RELIGION....(part 2)

[seth_kahn]

---

I just hope that forumers here should not frequently used the Bible to support their arguments.Â* The words of the Bible is for reflection and contempaltion.Â* To use it to further ones argument desecrates it.Â* If the words of the Bible are used as arguments the tendency is that the interpretation would become literal.
Lets have a philosophical discourse then used the Bible as a guide to expound the meaning of our philosophical arguments.

I agree...the contents of the Bible speak only of Jesus Christ and can only be interpreted in the light of the Holy
Spirit to serve only one purpose: that is to proclaim the Word of God, the Word Incarnate, the Word made Flesh
who is Jesus Christ Himself. Its contents should never be contested, nor argued, nor used to support any argument of any kind because they are carefully chosen only to :
1. prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all men and
2. hand on the ultimate truth of God's Revelation whose central object is Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and glorification, and his Church's beginnings under the Spirit's guidance

Simply put: the Bible is used for Evangelization.

Pax vobiscumÂ*

[tolstoi]

DACS
The people Christ commissioned to spread the gospel to all nations are indeed mere mortals. Yet, with the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, no official teachings of the Catholic Church can be flawed. You have then to remember that, although there is a heirarchy in the Catholic Church, all are disciples of Christ.

indeed the official teachings of the Catholic church is infallible but the vehicle that spread these teachings are the ones fallible...lets say for example, there was this priest who is good in preaching the gospel, but some parishioners knew the other side of this priest, that he was once seen drinking and gambling with his buddies, and that he has a live in partner [a typical realities of being a mere mortal]

True that the priest is eloquent in delivering the words and teachings of God, but his other side of being a human will set a bad example to the people..making people to beleive that the religion this priest serve is not a good religion..thus the clause "Religion is Flawed because man itself is Flawed" seems just appropriate.

[mannyamador]

Men are flawed. Of course. But that does not necessarily mean that the truths they proclaim are flawed.

For example: If a notorious liar declares some truth -- such as the square root of 16 is 4 -- he is still a known liar, but his statement is true, despite his well-known bad reputation.

So I guess the point to remember is to distinguish the message from the messenger.

[dacs]

indeed the official teachings of the Catholic church is infallible but the vehicle that spread these teachings are the ones fallible...lets say for example, there was this priest who is good in preaching the gospel, but some parishioners knew the other side of this priest, that he was once seen drinking and gambling with his buddies, and that he has a live in partner [a typical realities of being a mere mortal]

True that the priest is eloquent in delivering the words and teachings of God, but his other side of being a human will set a bad example to the people..making people to beleive that the religion this priest serve is not a good religion..thus the clause "Religion is Flawed because man itself is Flawed" seems just appropriate.

Matthew 23:3 says 'do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice'. The person may be flawed but the person is not the religion. Why do some Catholics think it is so? This is probably because some Catholics never learned the teachings of the Catholic religion. Let us study and learn, and be done with our 'heretical' ideas.

P.S.

What you just elaborated is a heresy which was condemned by the Catholic Church a long, long time ago if you carry it further to imply that the effectivity of the sacraments is affected by the sanctity of the priest involved. Not so, says the Church. If you want to know the heresy which believed like that, let me know. I need time to peruse my files.

[mosimos]

You seem so easy on generalization.Â* Prove it.

Just because you have heard of some who puportedly did such things, you attribute such act to every priests.Â* Is that a Christian act?

Have you not read Matthew 13:24-30?Â* Are you then going to be the judge of your fellowmen?

..and are those perversions being done by the so called holy-man a christian act I generalize, you might say, coz that's what's happening right now.Â* It's hard to find honest priest these days.Â* I have this friend whose father is a priest, every year they get the latest model of their favourtie car, the Mitsubishi Lancer, now tell me, where do they get the monetary muscle to finance such yearly update on cars.Â* Â*Priest nowadays dont know the meaning of "virtue of poverty".Â* They have with them top of the line lap-tops, they equip themselves with high-end mobile phones.Â* Where does the money come from ??

Just because one or two or three or make it ten priests who acted you can already say that the entire catholic clergy had already turn their backs on the virtue of poverty. You have little awareness of whats Catholic clegies activities. Why not visit the Franciscan missionaries, those priest assigned in very remote areas or in poor parishes. Priest who have spent their lives quietly serving the Lord and its flock. You might be receiving some false and outrageous informations which can easily be concocted by the enemies of the Church.

Branding generally that all priest are turning their backs on their solemn vows is a lie, a falsity, a deception.

[iamdede]

i s t o o p o o u p o o s

[dacs]

i s t o o p o o u p o o s

Â*

[dead_soul]

I have been reading this thread for quite a long time and it seems that no one dares to give up their post.

[tolstoi]

indeed the official teachings of the Catholic church is infallible but the vehicle that spread these teachings are the ones fallible...lets say for example, there was this priest who is good in preaching the gospel, but some parishioners knew the other side of this priest, that he was once seen drinking and gambling with his buddies, and that he has a live in partner [a typical realities of being a mere mortal]

True that the priest is eloquent in delivering the words and teachings of God, but his other side of being a human will set a bad example to the people..making people to beleive that the religion this priest serve is not a good religion..thus the clause "Religion is Flawed because man itself is Flawed" seems just appropriate.

Matthew 23:3 says 'do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice'. The person may be flawed but the person is not the religion. Why do some Catholics think it is so? This is probably because some Catholics never learned the teachings of the Catholic religion. Let us study and learn, and be done with our 'heretical' ideas.

P.S.

What you just elaborated is a heresy which was condemned by the Catholic Church a long, long time ago if you carry it further to imply that the effectivity of the sacraments is affected by the sanctity of the priest involved. Not so, says the Church. If you want to know the heresy which believed like that, let me know. I need time to peruse my files.

brother dacs..this is the common mistake when somebody will just quote and use a certain verse of the bible in an argument and not the totality of the chapter..

its clear in Mat 23:1-3 that Jesus spoke about the The scribes and the Pharisees who "says but do not do" [the hypocrites]..nevertheless i hope you are not referring to the priests as analogous to the Pharisees that Jesus spoke about.

[dacs]

brother dacs..this is the common mistake when somebody will just quote and use a certain verse of the bible in an argument and not the totality of the chapter..

its clear in Mat 23:1-3 that Jesus spoke about the The scribes and the Pharisees who "says but do not do" [the hypocrites]..nevertheless i hope you are not referring to the priests as analogous to the Pharisees that Jesus spoke about.

Indeed, Matthew 23:1-3 speaks about the Pharisees and scribes - and my point exactly. Note that you said : 'True that the priest is eloquent in delivering the words and teachings of God, but his other side of being a human will set a bad example to the people..making people to beleive that the religion this priest serve is not a good religion.' Since, in the context of Matthew 23:1-3, these people are the teachers of the law, then the priests (who, as you said, deliver the words and teachings of God) is analogous to the Pharisees and scribes in that capacity. There is no out-of-context quotation here, bro. Probably, you have not understand the context of my own statement.

The last part of your quoted statement said : 'making people to beleive that the religion this priest serve is not a good religion.' The verses in Matthew 23:1-3 is a very fitting quotation since it speaks directly to the people who hear the teachings and see different 'doings'. Again, there is no out-of-context quotation here.

God bless.