The Church Or The Bible

Religions > Bible > The Church Or The Bible

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 7

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Fr. Daniel Garguillio, DD"
Date:	28 Jun 2007 10:56:08 PM
Object:	The Church Or The Bible

The Church Or The Bible
by Fr. Arnold Damen, S.J. (1815 - 1890)
The following sermon is as relevant today as it was over 100 years ago
when it was first preached by Father Arnold Damen, S.J. This message
was and still is a challenge to the many who pride themselves as being
"Bible-and-Bible-alone Christians."
One cannot have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for
his Mother, and likewise, one cannot have the Word of God for his
faith who will not have the Church for his teacher. It is the
infallible teaching authority of the Church, as promised by Christ,
which alone preserves God's Word from erroneous interpretation. This
is the essence of Fr. Damen's sermon.
Every sincere Bible reader deserves to know the true relation God has
established between His Church and Holy Scripture. Therefore, we
invite all who love the Bible, to read Father Damen's exposition with
an open mind, lest while reading the Scriptures "... the unlearned and
unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own
destruction." [2 Peter 3:16]
I.
Dearly Beloved Christians, when our Divine Saviour sent His Apostles
and His Disciples throughout the whole universe to preach the Gospel
to every creature, He laid down the conditions of salvation thus: "He
that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth
not shall be condemned" [Mark 16:16]. Here, then, Our Blessed Lord
laid down the two conditions of salvation, Faith and Baptism. I will
speak this evening on the condition of Faith.
We must have Faith in order to be saved, and we must have Divine
Faith, not human faith. Human faith will not save a man, but only
Divine Faith. What is Divine Faith? It is to believe, upon the
authority of God, the truths that God has revealed, that is Divine
Faith. To believe all that God has taught upon the authority of God,
and to believe without doubting, without hesitation. For the moment
you begin to doubt or hesitate, that moment you begin to mistrust the
authority of God, and, therefore, insult God by doubting His word.
Divine Faith, therefore, is to believe without doubting and without
hesitating. Human faith is belief upon the authority of men, on human
authority. But Divine Faith is to believe without doubting, without
hesitating, whatsoever God has revealed upon the authority of God,
upon the Word of God.
Therefore, my dear people, it is not a matter of indifference what
religion a man professes, providing he be a good man.
You hear it said nowadays in this Nineteenth Century of little faith
that it matter not what religion a man professes, providing he be a
good man. That is heresy, my dear people, and I will prove it to you
to be such. If it be a matter of indifference what a man believes,
providing he be a good man, then it is useless for God to make any
revelation whatever. If a man is at liberty to reject what God
revealeth, what's the use for Christ to send out His Apostles and
disciples to teach all nations, if those nations are at liberty to
believe or reject the teachings of the Apostles or disciples? You see
at once that this would be insulting God.
If God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He wants to be believed.
Man is bound to believe whatsoever God has revealed, for, my dear
people, we are bound to worship God, both with our reason and
intellect, as well as with our heart and will. God is master of the
whole man. He claims his will, his heart, his reason and his
intellect.
Where is the man, no matter what denomination, church or religion,
that will deny that we are bound to believe what God has taught? I am
sure there is not a Christian who will deny that we are bound to
believe whatsoever God has revealed. Therefore, it is not a matter of
indifference what religion a man professes. He must profess the true
religion if he wants to be saved.
But what is the true religion? To believe all that God has taught. I
am sure that even my Protestant friends will admit this is right, for,
if they do not, I would say they are no Christians at all.
"But what is the true Faith?"
"The true Faith," say Protestant friends, "is to believe in the Lord
Jesus."
Agreed, Catholics believe in that. Tell me what you mean by believing
in the Lord Jesus?
"Why," says my Protestant friend, "you must believe that He is the Son
of the Living God."
Agreed again. Thanks be to God, we can agree on something. We believe
that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, that He is God. To
this we all agree, excepting the Unitarians and Socinians, but we will
leave them alone tonight. If Christ be God, then we must believe all
He teaches. Is this not so, my dearly beloved Protestant brethren and
sisters? And that's the right Faith, isn't it?
"Well, yes," says my Protestant friend, "I guess that is the right
Faith. To believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God, we must
believe all that Christ has taught."
We Catholics say the same, and here we agree again. We must believe
all that Christ has taught, that God has revealed. Without this Faith,
there is no salvation. Without this Faith, there is no hope of Heaven.
Without this Faith, there is eternal damnation! We have the words of
Christ for it, "He that believeth not shall be condemned."
II.
But if Christ, my dearly beloved people commands me under pain of
eternal damnation to believe all that He has taught, He must give me
the means to know what He has taught. And the means Christ gives us of
knowing this must have been at all times within the reach of all
people.
Secondly, the means that God gives us to know what He has taught must
be a means adapted to the capacities of all intellects, even the
dullest. For even the dullest have a right to salvation, and
consequently they have a right to the means whereby they shall learn
the truths that God has taught, that they may believe them and be
saved.
The means that God give us to know what he has taught must be an
infallible means. For if it be a means that can lead us astray, it can
be no means at all. It must be an infallible means, so that if a man
makes use of that means, he will infallibly, without fear of mistake
or error, be brought to a knowledge of all the truths that God has
taught.
I don't think there can be anyone present here, I care not what he is,
a Christian or an unbeliever, who can object to my premises. And these
premises are the groundwork of my discourse and of all my reasoning,
therefore, I want you to bear them in mind. I will repeat them, for on
these premises rests all the strength of my discourse and reasoning.
If God commands me under pain of eternal damnation to believe all that
He has taught, He is bound to give me the means to know what He has
taught. And the means that God gives me must have been at all times
within the reach of all people, must be adapted to the capacities of
all intellects, must be an infallible means to us, so that if a man
makes use of it he will be brought to a knowledge of all the truths
that God has taught.
III.
Has God given us such means? "Yes," say my Protestant friends, "He
has." And so says the Catholic. God has given us such means. What is
the means God has given us whereby we shall learn the truth that God
has revealed? "The Bible," say my Protestant friends, "the Bible, the
whole of the Bible, and nothing but the Bible." But we Catholics say,
"No, not the Bible and its private interpretation, but the Church of
the Living God."
I will prove the facts, and I defy all my separated brethren, and all
the preachers, to disprove what I will say tonight. I say, then, it is
not the private interpretation of the Bible that has been appointed by
God to be the teacher of man, but the Church of the Living God.
For, my dear people, if God has intended that man should learn His
religion from a book, the Bible, surely God would have given that book
to man. Christ would have given that book to man. Did He do it? He did
not. Christ sent His Apostles throughout the whole universe and said,
"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."
Christ did not say, "Sit down and write Bibles and scatter them over
the earth, and let every man read his Bible and judge for himself." If
Christ had said that, there would never have been a Christianity on
the earth at all, but a Babylon and confusion instead, and never one
Church, the union of one body. Hence, Christ never said to His
Apostles, "Go and write Bibles and distribute them, and let everyone
judge for himself." That injunction was reserved for the Sixteenth
Century, and we have seen the result of it. Ever since the Sixteenth
Century there have been springing up religion upon religion, and
churches upon churches, all fighting and quarreling with one another,
and all because of the private interpretation of the Bible.
Christ sent His Apostles with authority to teach all nations, and
never gave them any command of writing the Bible. And the Apostles
went forth and preached everywhere, and planted the Church of God
throughout the earth, but never thought of writing.
The first word written was by Saint Matthew, and he wrote for the
benefit of a few individuals. He wrote the Gospel about seven years
after Christ left this earth, so that the Church of God, established
by Christ, existed seven years before a line was written of the New
Testament.
Saint Mark wrote about ten years after Christ left this earth, Saint
Luke about twenty-five years, and Saint John about sixty-three years
after Christ had established the Church of God. Saint John wrote the
last portion of the Bible, the Book of Revelation, about sixty-five
years after Christ had left this earth and the Church of God had been
established. The Catholic religion had existed sixty-five years before
the Bible was completed.
Now, I ask you, my dearly beloved separated brethren. Were these
Christian people, who lived during the period between the
establishment of the Church of Jesus and the finishing of the Bible,
really Christians, good Christians and enlightened Christians? Did
they know the religion of Jesus? Where is the man that will dare to
say that those who lived from the time that Christ went up to Heaven
to the time that the Bible was completed were not Christians? It is
admitted on all sides, by all denominations, that they were the very
best of Christians, the first fruit of the Blood of Jesus Christ.
But how did they know what they had to do to save their souls? Was it
from the Bible that they learned it? No, because the Bible was not
written. And would our Divine Saviour have left His Church for sixty-
five years without a teacher, if the Bible is the teacher of man? Most
assuredly not.
Were the Apostles Christians, I ask you, my dear Protestant friends?
You say, "Yes sir, they were the very founders of Christianity." Now,
my dear friends, none of the Apostles ever read the Bible, not one of
them except perhaps, Saint John. For all of them had died martyrs for
the Faith of Jesus Christ and never saw the cover of a Bible. Every
one of them died martyrs and heroes for the Church of Jesus before the
Bible was completed.
How, then, did those Christians, that lived in the first sixty-five
years after Christ ascended, know what they had to do to save their
souls? They knew it precisely in the same way that you know it, my
dear Catholic friends. You know it from the teachings of the Church of
God and so did the primitive Christians know it.
IV.
For not only sixty-five years did Christ leave the Church He had
established without a Bible, but for over three hundred years. The
Church of God was established and went on spreading itself over the
whole globe without the Bible for more than three hundred years. In
all that time the people did not know what constituted the Bible.
In the days of the Apostles, there were many false gospels. There was
the Gospel of Simon, the Gospel of Nicodemus, of Mary, of Barnabas,
and the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus. All of these gospels were
spread among the people, and the people did not know which of these
were inspired and which were false and spurious. Even the learned
themselves were disputing whether preference should be given to the
Gospel of Simon or that of Matthew, to the Gospel of Nicodemus or the
Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Mary or that of Luke, the Gospel of the
Infancy of Jesus or the Gospel of Saint John the Evangelist.
And so it was in regard to the epistles. Many spurious epistles were
written and the people were at a loss for over three hundred years to
know which was false or spurious, or which was inspired. And,
therefore, they did not know what constituted the books of the Bible.
It was not until the Fourth Century that the Pope of Rome, the Head of
the Church, the successor of Saint Peter, assembled together the
Bishops of the world in a council. And there in that council it was
decided that the Bible, as we Catholics have it now, is the Word of
God, and that the Gospels of Simon, Nicodemus, Mary, the Infancy of
Jesus, and Barnabas, and all those other epistles were spurious or, at
least, unauthentic. At least, that there was no evidence of their
inspiration, and that the Gospels of Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John, and the Book of Revelation, were inspired by the Holy Ghost.
Up to that time the whole world for three hundred years did not know
what the Bible was. Hence, they could not take the Bible for their
guide, for they did not know what constituted the Bible. Would our
Divine Saviour, if He intended man to learn his religion from a book,
have left the Christian world for three hundred years without that
book? Most assuredly not.
V.
Not only for three hundred years was the world left without the Bible,
but for 1,400 years the Christian world was left without the Sacred
Book.
Before the art of printing was invented, Bibles were rare things.
Bibles were costly things. Now, you must all be aware, if you have
read history at all, that the art of printing was invented only a
little more than four hundred years ago, about the middle of the
Fifteenth Century, and about one hundred years before there was a
Protestant in the world.
As I have said, before printing was invented books were rare and
costly things. Historians tell us that, in the Eleventh Century, eight
hundred years ago, Bibles were so rare and costly that it took a
fortune, a considerable fortune, to buy oneself a copy of the Bible!
Before the art of printing, everything had to be done with the pen
upon parchment or sheepskin. It was, therefore, a tedious and slow
operation, a costly operation.
Now, in order to arrive at the probable cost of a Bible at that time,
let us suppose that a man should work ten years to make a copy of the
Bible and earn a dollar a day. Well, then, the cost of that Bible
would be $3,650. Now, let us suppose that a man should work at the
copying of the Bible for twenty years, as historians say it would have
taken him at that time, not having the conveniences and improvements
to aid him that we have now. Then, at a dollar a day, for twenty
years, the cost of a Bible would be nearly $8,000.
Suppose I came and said to you, "My dear people, save your soul, for
if you lose your soul all is lost." You would ask, "What are we to do
to save our souls?" The Protestant preacher would say to you, "You
must get a Bible. You can get one at such-and-such a shop." You would
ask the cost and be told it was $8,000. You would exclaim, "The Lord
save us! And can we not go to Heaven without that book?" The answer
would be: "No, you must have the Bible and read it." You murmur at the
price, but are asked, "Is not your soul worth $8,000?" Yes, of course
it is, but you say you do not have the money, and if you cannot get a
Bible, and your salvation depends upon it, evidently you would have to
remain outside the Kingdom of Heaven. This would be a hopeless
condition, indeed.
For 1,400 years the world was left without a Bible -- not one in ten
thousand, not one in twenty thousand, before the art of printing was
invented, had the Bible. And would our Divine Lord have left the world
without that book if it was necessary to man's salvation? Most
assuredly not.
VI.
But let us suppose for a moment that all had Bibles, that Bibles were
written from the beginning, and that every man, woman, and child had a
copy. What good would that book be to people who did not know how to
read it? It is a blind thing to such persons.
Even now one-half the inhabitants of the earth cannot read. Moreover,
as the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, it would be necessary to
know these languages in order to be able to read it.
But it is said that we have it translated now in French, English, and
other languages of the day. Yes, but are you sure you have a faithful
translation? If not, you have not the Word of God. If you have a false
translation, it is the work of man. How shall you ascertain that? How
shall you find out if you have a faithful translation from the Greek
and Hebrew?
"I do not know Greek or Hebrew," says my separated friend; "for my
translation I must depend upon the opinion of the learned."
Well, then, my dear friends, suppose the learned should be divided in
their opinions, and some of them should say it is good, and some
false? Then your faith is gone, you must begin doubting and
hesitating, because you do not know if the translation is good.
Now with regard to the Protestant translation of the Bible, allow me
to tell you that the most learned among Protestants tell you that your
translation, the King James edition, is a very faulty translation and
is full of errors. Your own learned divines, preachers, and bishops
have written whole volumes to point out all the errors that are there
in the King James translation, and Protestants of various
denominations acknowledge it.
Some years ago, when I lived in St. Louis, there was held in that city
a convention of ministers. All denominations were invited, the object
being to arrange for a new translation of the Bible, and give it to
the world. The proceedings of the convention were published daily in
the Missouri Republican. A very learned Presbyterian, I think it was,
stood up, and, urging the necessity of giving a new translation of the
Bible, said that in the present Protestant translation of the Bible
there were no less than 30,000 errors.
And you say, my dear Protestant friends, that the Bible is your guide
and teacher. What a teacher, with 30,000 errors! The Lord save us from
such a teacher! One error is bad enough, but thirty thousand is a
little too much.
Another preacher stood up in the convention, I think he was a Baptist,
and, urging the necessity of giving a new translation of the Bible,
said for thirty years past the world was without the Word of God, for
the Bible we have is not the Word of God at all.
Here are your own preachers for you. You all read the newspapers, no
doubt, my friends, and must know what happened in England a few years
ago. A petition was sent to Parliament for an allowance of a few
thousand pounds sterling for the purpose of getting up a new
translation of the Bible. And that movement was headed and carried on
by Protestant bishops and clergymen.
VII.
But, my dear people, how can you be sure of your faith? You say the
Bible is your guide, but you cannot be sure that you have the faith.
Let us suppose for a moment that all have a Bible which is a faithful
translation. Even then it cannot be the guide of man, because the
private interpretation of the Bible is not infallible, but, on the
contrary, most fallible. It is the source and fountain of all kinds of
errors and heresies and all kinds of blasphemous doctrines. Do not be
shocked, my dear friends. Just be calm and listen to my arguments.
There are now throughout the world 350 different denominations or
churches, and all of them say the Bible is their guide and teacher. I
suppose they are all sincere. Are all of them true churches? This is
an impossibility. Truth is one as God is one, and there can be no
contradiction. Every man in his senses sees that every one of them
cannot be true, for they differ and contradict one another, and
cannot, therefore, be all true. The Protestants say the man that reads
the Bible right and prayerfully has truth, and they all say that they
read it right.
Let us suppose that there is an Episcopal minister. He is a sincere,
honest, well-meaning and prayerful man. He reads his Bible in a
prayerful spirit, and from the word of the Bible, he says it is clear
that there must be bishops. For without bishops there can be no
priests, without priests no Sacraments, and without Sacraments no
Church. The Presbyterian is a sincere and well-meaning man. He reads
the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no bishops, but only
presbyters. "Here is the Bible," says the Episcopalian, and "here is
the Bible to give you the lie," says the Presbyterian. Yet both of
them are prayerful and well-meaning men.
Then the Baptist comes in. He is a well-meaning, honest man, and
prayerful also. "Well," says the Baptist, "have you ever been
baptized?" "I was," says the Episcopalian, "when I was a baby."
"And so was I," says the Presbyterian, "when I was a baby." "But,"
says the Baptist, "you are going to Hell as sure as you live."
Next comes the Unitarian, well-meaning, honest, and sincere. "Well,"
says the Unitarian, "allow me to tell you that you are a pack of
idolators. You worship a man for a God who is no God at all." And he
gives several texts from the Bible to prove it, while the others are
stopping their ears that they may not hear the blasphemies of the
Unitarian. And they all contend that they have the true meaning of the
Bible.
Next comes the Methodist, and he says, "My friends, have you got any
religion at all?" "Of course we have," they say. "Did you ever feel
religion," says the Methodist, "the spirit of God moving within you?"
"Nonsense," says the Presbyterian, "we are guided by our reason and
judgment." "Well," says the Methodist, "if you never felt religion,
you never had it, and will go to Hell for eternity."
The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another
with eternal hellfire. "Why," says he, "you are a strange set of
people. Do you not understand the Word of God? There is no Hell at
all. That idea is good enough to scare old women and children," and he
proves it from the Bible.
Now comes in the Quaker. He urges them not to quarrel, and advises
that they do not baptize at all. He is the sincerest of men, and gives
the Bible for his faith.
Another comes in and says, "Baptize the men and leave the women alone.
For the Bible says, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy
Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. "So," says he, "the
women are all right, but baptize the men."
Next comes in the Shaker and he says, "You are a presumptuous people.
Do you not know that the Bible tells you that you must work out your
salvation in fear and trembling, and you do not tremble at all. My
brethren, if you want to go to Heaven shake, my brethren, shake!"
VIII.
I have here brought together seven or eight denominations, differing
one from another, or understanding the Bible in different ways,
illustrative of the fruits of private interpretation. What, then, if I
brought together the 350 different denominations, all taking the Bible
for their guide and teaching, and all differing from one another? Are
they all right? One says there is a Hell, and another says there is
not Hell. Are both right? One says Christ is God, another says He is
not. One says they are unessential. One says Baptism is a requisite,
and another says it is not. Are both true? This is an impossibility,
my friends. All cannot be true.
Who, then, is true? He that has the true meaning of the Bible, you
say. But the Bible does not tell us who that is, the Bible never
settles the quarrel. It is not the teacher.
The Bible, my dear people, is a good book. We Catholics admit that the
Bible is the Word of God, the language of inspiration, and every
Catholic is exhorted to read the Bible. But good as it is, the Bible,
my dear friends, does not explain itself. It is a good book, the Word
of God, the language of inspiration, but your explanation of the Bible
is not the language of inspiration. Your understanding of the Bible is
not inspired, for surely you do not pretend to be inspired!
It is with the Bible as it is with the Constitution of the United
States. When Washington and his associates established the
Constitution and the Supreme Law of the United States, they did not
say to the people of the States: "Let every man read the Constitution
and make a government unto himself. Let every man make his own
explanation of the Constitution." If Washington had done that, there
never would have been a United States. The people would all have been
divided among themselves, and the country would have been cut up into
a thousand different divisions or governments.
What did Washington do? He gave the people the Constitution and the
Supreme Law, and appointed his Supreme Court and Supreme Judge of the
Constitution. And these are to give the true explanation of the
Constitution to all the American citizens, all without exception, from
the President to the beggar. All are bound to go by the decisions of
the Supreme Court, and it is this and this alone that can keep the
people together and preserve the Union of the United States. At the
moment the people take the interpretation of the Constitution into
their own hands, there is the end of the union.
And so it is in every government. So it is here and everywhere. There
is a Constitution, a Supreme Court or Law, a Supreme Judge of that
Constitution, and that Supreme Court is to give us the meaning of the
Constitution and the Law.
In every well-ruled country there must be such a thing as this: a
Supreme Law, Supreme Court, Supreme Judge, that all the people abide
by. All are bound by decisions, and without that, no government could
stand. Even among the Indian tribes such a condition of affairs
exists. How are they kept together? By their chief, who is their
dictator.
So our Divine Savior also has established His Supreme Court, His
Supreme Judge, to give us the true meaning of the Scriptures, and to
give us the true revelation and doctrines of the Word of Jesus. The
Son of the Living God has pledged His Word that this Supreme Court is
infallible, and therefore, the true Catholic never doubts.
"I believe," says the Catholic, "because the Church teaches me so. I
believe the Church because God has commanded me to believe her." Jesus
said: "Tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be
to thee as the heathen and publican." [Matt 18:17]. "He that believeth
you believeth Me." said Christ, "and he that despiseth you despiseth
Me." Therefore, the Catholic believes because God has spoken, and upon
the authority of God.
But our Protestant friends say, "We believe in the Bible." Very well,
how do you understand the Bible? "Well," says the Protestant, "to the
best of my opinion and judgment this is the meaning of the text." He
is not sure of it, but to the best of his opinion and judgment. This,
my friends, is only the testimony of a man. It is only human faith,
not Divine Faith.
It is Divine Faith alone by which we give honor and glory to God, by
which we adore His infinite wisdom and veracity. That adoration and
worship is necessary for salvation.
I have now proved to you that private interpretation of the Scripture
cannot be the guide or teacher of man. In another lecture I shall
prove that the Catholic Church is the only true Church of God, and
that there is no other.
http://www.drgargoyle.com/
.

User: "arah"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	29 Jun 2007 05:17:04 AM

Dear Fr Daniel Garguillio
Most Christians are blind followers and just go to Church on Sunday
and hear what the Preacher has to say
without able to ask any question. They don't read the bible and try
to
understand what are writtten in the bible.
Explain to me Fr Daniel the followings as written in the bible
Matthew 10:34-36
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did
not
come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man
against
his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against
her
motherinlaw- a man's enemies will be the members of his own
household.
Matthew 10:21
Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child;
children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
Luke 14:26
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and
mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters-yes, even his
own life-
he cannot be my disciple.
Luke 49:53
I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were
already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed
I
am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on
earth?
No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one
family
divided against each other, three against two and two against three.
They will
be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against
daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-
in-law
and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."
I hope you can explain why the bible propogate hatred with the family
and are those the teachings of Jesus?.
On Jun 29, 11:56 am, "Fr. Daniel Garguillio, DD"
<drgargo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

User: "BAM"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	30 Jun 2007 07:49:43 AM

"arah" <arah1958@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183112224.109892.161360@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Dear Fr Daniel Garguillio

Most Christians are blind followers and just go to Church on Sunday
and hear what the Preacher has to say
without able to ask any question. They don't read the bible and try
to
understand what are writtten in the bible.

How would you know? Are you omnipotent?
Besides, what would you have said to the billions of Christians that lived
and died for 1500 years before there was any general literacy or concept or
hope of distributing a copy to every household?
BAM
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	30 Jun 2007 08:56:34 AM

On Jun 30, 5:49 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:

"arah" <arah1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1183112224.109892.161360@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Dear Fr Daniel Garguillio

It is certain that actually being able to READ the Bible, on a mass
scale, did produce and merry band of bizarre herecies. LOL!
There is no one-size fits all Christianity any more.
I seriously doubt that there ever was just one kind of Christianity.
The very deciples themselves were torn by controversy.
Men will squabble over these things.
Ylem
.

User: "BAM"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	01 Jul 2007 11:32:58 AM

<primordial_ylem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183211794.509219.64930@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 30, 5:49 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:

"arah" <arah1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1183112224.109892.161360@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Dear Fr Daniel Garguillio

How would you know? Are you omnipotent?
Besides, what would you have said to the billions of Christians that
lived
and died for 1500 years before there was any general literacy or concept
or
hope of distributing a copy to every household?

BAM

Correct. And a perfect argument defending Jesus' choice to appoint a single
leader.
BAM
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	01 Jul 2007 12:47:56 PM

On Jul 1, 9:32 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:

<primordial_y...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1183211794.509219.64930@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 30, 5:49 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:

"arah" <arah1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1183112224.109892.161360@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Dear Fr Daniel Garguillio

How would you know? Are you omnipotent?
Besides, what would you have said to the billions of Christians that
lived
and died for 1500 years before there was any general literacy or concept
or
hope of distributing a copy to every household?

BAM

Correct. And a perfect argument defending Jesus' choice to appoint a single
leader.

BAM-

Which is not to say that this "leader" would be "perfect". Or that all
his decisions and opinions would be infallibly perfect. I mean, look
at how imperfect the Apostles WERE! Sometimes they were as "perfectly"
blockheaded as any modern fundamentalist and unable to sort out
literal from metaphorical.
Ylem
.

User: "BAM"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	01 Jul 2007 10:50:02 PM

<primordial_ylem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183312076.837189.139400@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 1, 9:32 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:

<primordial_y...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1183211794.509219.64930@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 30, 5:49 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:

"arah" <arah1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1183112224.109892.161360@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Dear Fr Daniel Garguillio

How would you know? Are you omnipotent?
Besides, what would you have said to the billions of Christians that
lived
and died for 1500 years before there was any general literacy or
concept
or
hope of distributing a copy to every household?

BAM

Correct. And a perfect argument defending Jesus' choice to appoint a
single
leader.

BAM-

Which is not to say that this "leader" would be "perfect". Or that all
his decisions and opinions would be infallibly perfect.

Since you are certainly not infallible, your statement it subject to error.
Whereas, Jesus told Peter, "Whatsoever ye bind on earth is bound in heaven".
That's as far as it goes -take it or leave it - don't undermine the meaning.
I mean, look

at how imperfect the Apostles WERE! Sometimes they were as "perfectly"
blockheaded as any modern fundamentalist and unable to sort out
literal from metaphorical.

And this is even a greater argument as to why no one - (including yourself),
should listen to you.
BAM
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	02 Jul 2007 09:46:46 AM

On Jul 1, 8:50 pm, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:

<primordial_y...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1183312076.837189.139400@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

On Jul 1, 9:32 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:

<primordial_y...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1183211794.509219.64930@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 30, 5:49 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:

"arah" <arah1...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1183112224.109892.161360@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Dear Fr Daniel Garguillio

How would you know? Are you omnipotent?
Besides, what would you have said to the billions of Christians that
lived
and died for 1500 years before there was any general literacy or
concept
or
hope of distributing a copy to every household?

BAM

Correct. And a perfect argument defending Jesus' choice to appoint a
single
leader.

BAM-

Which is not to say that this "leader" would be "perfect". Or that all
his decisions and opinions would be infallibly perfect.

Since you are certainly not infallible, your statement it subject to error.

But then, I do not pretend to be infallible. Nor am I the leader of
millions of believers. (The thought of that horrifies me!)
In fact, that whole pastoral metaphor - shepherds and flocks - will
need some amending, as will the notion of god as some sort of
celestial monarch lording it over a court and his subjects.
It is hopelessly archaic.
But, like I said, there is nothing in the words of Jesus that
establishes an infallible leader. His injunction to Peter may, in
fact, be a later redaction.
The irony of the "sola scriptura" protestant is that they worship a
Bible (Biblio-idolatry?) created by the Catholic Church! (mild
laughter...)
And now, with the Nag Hammadi library in hand, we can see that there
is some confusion about what actually constitutes "scripture". Was
that too, an act of infallibility?

Whereas, Jesus told Peter, "Whatsoever ye bind on earth is bound in heaven".
That's as far as it goes -take it or leave it - don't undermine the meaning.

I mean, look

Oh, indeed, I have. But he was speaking directly to Peter. (If the
text is to be trusted.) And I do not doubt that Peter was a good and
loyal man, if fallible. Jesus also told us that we would know them by
their "fruits", did he not?
So we are back to the Inquisition and that very rotten piece of fruit.
It is concrete evidence of a profound fallibility.

at how imperfect the Apostles WERE! Sometimes they were as "perfectly"
blockheaded as any modern fundamentalist and unable to sort out
literal from metaphorical.

And this is even a greater argument as to why no one - (including yourself),
should listen to you.

BAM-

I have no fruit in my closet that can compare to torturing people to
death. I suspect my sins are of a more prosaic variety.
Ylem
.

User: "duke"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	30 Jun 2007 06:40:51 AM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:17:04 -0700, arah <arah1958@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, Fr. Daniel hasn't replied, so I will. He said that Family would be split
between Jew and Christian.

I hope you can explain why the bible propogate hatred with the family
and are those the teachings of Jesus?.

It doesn't. It's not a teaching, it is a revelation. And sure enough, it came
to be.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	29 Jun 2007 08:03:29 AM

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:56:08 -0700, "Fr. Daniel Garguillio,
DD" <drgargoyle@hotmail.com> spoke thusly:

The Church Or The Bible
by Fr. Arnold Damen, S.J. (1815 - 1890)

"Well, yes," says my Protestant friend, "I guess that is the right
Faith. To believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God, we must
believe all that Christ has taught."

We Catholics say the same, and here we agree again.

Note: "has taught". You keep using this past tense
and yet, want to include everything your church
says today.

For, my dear people, if God has intended that man should learn His
religion from a book, the Bible, surely God would have given that book
to man. Christ would have given that book to man. Did He do it? He did
not. Christ sent His Apostles throughout the whole universe and said,
"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

Christ did not say, "Sit down and write Bibles and scatter them over
the earth, and let every man read his Bible and judge for himself."

Actually, the Thessalonians were called "more noble"
for doing just that. They did not automatically believe
Paul, but "searched the Scriptures daily, to see whether
those things were so".

Hence, Christ never said to His Apostles, "Go and write Bibles
and distribute them

And yet, they wrote letters and Gospels and did
distribute them and if they didn't, you wouldn't
know what they said. An as a matter of fact,
Paul did instruct a letter to be distributed.
--
Pastor Dave
Expand and go out into the ocean of your faith.
God doesn't do His deepest work in the shallowest
part of the water.
The world says that seeing is believing.
The Bible says that believing is seeing.
Doctrine is not Scripture.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	29 Jun 2007 09:37:39 AM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 09:03:29 -0400, Pastor Dave <noway@nowhere.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 20:56:08 -0700, "Fr. Daniel Garguillio,
DD" <drgargoyle@hotmail.com> spoke thusly:

Note: "has taught". You keep using this past tense
and yet, want to include everything your church
says today.

Actually, the Thessalonians were called "more noble"
for doing just that. They did not automatically believe
Paul, but "searched the Scriptures daily, to see whether
those things were so".

You pulled a boo-boo. It was the Bereans, not the Thessalonians. But
the concept is correct.

Hence, Christ never said to His Apostles, "Go and write Bibles
and distribute them

And yet, they wrote letters and Gospels and did
distribute them and if they didn't, you wouldn't
know what they said. An as a matter of fact,
Paul did instruct a letter to be distributed.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	29 Jun 2007 11:47:49 AM

The problem with choosing church over scripture is that the church,
that is, the Medieval Catholic Church commanded The Inquisition, with
all it's almost impossible lunacies and cruelties.
Surely an institution that created such atrocities cannot be thought
"infallible" in any way.
The problem with trusting scripture alone (sola scriptura) is that it
creates a kind of Disneyland of bizarre and often murderous sects,
like David Koresch, Jim Jones, and that bloated monstrosity called
"The Religious Right."
You Christians are in quite an intellectual pickle, aren't you?
Ylem
.

User: "BAM"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	30 Jun 2007 07:57:35 AM

<primordial_ylem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183135669.819662.292330@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Perhaps you need to study history. The Inquisition was going on in Spain, by
the Spanish government before the Church got involved. The Church stepped in
to prevent unjust executions since they rightly felt that the Spanish
officials did not have the theological expertise to conduct a just
investigation. BTW, inquisitions were not invented by the Church. Jesus
Christ Himself was the victim of an inquisition, quite in line with biblical
proscription:
Deuteronomy 17:2 "If there is found among you, within any of your towns
which the Lord your God gives you, a man or woman who does what is evil in
the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 and has
gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any
of the host of heaven, which I have forbidden, 4 and it is told you and you
hear of it; then you shall inquire diligently, and if it is true and certain
that such an abominable thing has been done in Israel, 5 then you shall
bring forth to your gates that man or woman who has done this evil thing,
and you shall stone that man or woman to death with stones. 6 On the
evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses he that is to die shall be
put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one
witness. 7 The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him
to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the
evil from the midst of you.
BAM
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	30 Jun 2007 09:13:06 AM

On Jun 30, 5:57 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:

<primordial_y...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1183135669.819662.292330@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Perhaps you need to study history. The Inquisition was going on in Spain, by
the Spanish government before the Church got involved.

Utter non-sense. The Spanish Bishops were hand-in-glove with the
secular authorities and this is not new knowledge.

The Church stepped in
to prevent unjust executions since they rightly felt that the Spanish
officials did not have the theological expertise to conduct a just
investigation.

How in the world does one conduct a "Just Inquisition?" There is no
such thing.

BTW, inquisitions were not invented by the Church. Jesus
Christ Himself was the victim of an inquisition, quite in line with biblical
proscription:

Yes, indeed. The people who crucified the Nazarine, the Roman
Imperialists, with a little help from Jewish collaborators, became The
Church. Your Church did on to the so-called "heretics" and witches
what the Romans and their whores did to Jesus.
Apparently, the wheels of moral insight turn rather slowly in the
infallible Church!
Ylem
.

User: "BAM"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	01 Jul 2007 11:31:54 AM

<primordial_ylem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1183212786.060973.5250@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 30, 5:57 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:

<primordial_y...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1183135669.819662.292330@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Perhaps you need to study history. The Inquisition was going on in Spain,
by
the Spanish government before the Church got involved.

Utter non-sense. The Spanish Bishops were hand-in-glove with the
secular authorities and this is not new knowledge.

You know nothing.

The Church stepped in
to prevent unjust executions since they rightly felt that the Spanish
officials did not have the theological expertise to conduct a just
investigation.

How in the world does one conduct a "Just Inquisition?" There is no
such thing.

You are not in command of reality. (fortunately)

BTW, inquisitions were not invented by the Church. Jesus
Christ Himself was the victim of an inquisition, quite in line with
biblical
proscription:

Ruff ruff, oink oink, meow, whinnie.

Apparently, the wheels of moral insight turn rather slowly in the
infallible Church!

All moral insight comes from the Church. You certainly have none.
BAM
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	01 Jul 2007 11:44:40 AM

On Jul 1, 9:31 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:

<primordial_y...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1183212786.060973.5250@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 30, 5:57 am, "BAM" <mcca5...@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote:

<primordial_y...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1183135669.819662.292330@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

Perhaps you need to study history. The Inquisition was going on in Spain,
by
the Spanish government before the Church got involved.

Utter non-sense. The Spanish Bishops were hand-in-glove with the
secular authorities and this is not new knowledge.

You know nothing.

Well, in all humility, I know that you are wrong. And I know that the
Inquisition is morally indefensible.

The Church stepped in
to prevent unjust executions since they rightly felt that the Spanish
officials did not have the theological expertise to conduct a just
investigation.

How in the world does one conduct a "Just Inquisition?" There is no
such thing.

You are not in command of reality. (fortunately)

But that doesn't answer the question! How do you defend inserting a
grinding device into a woman's vagina and ripping her sex organs apart
in order to force a confession on a dubious charge of "witchcraft?"
Witches are, at most, silly people babbling nonsense. Surely those
claiming "infallible" knowledge would know this?!
Those church employed totures were as barbaric as anything the Nazis
did!
How could an "infallible" church sanction such hideous crimes against
humanity and reason?
Would Jesus approve?

BTW, inquisitions were not invented by the Church. Jesus
Christ Himself was the victim of an inquisition, quite in line with
biblical
proscription:

Ruff ruff, oink oink, meow, whinnie.

And that's your response to a serious question? Are you a child?

Apparently, the wheels of moral insight turn rather slowly in the
infallible Church!

All moral insight comes from the Church. You certainly have none.

BAM

I would NEVER torture and burn alive anyone over an abstraction.
Ylem
.

User: "duke"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	01 Jul 2007 12:55:23 PM

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:44:40 -0700,

wrote:

Well, in all humility, I know that you are wrong. And I know that the
Inquisition is morally indefensible.

In all humility, can you suggest the number of capital punishments carried out
in the Inquisition?
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	02 Jul 2007 09:18:25 AM

On Jul 1, 10:55 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 09:44:40 -0700,

wrote:

Well, in all humility, I know that you are wrong. And I know that the
Inquisition is morally indefensible.

In all humility, can you suggest the number of capital punishments carried out
in the Inquisition?

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

I'd have to look that up. I've seen figures for the numbers of witches
burned placed at 40,000 to 50,000. I think the total numbers for those
murdered by the Church in all catagories could reach 100,000.
I don't think the numbers are important.
The point is this; these hideous methods of torture and execution -
literally for nothing - indicate clearly that The Church is not
infallible.
The doctrine of infallibility cannot be sustained in light of the
obvious abuses of power that have been perpetrated by that
institution.
And the "auto de fe" went on until the 19th century!
Ylem
.

User: "duke"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	02 Jul 2007 05:14:34 PM

On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 07:18:25 -0700,

wrote:

In all humility, can you suggest the number of capital punishments carried out
in the Inquisition?

I'd have to look that up. I've seen figures for the numbers of witches
burned placed at 40,000 to 50,000.

I've seen 30.000 supposed witches burned by the protest_ants.

I think the total numbers for those
murdered by the Church in all catagories could reach 100,000.
I don't think the numbers are important.

The best estimate of inquisition capital punishments is 3500. But nobody knows
for sure.

The point is this; these hideous methods of torture and execution -
literally for nothing - indicate clearly that The Church is not
infallible.

The Church inquired about heresy, most of which was tossed out with a good
confession or a retreat. The capital punishments were carried out by civil
authorities.

The doctrine of infallibility cannot be sustained in light of the
obvious abuses of power that have been perpetrated by that
institution.

The doctrine of infallibility has nothing to do with the Inquisition. The
doctrine of infallibility addresses revelation by the Holy Spirit re Chrisistan
dogma that is not clearly spelled out in scripture. There have only been 2 such
pronouncements, and they have been in the last few hundred years. The Pope can
only speak ex cathedra, or infallibly, in matter of faith and morals, and I
seriously doubt that has anything to do with the Inquisiton..

And the "auto de fe" went on until the 19th century!
Ylem

I don't know about an auto de fe, but the European Inquisiton addressed heresy
amongst Christians.
It might well be that the Spanish Inquisition took a more nasty path.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	29 Jun 2007 01:58:20 PM

wrote:

The problem with choosing church over scripture is that the church,
that is, the Medieval Catholic Church commanded The Inquisition, with
all it's almost impossible lunacies and cruelties.
Surely an institution that created such atrocities cannot be thought
"infallible" in any way.

The problem with trusting scripture alone (sola scriptura) is that it
creates a kind of Disneyland of bizarre and often murderous sects,
like David Koresch, Jim Jones, and that bloated monstrosity called
"The Religious Right."

===>Hence my Law of Sects:
FOR EVERY SECTARIAN DOCTRINE
THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE SECTARIAN DOCTRINE
EACH CLAIMED TO BE BASED ON THE BIBLE
AND THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT.

You Christians are in quite an intellectual pickle, aren't you?

===>They suffer from various degrees of Cognitive Dissonance, their
intelligent mind telling them that truth, yet their beliefs override
it by using "faith" as the sole evidence needed. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	29 Jun 2007 01:38:45 PM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:58:20 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:

primordial_ylem@yahoo.com wrote:

The problem with choosing church over scripture is that the church,
that is, the Medieval Catholic Church commanded The Inquisition, with
all it's almost impossible lunacies and cruelties.
Surely an institution that created such atrocities cannot be thought
"infallible" in any way.

The problem with trusting scripture alone (sola scriptura) is that it
creates a kind of Disneyland of bizarre and often murderous sects,
like David Koresch, Jim Jones, and that bloated monstrosity called
"The Religious Right."

===>Hence my Law of Sects:
FOR EVERY SECTARIAN DOCTRINE
THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE SECTARIAN DOCTRINE
EACH CLAIMED TO BE BASED ON THE BIBLE
AND THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT.

You Christians are in quite an intellectual pickle, aren't you?

===>They suffer from various degrees of Cognitive Dissonance, their
intelligent mind telling them that truth, yet their beliefs override
it by using "faith" as the sole evidence needed. -- L.

Naah. We have faith because of evidence and substance, as the Bible
says. It is you heathens who are in the intellectual pickle, not
knowing the scriptures, but spouting off about them anyway.
Go figure
Checker
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	29 Jun 2007 07:07:05 PM

wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:58:20 -0700, Libertarius
<Libertarius@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:

primordial_ylem@yahoo.com wrote:

The problem with choosing church over scripture is that the church,
that is, the Medieval Catholic Church commanded The Inquisition, with
all it's almost impossible lunacies and cruelties.
Surely an institution that created such atrocities cannot be thought
"infallible" in any way.

The problem with trusting scripture alone (sola scriptura) is that it
creates a kind of Disneyland of bizarre and often murderous sects,
like David Koresch, Jim Jones, and that bloated monstrosity called
"The Religious Right."

===>Hence my Law of Sects:
FOR EVERY SECTARIAN DOCTRINE
THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE SECTARIAN DOCTRINE
EACH CLAIMED TO BE BASED ON THE BIBLE
AND THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT.

You Christians are in quite an intellectual pickle, aren't you?

===>They suffer from various degrees of Cognitive Dissonance, their
intelligent mind telling them that truth, yet their beliefs override
it by using "faith" as the sole evidence needed. -- L.

Naah. We have faith because of evidence and substance, as the Bible
says.

===>NOT TRUE!
It says that faith IS "the evidence".
You misread or deliberately misinterpret what it says.
"faith is the substance of things hoped for,
the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
READ IT AGAIN:
"faith IS...THE EVIDENCE".
It is you heathens who are in the intellectual pickle, not

knowing the scriptures, but spouting off about them anyway.

===>Proving once more that most of us nonbelieving "heathens"
happen to KNOW THE BIBLE much better than most of you ignorant
believers. -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: "duke"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	29 Jun 2007 01:53:21 PM

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:38:45 -0600,

wrote:

Way to go, checker. I may develop some faith in you yet.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	29 Jun 2007 07:11:10 PM

duke wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:38:45 -0600,

wrote:

Way to go, checker. I may develop some faith in you yet.

===>You obviously are as ignorant as your Protestant fellow
believers.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things
not seen." Hebrews 11:1 KJV
READ IT AGAIN:
"faith IS...THE EVIDENCE.'
If yiou prefer the Catholic version, it says the same thing:
"Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for,
the evidence of things that appear not."
AGAIN: "Faith IS...THE EVIDENCE." -- L.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	29 Jun 2007 02:16:02 PM

On Jun 29, 11:38 am,

wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:58:20 -0700, Libertarius

<Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:

primordial_y...@yahoo.com wrote:

The problem with trusting scripture alone (sola scriptura) is that it
creates a kind of Disneyland of bizarre and often murderous sects,
like David Koresch, Jim Jones, and that bloated monstrosity called
"The Religious Right."

===>Hence my Law of Sects:
FOR EVERY SECTARIAN DOCTRINE
THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE SECTARIAN DOCTRINE
EACH CLAIMED TO BE BASED ON THE BIBLE
AND THE HOLY GHOST/SPIRIT.

You Christians are in quite an intellectual pickle, aren't you?

===>They suffer from various degrees of Cognitive Dissonance, their
intelligent mind telling them that truth, yet their beliefs override
it by using "faith" as the sole evidence needed. -- L.

I don't know if I qualify as a "heathen" - the definition changes with
promiscuous frequency -
but I do know the Bible and I have seen no evidence that it confirms
what you have chosen to believe.
Ylem
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: The Church Or The Bible	29 Jun 2007 07:14:39 PM

wrote:

On Jun 29, 11:38 am,

wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 11:58:20 -0700, Libertarius

<Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:

primordial_y...@yahoo.com wrote: