Originally Posted by Easyrider

No way. Your views are hardly typical of mainline beliefs.

And once again, you still don't understand who one of the central figures of the Bible is - Jesus Christ.

Why don't you tell us all who you really believe he is?

1. I did not say they were mainstream. If they were, those figures we looked at not long ago proving that professional pastors make well above average incomes would be a LOT different, people would be a LOT closer to god, and there would be a LOT less hate and BS in the world. I said that most people who know more about the bible than me tend to hold the same beliefs. A tip for you, sport, you will not find very many people who are really knowledgeable about the bible sitting in a church, and you sure as hell will not find one leading a church.

2. I am aware of the central roll that Jesus plays in the bible.

3. I already said...I dont know. There is not actually enough information available to make a rational decision.

Originally Posted by gansao

The Pope himself is considered infallible according to Catholicism and the holy spirit works in the body of the church.
What part of the bible does the catholic church regard NOT the literal word of God?
No he doesnt go around screaming at people that they are going to hell based on the stuff he cherry picks..he has priests doing that.

Article-Scripture, Tradition & the Magisterium / The Church & the Meaning of our lives / Catholic Faith / Home - The Catholic Faith Centre
Scripture and Tradition together constitute the single deposit of revealed truth given by God to the Church. Scripture is the single collection of 73 books called the Bible. It is the entire content of God’s inspired written truth, revealing himself and his saving plan. Scripture is divided into the Old Testament, written before the birth of Jesus Christ, and the New Testament, written after his death and resurrection. Given its importance for salvation, God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has guaranteed that the Bible records faithfully and without error, everything that he wanted written and no more (c.f. Dei Verbum 11).


I think you may find that the pope does think the bible is the literal word of god


As for hell...not so simplistic as EZs hell some of you good people will get the purgatory card first but according to the pope sinners will go to hell if they dont repent.


Article-Eternal life / Jesus? message of who we are & who God is / Catholic Faith / Home - The Catholic Faith Centre

Jesus Christ reveals that heaven is our eternal home where God gives us the vision of his face and shares his divine life with us. Scripture describes heaven as a city or kingdom where the saints enjoy the perfected creation and the reward they deserve. Those who die in God’s grace either go straight to heaven or first enter purgatory, a place of purification for sins and for reparation. Only those who freely choose to reject God’s grace to the very end of their lives will fail to reach heaven. The state of those who have chosen to resist God’s offer of salvation is called Hell. We should truly hope for heaven since it is God’s desire for us. We should ask him to prepare us for heaven even if we face sufferings on the way. It is good to make the saints our companions through prayer and to pray for the holy souls in purgatory (c.f. 2 Macc 12:44).


You obviously do not know as much as you would like us to believe....

I was raised catholic, nimrod.

The catholic church teaches that the bible is inerrant when it comes to moral issues, but not when it comes to historical accuracy.

I listened to it for decades.

Originally Posted by daewoo

I was raised catholic, nimrod.

The catholic church teaches that the bible is inerrant when it comes to moral issues, but not when it comes to historical accuracy.

I listened to it for decades.

You should of listened more. It teaches that it is the literal word of God.
They may, as most churches do, believe that it needs interpreting ie genesis and revelations but it is the word of God brought to mankind.
You are trying to wriggle out a statement that you have found to be a mistake.
What parts do the catholic church believe are wrong? Do they question whether David really existed?....Moses maybe?..the virgin birth?
You really are a little runt arent you?
As for claiming that the pope( therefore the catholic church) doesnt' run around screaming at people that they are going to hell based on stuff he cherry picked out of there'. That is a joke...you could not have had any experience of Catholic schools nuns or priests to come out with that XXXX.
You are a liar pure and simple


Scripture and Tradition together constitute the single deposit of revealed truth given by God to the Church. Scripture is the single collection of 73 books called the Bible. It is the entire content of God’s inspired written truth, revealing himself and his saving plan. Scripture is divided into the Old Testament, written before the birth of Jesus Christ, and the New Testament, written after his death and resurrection. Given its importance for salvation, God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has guaranteed that the Bible records faithfully and WITHOUT ERRORS, everything that he wanted written and no more (c.f. Dei Verbum 11).

Even a snake like you cant wriggle out of that

Originally Posted by gansao

You should of listened more. It teaches that it is the literal word of God.
They may, as most churches do, believe that it needs interpreting ie genesis and revelations but it is the word of God brought to mankind.
You are trying to wriggle out a statement that you have found to be a mistake.
What parts do the catholic church believe are wrong? Do they question whether David really existed?....Moses maybe?..the virgin birth?
You really are a little runt arent you?
As for claiming that the pope( therefore the catholic church) doesnt' run around screaming at people that they are going to hell based on stuff he cherry picked out of there'. That is a joke...you could not have had any experience of Catholic schools nuns or priests to come out with that XXXX.
You are a liar pure and simple


Scripture and Tradition together constitute the single deposit of revealed truth given by God to the Church. Scripture is the single collection of 73 books called the Bible. It is the entire content of God’s inspired written truth, revealing himself and his saving plan. Scripture is divided into the Old Testament, written before the birth of Jesus Christ, and the New Testament, written after his death and resurrection. Given its importance for salvation, God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has guaranteed that the Bible records faithfully and WITHOUT ERRORS, everything that he wanted written and no more (c.f. Dei Verbum 11).

Even a snake like you cant wriggle out of that

I dont have to. It is a dishonest and out of context quote...you are the one being snake here.

Dei Verbum 12:

12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms". For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.

For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God.

So, in other words, the bible is the divinely inspired word of god, but since it was passed through men, it is not infallible, and the message that is intended must be interpreted...meaning is is NOT the literal word of god. If it was the literal word of god as easy claims, we would not need to interpret it, we could just use it as a list of silly rules that dont make any sense like easy does.

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

That's not true. We don't know for sure who wrote what books in the Bible, specifically the Gospels. None of the original Documents had a signature , the authors names were applied by guessing but no one really knows who wrote what.

By that approach, we have no idea if ANY work in distant history was truly written by whatever author the work claims. I'm all for skepticism, but one has to be able to give some degree of benefit of the doubt to historical works when they pass critical review, as the gospel books do. (That's why there are some other books that are known to NOT be by their claimed authors--the pseudopigraphic works.) Based on factors such as writing style, usage of greek, and many other critical review factors, there is no reason to assume Luke and Acts were not written by the same author. Frankly, by taking the position you're taking, you're not arguing with me but rather arguing with scholars who know far, far more about this than you do. And furthermore, you're missing the point by getting hung up on his actually name verbatim--It doesn't really matter if the biographer's name was actually called "Luke" or not; what matters is that the same biographer wrote both books.

Originally Posted by daewoo

I dont have to. It is a dishonest and out of context quote...you are the one being snake here.

Dei Verbum 12:



So, in other words, the bible is the divinely inspired word of god, but since it was passed through men, it is not infallible, and the message that is intended must be interpreted...meaning is is NOT the literal word of god. If it was the literal word of god as easy claims, we would not need to interpret it, we could just use it as a list of silly rules that dont make any sense like easy does.

Keep squirming worm.
It is the LITERAL word of god

Scripture and Tradition together constitute the single deposit of revealed truth given by God to the Church. Scripture is the single collection of 73 books called the Bible. It is the entire content of God’s inspired written truth

It is the words that GOD intended for you to read dimwit.

When God tells you to go forth and multiply he may mean for you to breed or get your calculator out..this may need interpreting but when he says Noah built an Ark.... he built an Ark .
I notice that you have not backed up your claim that the catholic church believes the bible is historically inaccurate and that the pope ( the catholic church) 'does not claim it is the literal word of god and then go around screaming at people that they are going to hell based on stuff he cherry picked out of there.'
Which is strange because you insisted that..

The catholic church teaches that the bible is inerrant when it comes to moral issues..and that you have experience of the catholic faith...you havent, youve got google lol


The bible is ' inerrant ' when it comes to moral issues but is inerrant because the words are not gods words..according to you.

The catholic church teaches that the bible is inerrant when it comes to moral issues, but not when it comes to historical accuracy but you have not posted one historical event that the catholic church refutes.
What they MAY say is that the translation needs interpreting but not the bible or the premise ie a ' day' in the creation was not a 24 day but that is not refuting the creation.

In all you prove you have nothing...what a surprise

Originally Posted by Xcaliber

That's not true. We don't know for sure who wrote what books in the Bible, specifically the Gospels. None of the original Documents had a signature , the authors names were applied by guessing but no one really knows who wrote what.

Come back when you find Nero's marriage certificate dipstick

So much of the Bible is irrelevant in the modern world.

Originally Posted by gansao

The Pope himself is considered infallible according to Catholicism and the holy spirit works in the body of the church.
What part of the bible does the catholic church regard NOT the literal word of God?
No he doesnt go around screaming at people that they are going to hell based on the stuff he cherry picks..he has priests doing that.

Article-Scripture, Tradition & the Magisterium / The Church & the Meaning of our lives / Catholic Faith / Home - The Catholic Faith Centre
Scripture and Tradition together constitute the single deposit of revealed truth given by God to the Church. Scripture is the single collection of 73 books called the Bible. It is the entire content of God’s inspired written truth, revealing himself and his saving plan. Scripture is divided into the Old Testament, written before the birth of Jesus Christ, and the New Testament, written after his death and resurrection. Given its importance for salvation, God, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, has guaranteed that the Bible records faithfully and without error, everything that he wanted written and no more (c.f. Dei Verbum 11).


I think you may find that the pope does think the bible is the literal word of god


As for hell...not so simplistic as EZs hell some of you good people will get the purgatory card first but according to the pope sinners will go to hell if they dont repent.


Article-Eternal life / Jesus? message of who we are & who God is / Catholic Faith / Home - The Catholic Faith Centre

Jesus Christ reveals that heaven is our eternal home where God gives us the vision of his face and shares his divine life with us. Scripture describes heaven as a city or kingdom where the saints enjoy the perfected creation and the reward they deserve. Those who die in God’s grace either go straight to heaven or first enter purgatory, a place of purification for sins and for reparation. Only those who freely choose to reject God’s grace to the very end of their lives will fail to reach heaven. The state of those who have chosen to resist God’s offer of salvation is called Hell. We should truly hope for heaven since it is God’s desire for us. We should ask him to prepare us for heaven even if we face sufferings on the way. It is good to make the saints our companions through prayer and to pray for the holy souls in purgatory (c.f. 2 Macc 12:44).


You obviously do not know as much as you would like us to believe....

I'd like to contradict you here on a few points, like the bible the church does not claim the pope is infallible absolutely only in matters of faith (whatever that means).

The church has never in all it's history stated for absolute fact that somebody went to hell, not even people like Hitler. 0/2000 years is a smaller ratio than easyrider/easyrider age. They are (in their eyes) extremely cautious even to suggest people went to heaven. A saint is defined as someone whom the church is almost certain achieved heaven.

To Catholics god's grace is not some kinda of rebirth ritual where you speak in tongues. It is true that repentance is necessary for mortal sin, but not for venial sin; and confession does not require a priest, a priest is a guarantee of it's success.

So in other words someone can never know about Christianity and still go straight to heaven if they manage to commit no sin, and still go to purgatory (guaranteed heaven eventually) if they commit no mortal sins. Even if they commit a mortal sin, if they can manage a perfect confession (which will work priest or no) they go to purgatory too.

These rules make it nearly impossible to predict where someone will end up and they don't except for the rare positive supposedly backed up by signs.

You can look them up, but mortal sins are biggies, an upstanding atheist would probably never commit one.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I'd like to contradict you here on a few points, like the bible the church does not claim the pope is infallible absolutely only in matters of faith (whatever that means)..

Well the pope is the leader of the catholic church and successor of St Peter so he is carefully picked. If he made a statement that was outside the consensus of the catholic church it would be suppressed. So he is as the head of the Catholic church infallible just as an all powerful monarch is as powerful as the people around him allow him to be

Originally Posted by Freedom

The church has never in all it's history stated for absolute fact that somebody went to hell, not even people like Hitler. 0/2000 years is a smaller ratio than easyrider/easyrider age. They are (in their eyes) extremely cautious even to suggest people went to heaven. A saint is defined as someone whom the church is almost certain achieved heaven..

The churchs representatives told folk that they will go to hell if they behave inappropriately with regularity and gusto.
Maybe there is/was a communication problem with the management.

It would take either a vision or an act of necromancy to speak to the dead or angels/demons to establish exactly what the fate of a dead person was...no wonder the church avoids this
A saint becomes a saint over a period of time and needs to have performed certain deeds to reach the required criteria just being on the list to enter heaven is not enough

Originally Posted by Freedom

To Catholics god's grace is not some kinda of rebirth ritual where you speak in tongues. It is true that repentance is necessary for mortal sin, but not for venial sin; and confession does not require a priest, a priest is a guarantee of it's success.

So in other words someone can never know about Christianity and still go straight to heaven if they manage to commit no sin, and still go to purgatory (guaranteed heaven eventually) if they commit no mortal sins. Even if they commit a mortal sin, if they can manage a perfect confession (which will work priest or no) they go to purgatory too..

So no Taoists in heaven then but maybe a few noble savages...

Originally Posted by Freedom

You can look them up, but mortal sins are biggies, an upstanding atheist would probably never commit one.

Define athiest.

Originally Posted by gansao

Well the pope is the leader of the catholic church and successor of St Peter so he is carefully picked. If he made a statement that was outside the consensus of the catholic church it would be suppressed. So he is as the head of the Catholic church infallible just as an all powerful monarch is as powerful as the people around him allow him to be

In practice, but in theory he is not infallible except in matters of faith. Thus when ever they let a psycho through the system they just say what ever he's claiming isn't a matter of faith.

Originally Posted by gansao

The churchs representatives told folk that they will go to hell if they behave inappropriately with regularity and gusto.
Maybe there is/was a communication problem with the management.

No problem in communication, they don't mind giving out absolute conditionals; what makes them different from easy rider is that easy thinks he's qualified to determine when someone is 'going to the pit' (and therefore when someone has gone to the pit) where the entire church does not think it's qualified on it's own authority.

A priest will tell you that you are in a state of sin, they might even tell you it's mortal sin and that without confession things won't turn out so well. The crucial difference is in the definition of mortal sin, you need to believe what you're doing is wrong.

Despite all it's pomp and ritual the catholic church essentially sees itself as a toolbox for people to get to heaven faster and a guaranteed method for the forgiveness of sins, not the only path; and that is fundamentally different from radical Protestant views like.

Originally Posted by gansao

So no Taoists in heaven then but maybe a few noble savages...

If you can find an official church position that any Taoist are now "Satan's whipping boy" I'll beg your forgiveness for my ignorance.

Originally Posted by gansao

Define athiest.

There are two common meanings, someone who doesn't believe in god; and someone who thinks one can disprove the existence of any supernatural being.

Please don't find me some church document saying that not going to mass is a mortal sin. It's only a mortal sin if it was planned by a person who 'knew' it was gravely wrong. That is certainly not an atheist.

Ask a priest, if you convert to Catholicism from atheism they don't expect you to confess your atheism anymore than Jesus would have expected 'sorry' at the Jordon.

Originally Posted by Freedom

No problem in communication, they don't mind giving out absolute conditionals; what makes them different from easy rider is that easy thinks he's qualified to determine when someone is 'going to the pit' (and therefore when someone has gone to the pit) where the entire church does not think it's qualified on it's own authority..

EZ could post a thesis on church doctrine for the perusal of athiests, homosexuals and homosexual athiests on this forum and still get the same reaction as telling them they will go to the pit.....' Wise up , you are going to the pit' is quicker to type

Originally Posted by Freedom

A priest will tell you that you are in a state of sin, they might even tell you it's mortal sin and that without confession things won't turn out so well. The crucial difference is in the definition of mortal sin, you need to believe what you're doing is wrong. .

A priest will tell you that you are going to hell and attempt to beat it out of you...nuns will too

I dont believe the catholic church believes mortal sins are nullified by not believing that your actions are wrong per se. Heaven will have more than its fair share of psychopaths and liberals if it does

Originally Posted by Freedom

Despite all it's pomp and ritual the catholic church essentially sees itself as a toolbox for people to get to heaven faster and a guaranteed method for the forgiveness of sins, not the only path; and that is fundamentally different from radical Protestant views like..

But it still believes in the same sins as EZ probably more in fact

Originally Posted by Freedom

If you can find an official church position that any Taoist are now "Satan's whipping boy" I'll beg your forgiveness for my ignorance..

So they get in too then....

Originally Posted by Freedom

There are two common meanings, someone who doesn't believe in god; and someone who thinks one can disprove the existence of any supernatural being..

Please don't find me some church document saying that not going to mass is a mortal sin. It's only a mortal sin if it was planned by a person who 'knew' it was gravely wrong. That is certainly not an atheist.

Ask a priest, if you convert to Catholicism from atheism they don't expect you to confess your atheism anymore than Jesus would have expected 'sorry' at the Jordon.

As above...the notion of not ' knowing it was gravely wrong ' is debateable.
All you have to do is convince yourself it is not wrong to get a shoo in for purgotry and heaven.I dont think a priest will tell you that.

Originally Posted by gansao

EZ could post a thesis on church doctrine for the perusal of athiests, homosexuals and homosexual athiests on this forum and still get the same reaction as telling them they will go to the pit.....' Wise up , you are going to the pit' is quicker to type

I suppose it is.

Originally Posted by gansao

A priest will tell you that you are going to hell and attempt to beat it out of you...nuns will too

I dont believe the catholic church believes mortal sins are nullified by not believing that your actions are wrong per se. Heaven will have more than its fair share of psychopaths and liberals if it does

No they believe in built-in commandments though. Things like murder are inexcusable while masturbation, contraception, and homosexual activity are regularly classified as venial until the person admits to knowing they are gravely sinning.

Originally Posted by gansao

But it still believes in the same sins as EZ probably more in fact

Yes, but easyrider is the one speaking for god by declaring people as hell-bound. That is ironically something the church claims the authority to, and one of the reasons protestants broke off; but in practical terms it's rouge protestants who play the part of prophet in modern times.

Originally Posted by gansao

So they get in too then....

My point was that the church isn't saying one way or another; only that it's a lot harder without their rituals.

Originally Posted by gansao

As above...the notion of not ' knowing it was gravely wrong ' is debateable.
All you have to do is convince yourself it is not wrong to get a shoo in for purgotry and heaven.I dont think a priest will tell you that.

Of course not because the moment you talk to a priest and they tell you it's wrong and you ignore them then you're responsible for rejecting god if you do it again.

Once again look up the definition, two of the requirements are forethought and knowledge of the grave evil of the act.

Originally Posted by jyoshu

By that approach, we have no idea if ANY work in distant history was truly written by whatever author the work claims. I'm all for skepticism, but one has to be able to give some degree of benefit of the doubt to historical works when they pass critical review, as the gospel books do. (That's why there are some other books that are known to NOT be by their claimed authors--the pseudopigraphic works.) Based on factors such as writing style, usage of greek, and many other critical review factors, there is no reason to assume Luke and Acts were not written by the same author. Frankly, by taking the position you're taking, you're not arguing with me but rather arguing with scholars who know far, far more about this than you do. And furthermore, you're missing the point by getting hung up on his actually name verbatim--It doesn't really matter if the biographer's name was actually called "Luke" or not; what matters is that the same biographer wrote both books.

No my point is that the Books could have been written by a monkey who had been taught to write. 300 years later a Church comes along and credits a man who was a very important figure within their religion as writing both books to give the books some credibility.
" Oh well the two books were so close in style and structure" doesn't exactly amount to any kind of evidence of who wrote what book.

The Bible, specifically the Gospels , were a collection of anonymous writings, letters, fairy tales, songs, that was taken by men who were building a religion and Cherry picked to speak a specific Message. Any writing that was found to be contradictory or flat out false was left out intentionally because they didn't want to tell you the truth they wanted to convince you to follow them so you would give them money and spend your life convincing others to do the same... in other words it's the biggest scam in history , and you really expect anyone to take it serious?