many people, but plainly says that "only Luke is with me." There is never a reference to Peter.


We have gone throughout those years of 42 A.D. to 67 A.D., the years Pater is supposed to have been the prince and bishop and ruler of the church at Rome. There is not a suggestion anywhere that such a thing was true. Rather, the New Testament clearly and plainly denies the fiction.


BABYLON AND ROME


In I Peter 5:13, Peter says, "The church that is at Babylon saluteth you." Some suppose "Babylon" is a cryptic word for Rome.


There is no evidence that Rome was ever called "Babylon" until after the Book of Revelation was written. The Revelation was written about 95 A.D., many years after the death of Simon Peter.


If I Peter 5:13 refers to Rome, then Simon Peter did not write the letter, and we have a forgery in the Bible.


Peter's method and manner of writing are in no sense apocalyptic. He is direct and matter-of-fact. That this man Peter, plain of speech almost to bluntness, should interject into the midst of his personal explanations and final salutations such a mystical epithet, with no hint of what he meant by it, is beyond credulity.


Peter says the elect in Babylon send greetings to the Jews of the Dispersion in Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. "Babylon" is no more cryptic than "Pontus,'' "Asia" or the rest. He means what he says. His "Babylon" is the Babylon on the Euphrates. It is a part of that eastern world where Peter lived his life and did his work.


Babylon, in the time of Simon Peter, was no longer a great world capital, but it was still inhabited by a colony of people, mostly Jews. Among those Hebrew friends he won many to Christ, and those Jewish Christians sent greetings to their fellow Jewish Christians in Asia Minor where Peter, it seems, had previously done a blessed missionary work.


Peter was never in Rome. Nor was he ruler over any church. Nor did he have any keys to give to anybody else to hand down to others. He was a stone, one out of many with which God is building His spiritual house in earth and in heaven.