Question for non-Christians.

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
User avatar
Claire
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Question for non-Christians.

Post by Claire » Thu May 17, 2018 2:45 pm

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:3. Claire says only men can become priests, Chappy says women and transgenders may as well.
No, I've never said that.
Maybe not but women can't become priests in the Catholic church.
I'm not the Catholic Church and you said I said only men can become priests when I didn't. My view is a person's gender doesn't make a priest, their words and actions do.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:4. Claire thinks that bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Chappy does not and thinks any baptized person can lead the Lord's Supper.
No, I've never said the bread/wine physically becomes flesh/blood.
I thought all Catholics believed that? Transubstantiation is part of your doctrine isn't it?
Transubstantiation doesn't mean the bread physically becomes flesh and tastes like flesh, and the wine physically becomes blood and tastes like blood.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:6. Claire worships Mary and saints, Chappy does not.
No, I do not worship her and saints, nor do most Catholics, if not all. This is one of the common misconceptions of Catholicism.
Venerate then?
Yes, and read this because it briefly explains why.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:7. Both Claire and Chappy think that bumping rude bits should only happen after a holy marriage. Claire goes one step further and thinks priests should never bump rude bits, but that fails dismally and ruins lives (my own comment).
No, I've never said priests shouldn't have sex.
Ok you think that RC priests should have sex?
Like anyone else, if a priest has sex it should be within a marriage. And, even when married they should refrain some certain sexual activities that do not allow for the creation of a new soul, and is done for sensual appeasement only. Because that would be defiling the divine and holy purpose of sex and leading their partner to sexual immorality as well. But, I also understand that many people commit sexual immoralities in ignorance. It'd be far worse if someone knows what they're doing is immoral and continue in it anyway. To conclude, there are priests within Catholicism who are married and have children.

Humanguy
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:48 pm

Re: Question for non-Christians.

Post by Humanguy » Thu May 17, 2018 5:33 pm

Claire wrote:
Thu May 17, 2018 2:58 am

I know the current beliefs of the atheists on this forum. I thought you understood I'm asking a hypothetical question, hence why I took your answer the way I did. So, again, if you believed Heaven and Hell existed, would you think mine or Chapabel's belief on salvation and non-Christians is more likely?
Okay, I get it. I'd like to think that if I believed as you said, I'd find your way to be more likely, mainly because it's less complicated.

User avatar
Claire
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Question for non-Christians.

Post by Claire » Thu May 17, 2018 10:31 pm

.
Last edited by Claire on Fri May 18, 2018 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Question for non-Christians.

Post by SEG » Fri May 18, 2018 2:32 am

SEG wrote: Maybe not but women can't become priests in the Catholic church.
I'm not the Catholic Church and you said I said only men can become priests when I didn't. My view is a person's gender doesn't make a priest, their words and actions do.
Then your view is contrary to the Pope's and Catholic tradition.
Claire wrote:No, I've never said the bread/wine physically becomes flesh/blood.
SEG wrote:I thought all Catholics believed that? Transubstantiation is part of your doctrine isn't it?
Claire wrote:Transubstantiation doesn't mean the bread physically becomes flesh and tastes like flesh, and the wine physically becomes blood and tastes like blood.
http://www.askacatholic.com/_WebPosting ... iation.cfm
In the previous chapter the apostle wrote, "The blessing-cup that we bless is a communion with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is communion with the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:16). His words are clear. The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so.

From Wiki:
Transubstantiation - The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharistic Adoration at Saint Thomas Aquinas Cathedral in Reno NV USA
Transubstantiation (Latin: transsubstantiatio; Greek: μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the change of substance or essence by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharistic offering bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ.[1] The reaffirmation of this doctrine was expressed, using the word "transubstantiate", by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215.[2][3] It was later challenged by various 14th century reformers—John Wycliffe in particular.

The manner in which the change occurs, the Roman Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery
SEG wrote:Ok you think that RC priests should have sex?
Claire wrote:Like anyone else, if a priest has sex it should be within a marriage. And, even when married they should refrain some certain sexual activities that do not allow for the creation of a new soul, and is done for sensual appeasement only. Because that would be defiling the divine and holy purpose of sex and leading their partner to sexual immorality as well. But, I also understand that many people commit sexual immoralities in ignorance. It'd be far worse if someone knows what they're doing is immoral and continue in it anyway. To conclude, there are priests within Catholicism who are married and have children.
How can sex in marriage be immoral? Or even out of marriage? It is a human need. How about bishops?
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

User avatar
Claire
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Question for non-Christians.

Post by Claire » Fri May 18, 2018 3:06 am

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:I'm not the Catholic Church and you said I said only men can become priests when I didn't. My view is a person's gender doesn't make a priest, their words and actions do.
Then your view is contrary to the Pope's and Catholic tradition.
My view runs contrary to many other Catholic's because we're not a monolithic hive mind.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:Transubstantiation doesn't mean the bread physically becomes flesh and tastes like flesh, and the wine physically becomes blood and tastes like blood.
http://www.askacatholic.com/_WebPosting ... iation.cfm
In the previous chapter the apostle wrote, "The blessing-cup that we bless is a communion with the blood of Christ, and the bread that we break is communion with the body of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:16). His words are clear. The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so.
From Wiki:
Transubstantiation - The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharistic Adoration at Saint Thomas Aquinas Cathedral in Reno NV USA
Transubstantiation (Latin: transsubstantiatio; Greek: μετουσίωσις metousiosis) is, according to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the change of substance or essence by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharistic offering bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ.[1] The reaffirmation of this doctrine was expressed, using the word "transubstantiate", by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215.[2][3] It was later challenged by various 14th century reformers—John Wycliffe in particular.

The manner in which the change occurs, the Roman Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery
A transformation occurs but as I said it's unseen/odorless/tasteless.
SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:Ok you think that RC priests should have sex?
Like anyone else, if a priest has sex it should be within a marriage. And, even when married they should refrain some certain sexual activities that do not allow for the creation of a new soul, and is done for sensual appeasement only. Because that would be defiling the divine and holy purpose of sex and leading their partner to sexual immorality as well. But, I also understand that many people commit sexual immoralities in ignorance. It'd be far worse if someone knows what they're doing is immoral and continue in it anyway. To conclude, there are priests within Catholicism who are married and have children.
How can sex in marriage be immoral? Or even out of marriage? It is a human need. How about bishops?
If a bishop has sex it should be within a marriage. And, sexual immoralities can be committed by married/unmarried people. I explained what those are in my previous post.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Question for non-Christians.

Post by SEG » Fri May 18, 2018 7:39 am

Claire wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 3:06 am

A transformation occurs but as I said it's unseen/odorless/tasteless.
Hmmn, that reminds me of something else that is unseen/odorless/tasteless - GAWD!

From Wiki
Celibacy for religious and monastics (monks and sisters/nuns) and for bishops is upheld by the Catholic Church and the traditions of both Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Bishops must be unmarried men or widowers; a married man cannot become a bishop.
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

marcuspnw
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed May 16, 2018 6:10 am

Re: Question for non-Christians.

Post by marcuspnw » Fri May 18, 2018 8:17 am

Accepting the dichotomy, they are both equally possible since no further evidence or foundational knowledge is offered to evaluate one as having a higher probability. My personal preference really has no bearing in determining which version is actualized but mine is to choose neither belief.

User avatar
Claire
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Question for non-Christians.

Post by Claire » Fri May 18, 2018 5:44 pm

SEG wrote:
Claire wrote:
SEG wrote:How about bishops?
If a bishop has sex it should be within a marriage. And, sexual immoralities can be committed by married/unmarried people. I explained what those are in my previous post.
From Wiki
Celibacy for religious and monastics (monks and sisters/nuns) and for bishops is upheld by the Catholic Church and the traditions of both Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy. Bishops must be unmarried men or widowers; a married man cannot become a bishop.
You asked for my personal opinion, not the Church's, and I gave it.

User avatar
Claire
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Question for non-Christians.

Post by Claire » Fri May 18, 2018 6:00 pm

.
Last edited by Claire on Fri May 18, 2018 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 482
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Question for non-Christians.

Post by SEG » Fri May 18, 2018 9:12 pm

If I were to lean anywhere on this, it would be over to Chappy. Sorry Clare.
“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

Post Reply