Author Topic: Separation of church and state  (Read 30576 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bass_nut

  • Trade Count: (+17)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,825
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #120 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 01:06 AM »
i agree sir aHobbit.. Church can excommunicate the member which was exactly my cited example.. can't provide dorian further infos other than that as i believe i have to maintain respect to parties involved.

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #121 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 05:03 AM »


(3) the church, as used here pertains to their hierarchy of leadership (as to the RC). However, the Bible made no mention of hierarchy in church. If you read DPOGS post, you will note that the only headship in the church is CHRIST! The present hierarchy of RC is not in the Bible. I am not saying it is wrong - it is how they wanted to administer and organize themselves - But as far as the Bible is concerned, they are not the church. Again, at best, they are just representative of the RC organization.



And bottomline, all commercial dealing of the church should be subjected to tax ... unless the state exempted them from therein ... thus, non-payment is not automatic as if it is a mandated default since they are operated by "religious" organization!

let me just correct this misconception

the heirarchy of the Church is in the Bible

the Aposltes are the leaders of the Church.  they have appointed Bishops as their successors.  as helpers of the Bishops you have the Presbyters (priests) and the Deacons.  Paul even makes mentions of who are worthy to occupy such positions

besides, sino ba nauna?  Church, Tradition o Bible?  the Bible cannot dictate the Church because the Church pre-dates the bible by 300 years.  in fact, even the earliest written piece that appears of the Bible didn't come into existence 20-30 years after Christ established the Church.

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #122 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 05:11 AM »

I dont know how old you are ... if there are no people who left the catholic church, those that are already high in the hierarchy ... then probably we are still all guessing here. And you sound as if we dont know the facts just because it runs counter to your assessments ... why? are all that the RC did in time past not documented at all? Or just like the NAZI, are you denying them altogether now?

I will not hurl stone ... I will just quote those documents ... but I dont need to ... they are still open books till now!

What substantiation do you need ... for me to enumerate them all? I can do that ... but for what reason ... because you are not aware of it? I just have Zaide way back in my HS in 1976!

i'm 33 years old

i'm saying a lot of the accusations are baseless and nothing but blowing up issues.  i'm not saying that those who occupied positions in the Church are sinless.  far from it, i recognize all human beings living on earth as equal, all sinners.  not just because you're pope mean you cannot sin.  that would deny him of his humanity and therefore the choice to love God and be saved.

this is what happens.  one issue occurs, and those who seek to paint the Church in a negative light would make it sound like everyone in the Church does it.  its like saying, there are many snatchers in Cubao, therefore everyone in Cubao are snatchers

and whatever happened to innocent 'til proven guilty?  it seems people like hurling accusations without substantiating them.  yes, there are those who have fallen and sinned within the Church, as much as outside.  but before you raise your finger in accusation, make sure that you are pointing at the right person.  because many in the Church are still true to their vows and their calling.  i'm asking people to be fair for the vast majority who are innocent, do not lump them together with the small minority who are guilty


Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #123 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 05:42 AM »
So in the hypothetical case that these countries you've identified as underpopulated suddenly impose extra stringent immigration policies that severely limit the number of people that can migrate then the burden of overpopulation becomes their problem because they won't open their borders to immigrants? Sa kanila natin isisisi kung bakit madaming tao sa ibang bansa?  ::)

i think worldwide politics is to blame.  every country should open their boarders.  given this day and age, we realize more than ever how small the planet is.  i think there should be a global government with a global economy.  resources are being used as political tools now, like oil.  each person in each country needs a good complement of resources and yet a small number of countries would control a huge portion of a certain resource.

i guess thats why i moved to Canada, we have the second largest land area, second largest known deposit of oil, and the largest amount of fresh water in the world, heheheheh

That's like a person who decides to keep cats as pets and then allows them to breed unchecked to the point that there's just no more room in his house and he can barely feed them.  And instead of acknowledging that he has an overpopulation problem in his house, he says that it's not a problem of too many cats, its about distributing the cats to all of the houses in the neighborhood who has room for them so that they can assume the problem of taking care of these animals and looking for extra money to feed them.

You really thought this one through.  ::)

well, the issue here is that the neighbors are complaining that they don't have enough cats and they're being runover by mice.  so what do you do?

fact is, the world as a whole is not overpopulated.  only certain countries are overpopulated within their borders.  population redistribution was never a problem until recently.  in the past you can easily move into another country or kingdom without much hassle as it is today

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #124 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 06:14 AM »
Murder, as defined, is already 'unlawful'. The neutral term is homicide. Yes, there are lawful forms of homicide. Such as the death penalty.

nice of you to bring this up
there are a lot of murders being legalized out there.  of course the death penalty has been there since time immemorial, but in the last century or so we have more new things like abortion and assisted suicides.  so at what point are we going to say NO to death?  i'm sure pretty soon there'll be more and more reasons to kill someone legally.  i'm just guessing here, but if a child has some sort of disability that will prevent them from living a normal life and become a financial burden, maybe the parents will be allowed at some point in the future to kill the child.  and that initiative won't come from parents.  it may be forced on them by insurance companies or the government who currently fund for the care of the disabled in the Western world.  and when the Western world approves of such, it will be only a matter of time before countries like the Philippines would follow suit.

Why can't each denomination have their own little heavens? Or parts of heaven walled off? That way, everyone can think they're the only ones there. :D

learning a little bit more about the Christian faith would provide the answer

the main theme of the Bible is oneness, oneness with God and one another and that oneness is achieved by love.  to have separate heavens means we're not one.  that is why God presents Himself as a Father to all, because we are to be one big family

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #125 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 06:42 AM »
Hi Choy,

I like the way you dissect the issues - my comments in blue  :)

thanks!

we may have vague reference to church. in separation of church & state, it is the hierarchical leadership of the laymembers vs the heirarchical leadership of the citizen (the state). So you are correct in saying they remain the same one church

the oneness of the Church doesn't really rely on the leadership here on earth, but the ultimate leadership in heaven, which is God.  to be one with the Church is not just being merely a member of the Church but being of one mind with the Church in essential beliefs.  not in every belief, but the essential ones.  and this doesn't remove your freedom of choice, you can choose.  just that your choice will lead you away from the Church.  remember, every choice has a consequence

The state is never answerable to the church in its state functions - neither the church answerable to the state in its church functions. The church should inspire and encourage the laymember to be an active agent to bring about good & righteous governance in the state as a citizen (not the church). The state should protect the right of the citizen in areas of faith

the issue here is how do you divide legal and moral issues?  the Church would have to interfere with the matters of the state when what the state wants to do will lead to immorality among the citizenry.  and the state would interfere with the Church if faith practices cross the line of legality.  that is why you see there are raids of cults who lead people to illegal acts, like polygamy or brainwashing them to commit mass suicide.  the same way the Church needs to stand up to the government if they try to lead the people to commit immoral acts by decalring these legal.

people have the wrong notion of Separation of Church and State.  they thing that because they are separated, doesn't mean they shouldn't be meddling in the business of one another.  thats not true.  they both exist in the same society and their members are the same people, how can they not cross paths?

separation of Church and State merely implies that the State should not be governed by the Church directly and that the State should not have an official Religion which it sponsors.

This is a lie peddled by some politicians on us & sadly some of the church leadership. However, the church is also being extreme in this manner, putting their weight on the state as if they are political power that the state should deal with. Faith can never be separated from our daily dispense of our responsibility as citizen. In fact, faith will influence us how we conduct ourselves in our respective state. Thus, it is imperative for all laymembers to  assert their voice as citizens in the state - influence the decision making process of the state - through the exercise of rights as a citizen. THUS, it is perfectly alright for a priest torun for public office if he is exercising his right as a citizen and influence the decision of state toward good governance according to his personal faith leaning as a state unit administrator/lawmaker

fully agree.  like i said before, the members of the Church and the visible leaders are all Filipino Citizens, why can't they have a say on the matter?  people like Korina Sanches would voice their opinions on their talk shows and that influences a great many.  why don't we complain about them?  they become powerful with their radio talk show or TV show.

Yup. But let it be clear that the conduct of commercial business by the church is in no way a church function, but an exercise that is within the control/regulation of the state. For this reason, business (even if it is held by religious organization) should be answerable to the state by way of taxes and compliance to business rules. Sadly, this is gravely abused by some institutions. They usually do not exercise social responsibilities.

not sure how stock investments are taxed in the Philippines, but bank deposits are taxed at the source, so it gets fairly taxed.

and don't think its the religious organizations that are the only ones "abusing" this.  many private companies try to save on taxes by making contributions to charities and religious organizations

exempting religion from tax is actually part of a government's responsibility of ensuring that religious practice continues within its territory.  if churches are not tax exempt, then contributions are not tax exempt, which means less people contributing, which means churches will lose money, close down, and organized religion will fade away.

Again, this is a function of the state. and if ever in US, such was accomodation was given to the church, then that's good. If the citizen will lobby for a law be enacted by the state to copy same exemption in your area - then perhaps it will be implemented - but this is a state function.

yup, i know.  but i think the BIR won't be too happy by extending the exemption.  and besides, they've already made strides to ensure that income tax filings are automated.  most employees get their ITRs automatically filed for them, to minimize fraud

The best that I can think of is that Cardinal Sin encouraged the citizens to exercise their rights as citizens - that is perfectly okay. In fact such exercise is not limited to the catholic hierarchy. And mind you it is not the church that paved the way for EDSA - it is the collective efforts of every individual exercising his responsibility as a citizen - not as a church! Pardon me - I always got a feeling that CBCP is laying claim on the success of EDSA1. I disagree - it is the laymembers of the church execising their social responsibilities as a citizen under a state.

i'd give them that place in history.  remember how instrumental the Church was for EDSA.  Radyo Veritas is a Catholic Radio station and Cardinal Sin made that plea from his radio show, if i'm not mistaken.  i'm not saying their the solely responsible for EDSA 1, but they're at the forefront

This is the new world view which I advocate. All well-meaning laymembers should actively involved in politics (affairs of the state) and not disregard it as something contrary to ones faith - this is simply not true. We should not let all those ungodly people running the state in chaos and utmost disregard for good governance & order. We should be in the forefront in influencing sensible & reasonable laws that will aleviate our challenges and difficulties.

sadly, the culture within our political system is highly corrupt, and even most religious people who enter it would be corrupted.  i guess it needs a special kind of person with extremely solid morals to withstand the pressures of corruption.  the problem also with our system is if you fight the system, those who enjoy the corruption will surely bring you down, one way or another.  its a "our way or the highway" kind of thing

But good governance (state function) is about the collective protection and equal treatment of people. It is not about imposing ones' belief toward another. it should not traverse against individual belief/faith. Thus, ARMM is not batting for state functions - they want it a combo state/church functions! and thus should be stopped at all cost - as we should voice out for the scrapping of such

well, the ARMM is a way to satisfy their wants without having to resort to a completely independent islamic state in Mindanao.  if you force them into the common legal system of the Philippines, they will just continue to rebel.  its really a touchy situation.  how do you satisfy both side of those who agree and oppose it?

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #126 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 06:45 AM »
and how do you achieve that population distribution, is this doable?

the business model of the catholic church - the more the people the more money it gets - baptism - marriage - death- daily collections etc. well its all bout money.

again, i'm saddened by such baseless accusations

there are many smaller religions with less members who makes more money

the Church doesn't want population control because its the natural thing to do.  fighting the design of God, which is the human body, brings a lot of evils into the world.

i already find Filipino society very promiscous.  i can only imagine how far we'll take it if contraceptives become freely available.

Offline alistair

  • Trade Count: (+5)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 348
  • Hi, I'm new here!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #127 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 09:05 AM »
i already find Filipino society very promiscous.  i can only imagine how far we'll take it if contraceptives become freely available.
See that's the thing. I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

I look around, and see teenage girls who're barely breaking out wearing skimpy shorts and spaghetti straps in public. I have to ask, how come girls in my time would only be wearing those at home?

Kids these days are experimenting at an earlier age. It's not uncommon for them to lose their virginity before they legally adult. In our time, you'd be lucky to get to third base in high school.

Are contraceptives to blame for any of all that? No, contraceptives don't cause promiscuity.

If we make condoms illegal, will that change anything? I don't think so.

Yes, you can probably argue that condom ads can encourage promiscuity, so ban condom ads like we ban cigarette ads if you want. Just note that, the ban on cigarette ads didn't stop smoking, either.

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #128 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 09:20 AM »
See that's the thing. I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

I look around, and see teenage girls who're barely breaking out wearing skimpy shorts and spaghetti straps in public. I have to ask, how come girls in my time would only be wearing those at home?

Kids these days are experimenting at an earlier age. It's not uncommon for them to lose their virginity before they legally adult. In our time, you'd be lucky to get to third base in high school.

Are contraceptives to blame for any of all that? No, contraceptives don't cause promiscuity.

If we make condoms illegal, will that change anything? I don't think so.

Yes, you can probably argue that condom ads can encourage promiscuity, so ban condom ads like we ban cigarette ads if you want. Just note that, the ban on cigarette ads didn't stop smoking, either.

i agree, contraceptives are not to blame for that
but it does make the problem worse.  seeing as there is already a problem now, why fan the flames?

and you know what, contraceptives will not solve the population issue.  so what next after contraceptives fail?  abortion?  it only leads to greater evil

Offline RU9

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • “While we have time, let us do good”
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #129 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 09:56 AM »
again, i'm saddened by such baseless accusations
This is one basis:

http://godlessliberalhomo.blogspot.com/2008/02/chruch-construction-billion-dollar.html

from the article:

Most atheists have realized what a racket religion can be. Just the construction of megalomaniacal megachurches is a billion dollar business. Christians try to justify their faith by saying how much churches help the poor, but look where so much of the money is going. It reminds me of the Middle Ages where the Catholic Church built enormous, ornate cathedrals while most people were in miserable poverty.


i already find Filipino society very promiscous.  i can only imagine how far we'll take it if contraceptives become freely available.


It's not only the Filipinos, i have  my basis,look at the rankings. Canada is on the top ten.

PROMISCUITY RANKINGS OF MAJOR COUNTRIES*
1 United Kingdom
2 Germany
3 Netherlands
4 Czech Republic
5 Australia
6 USA
7 France
8 Turkey
9 Mexico
10 Canada

from:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article5257166.ece



« Last Edit: Mar 05, 2010 at 10:19 AM by RU9 »

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #130 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 06:07 PM »
let me just correct this misconception

the heirarchy of the Church is in the Bible

the Aposltes are the leaders of the Church.  they have appointed Bishops as their successors.  as helpers of the Bishops you have the Presbyters (priests) and the Deacons.  Paul even makes mentions of who are worthy to occupy such positions

besides, sino ba nauna?  Church, Tradition o Bible?  the Bible cannot dictate the Church because the Church pre-dates the bible by 300 years.  in fact, even the earliest written piece that appears of the Bible didn't come into existence 20-30 years after Christ established the Church.


I have to answer you ...  ;)

The church in the Bible is not referred to as an organization of a specific religion (or sect if you will).

However, the church you are refering to here is the RC (minus all those professing Christianity in the form of protestants) - and RC dogma will show that!

The headship of the church is CHRIST.

There is no mention in the Bible that the apostleship is transferrable to the next generation.

The offices mentioned in the Bible is not really to designate officers that will lead the church - but rather, to orderly dispense various gifts that are useful for the development and growth toward maturity of a true believer. Thus, church in the New Testament is somehow used in two (2) forms. (1) the universal church - collective and (2) the local church - groups in certain areas.

Of course, priest there is. But as you read the letter of Peter, the priests are referred to the individual believer - that is, a believer in Christ is a priest in God, because he have direct access to God through Jesus - not the RC version, which was copied from the Jews in the exercise of their sacrifice rituals in the temple (in the Old Testament), that is, only the priest can perform sacrifices and have access to God.

This RC version of priests have been invalidated already when Christ died on the cross, ripping the separation of the HOLY of HOLIES (where the cevenant of GOD is placed access only by priests) and the place where people waits for the priest.


SINO ANG NAUNA!

There is no church if there is no basis! The basis is JESUS ministry - then His death - and then the ministry through the apostles.

Such basis is the foundation - though may not be written at that time, have been passed by faithful followers of Christs - and later written by God's faithful men for preservation.

The gospel according to Matthew - by a Jewish tax collector (If my memory does not fail)
Mark - by Paul's assistant in his ministry tothe Gentiles
Luke - by a greek doctor
John - the Beloved (I am not sure)

Then followed by theepistles (letters ) to vartious local churches.

So to answer your question - The Bible, though not yet written physically & compiled as it is now, surely preceed the church, for it is the very foundation of the exercise of the Christian faith.


The epistles have warned about those tradition, which early on, are becoming mixed with "Christian" looks! For if the Bible can not be made the basis of the church, and tradition is hardly documented and accepted by Bible scholars as something that is "inspired by God" just like the rest of the books of the Bible - then we have big problems here! But RC needed that to lay to all its claims of being the true church!

As you have pointed out, only the written (compiled) Bible was written 20-30 years after CHRIST established the church! And this basis (scriptures) now compiled and made available to the common man prompted Martin Luther's expose! But this does not mean, the letters of the Bible was not there when CHRIST established the church.
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #131 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 06:23 PM »
You may also point out that the church started with Peter - when JESUS said "upon this rock".

carefully - JEsus called peter "petros" - a small rock.

But Jesus used the word PEtra - the foundation rock - as the church foundation - which does not refer to Peter, but to JESUS himself. And rightly so, because the church foundation should be somebody not as fallible/fickle-minded as Peter, but somebody as steady as Jesus - and He is also the HEAD of it.

This is further shown by many passages pertaining to the foundation as JESUS, and not Peter. And in the letter of Peter to a local church, all believers are referred to as "stones" (petros) just like Peter, which is making up the whole church - whose foundation is Christ, the columns the apostles & martyrs, and the walls all the believers, and the top is CHRIST also.


1 Corinthians 3:11
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ


Ephesians 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


1 PETER 2
 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
 6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
 7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,


MARK 12
 10And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:
« Last Edit: Mar 05, 2010 at 06:31 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #132 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 06:49 PM »
i'm 33 years old

i'm saying a lot of the accusations are baseless and nothing but blowing up issues.  i'm not saying that those who occupied positions in the Church are sinless.  far from it, i recognize all human beings living on earth as equal, all sinners.  not just because you're pope mean you cannot sin.  that would deny him of his humanity and therefore the choice to love God and be saved.

this is what happens.  one issue occurs, and those who seek to paint the Church in a negative light would make it sound like everyone in the Church does it.  its like saying, there are many snatchers in Cubao, therefore everyone in Cubao are snatchers

and whatever happened to innocent 'til proven guilty?  it seems people like hurling accusations without substantiating them.  yes, there are those who have fallen and sinned within the Church, as much as outside.  but before you raise your finger in accusation, make sure that you are pointing at the right person.  because many in the Church are still true to their vows and their calling.  i'm asking people to be fair for the vast majority who are innocent, do not lump them together with the small minority who are guilty




I stand corrected if it is how you establish our common ground ... that the church are not them (the leaders who form part of the church) ... but they are individual, as fallible as man.


I also said that not all in the org does the same thing.
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #133 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 06:51 PM »
i think worldwide politics is to blame.  every country should open their boarders.  given this day and age, we realize more than ever how small the planet is.  i think there should be a global government with a global economy.  resources are being used as political tools now, like oil.  each person in each country needs a good complement of resources and yet a small number of countries would control a huge portion of a certain resource.

i guess thats why i moved to Canada, we have the second largest land area, second largest known deposit of oil, and the largest amount of fresh water in the world, heheheheh

well, the issue here is that the neighbors are complaining that they don't have enough cats and they're being runover by mice.  so what do you do?

fact is, the world as a whole is not overpopulated.  only certain countries are overpopulated within their borders.  population redistribution was never a problem until recently.  in the past you can easily move into another country or kingdom without much hassle as it is today

Dont worry ... one world and one currency is in the works ... it is part of the prophecy hinting the end times!
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #134 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 07:08 PM »
My comments in RED now  :D


...

the issue here is how do you divide legal and moral issues?  the Church would have to interfere with the matters of the state when what the state wants to do will lead to immorality among the citizenry.  and the state would interfere with the Church if faith practices cross the line of legality.  that is why you see there are raids of cults who lead people to illegal acts, like polygamy or brainwashing them to commit mass suicide.  the same way the Church needs to stand up to the government if they try to lead the people to commit immoral acts by decalring these legal.

--> am afraid there is a thin hair dividing line... seems to me church (leadership) is flexing its muscles and acts as political entity! To me, the citizens (part of the church now being part of the state) should stand up and be heard. I think the church leaders should just rally their members - not the leaders dooing the rattlings against the government - they are not supposedly political.


people have the wrong notion of Separation of Church and State.  they thing that because they are separated, doesn't mean they shouldn't be meddling in the business of one another.  thats not true.  they both exist in the same society and their members are the same people, how can they not cross paths?

--> But the church (leaders), as far as the state is concerned, is not only the RC hierarchy! The church (the members) together with other well-meaning co-minded as to specific issues should voice out as (now) citizens whose rights have been violated (if this is the case). The church leaders (as citizens) an do so as citizens as well.


and don't think its the religious organizations that are the only ones "abusing" this.  many private companies try to save on taxes by making contributions to charities and religious organizations

--> but the church (hierarchy) should exemplify the "right" thing if they want credibility! Otherwise, refrain!


well, the ARMM is a way to satisfy their wants without having to resort to a completely independent islamic state in Mindanao.  if you force them into the common legal system of the Philippines, they will just continue to rebel.  its really a touchy situation.  how do you satisfy both side of those who agree and oppose it?



--> its not about their religion IMHO ... it is about political will and corruption issues of the ruling government!
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #135 on: Mar 05, 2010 at 07:15 PM »
See that's the thing. I think you're looking at it the wrong way.

I look around, and see teenage girls who're barely breaking out wearing skimpy shorts and spaghetti straps in public. I have to ask, how come girls in my time would only be wearing those at home?

Kids these days are experimenting at an earlier age. It's not uncommon for them to lose their virginity before they legally adult. In our time, you'd be lucky to get to third base in high school.

Are contraceptives to blame for any of all that? No, contraceptives don't cause promiscuity.

If we make condoms illegal, will that change anything? I don't think so.

Yes, you can probably argue that condom ads can encourage promiscuity, so ban condom ads like we ban cigarette ads if you want. Just note that, the ban on cigarette ads didn't stop smoking, either.


Failure of the church I would say (parenting guidelines, DepEd influence) ... and now the government is trying to prevent more damage (AIDS, unwanted birth) by distributing condoms ... and church say no to it, and if succeeded ... the state has to strategize another fire-fighting mechananism to prevent massive infections ... and the cycle go nowhere but worse.

It would be better for the church to make actions on their own and make their counter educations using their collected money, make louder noise to drown the state pronouncements ... than just rants no end for a problem which the state is seeing as emminent.
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #136 on: Mar 06, 2010 at 04:18 AM »
You may also point out that the church started with Peter - when JESUS said "upon this rock".

carefully - JEsus called peter "petros" - a small rock.

But Jesus used the word PEtra - the foundation rock - as the church foundation - which does not refer to Peter, but to JESUS himself. And rightly so, because the church foundation should be somebody not as fallible/fickle-minded as Peter, but somebody as steady as Jesus - and He is also the HEAD of it.

This is further shown by many passages pertaining to the foundation as JESUS, and not Peter. And in the letter of Peter to a local church, all believers are referred to as "stones" (petros) just like Peter, which is making up the whole church - whose foundation is Christ, the columns the apostles & martyrs, and the walls all the believers, and the top is CHRIST also.

1 Corinthians 3:11
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ


Ephesians 2:20
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


1 PETER 2
 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
 6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
 7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,


MARK 12
 10And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:


sorry, this is an age old argument that has already been flushed down the toilet many times

what language is Petra and Petros?  its greek.  did Jesus and the Apostles speak in Greek?  no.  they spoke Aramaic.  Jesus never called Simon as Petra nor Petros.  He called him Cephas (or Kephas in some translations) which is Aramaic for Rock.  when Gospels were written, they were written in Greek which is the equvialen of what English is today, a worldwide common language.  now, the problem is Petra has a feminie attribute while Petros is masculine.  the same way you don't call a guy Michelle and a girl Michael.  that is why in Greek they had to refer to Simon's new name as Petros, simply because he's a guy.  but Jesus never called him Petros, he was called Cephas, which means Rock.

also, read along the Acts and all of the Epistles from the Apostles.  the Church has already been established and it has structure, and that structure is the same structure similar to what the Catholic Church is today.  and many times in the Bible the authority of the Church is mentioned.  so if the Church was not established on Peter by Jesus, what is this Church that has authority that they mention?

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #137 on: Mar 06, 2010 at 04:24 AM »

Failure of the church I would say (parenting guidelines, DepEd influence) ... and now the government is trying to prevent more damage (AIDS, unwanted birth) by distributing condoms ... and church say no to it, and if succeeded ... the state has to strategize another fire-fighting mechananism to prevent massive infections ... and the cycle go nowhere but worse.

It would be better for the church to make actions on their own and make their counter educations using their collected money, make louder noise to drown the state pronouncements ... than just rants no end for a problem which the state is seeing as emminent.

i wouldn't attribute parenting failure to the Church.  why?  why do people like to pass on the failure of their parenting to anyone else?  you're the parent, you take responsibility.  example, a lot of emphasis on the media for violent shows that would negatively affect children.  i grew up watching the violent robot anime, i didn't become a violent person.  why?  i attribute it to good parenting.  since i was little i knew that superman was fake, so i shouldn't be trying to jump off the window to immitate him.  that cartoons aren't real, so i shouldn't be trying to immitate Voltes V or Daimos or Maziner Z.  if those cartoons influenced me to be a bad person, its not the fault of those who made the cartoons, its the fault of my parents who didn't teach me any better

condoms will not cut down on AIDS or unwanted births.  trust me.  there are still a ton of pregnant teenagers in the US and here in Canada were kids get sex education in highschool and get free contraceptives.  there are still tons of STDs going around.  in fact, in the US, 40% of people have Herpes.  explain that.  they have all these condom programs, why is it that 2 out of 5 people still have Herpes?  these contraceptives are not the solution to the problems.  in fact, they only introduce more problems of their own

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #138 on: Mar 06, 2010 at 04:48 AM »

I have to answer you ...  ;)

The church in the Bible is not referred to as an organization of a specific religion (or sect if you will).

However, the church you are refering to here is the RC (minus all those professing Christianity in the form of protestants) - and RC dogma will show that!

The headship of the church is CHRIST.

no one is debating that issue.  the seat of Peter occupied by the Pope is just the physical leadership on this earth.  the doctrine in the Catholic Church as taught by Jesus and the Apostles is that the Church extends beyond earth, into heaven.  that is why we have the Church Militant (those still on earth) and the Church Triumphant (those in heaven) and the Communion of Saints (the oneness of believers on earth and in heaven).  Jesus Christ is the overall head of the Church, he is the Head and the Church is the Body.  Peter nor his successors never replaces Christ, they just lead the Church on earth and make sure that everyone stay true to the doctrines instituted by Christ.  they have received the authority from Christ and this authority is important so that no one may make misleading teachings, which has been happening constantly over the years

There is no mention in the Bible that the apostleship is transferrable to the next generation.
oh, but there are tons of references

Paul didn't start preaching until he received the authority to do so from Ananias, who is a bishop of the Church
also, Acts 1 shows how new Apostles are "ordained" into the brotherhood, when Peter and the Apostles chose Mattias to replace Judas

The offices mentioned in the Bible is not really to designate officers that will lead the church - but rather, to orderly dispense various gifts that are useful for the development and growth toward maturity of a true believer. Thus, church in the New Testament is somehow used in two (2) forms. (1) the universal church - collective and (2) the local church - groups in certain areas.

the Universal Church is the Catholic Church (greek Katholikos - english translation - Universal)
and the dispensal of these gifts are the Sacraments of the Church, which is validly dispensed by those who inherited the authority to do so by Apostolic Succession.  as is today, there are only two religions with valid Apostolic successions, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.  to a lesser extent, the Anglican Church has some validity in their succession (they have valid priests but not valid bishops)

Of course, priest there is. But as you read the letter of Peter, the priests are referred to the individual believer - that is, a believer in Christ is a priest in God, because he have direct access to God through Jesus - not the RC version, which was copied from the Jews in the exercise of their sacrifice rituals in the temple (in the Old Testament), that is, only the priest can perform sacrifices and have access to God.

of course all of us are called to be priests, but to receive the authority as presbyters, as helpers of the bishop in sheperding the flock of Christ, we have to receive this authority.  you can read in the Acts that no one just becomes a bishop or priest or deacon just because they want to.  they laying of hands is important in imparting the authority from someone who has the valid authority, which they received through a succession from the Apostles themselves, who received such authority from Jesus

This RC version of priests have been invalidated already when Christ died on the cross, ripping the separation of the HOLY of HOLIES (where the cevenant of GOD is placed access only by priests) and the place where people waits for the priest.

if this version has been invalidated, why did Peter and Paul and the other Apostles appoint presbyters?  presbyters = priests


SINO ANG NAUNA!

There is no church if there is no basis! The basis is JESUS ministry - then His death - and then the ministry through the apostles.

Such basis is the foundation - though may not be written at that time, have been passed by faithful followers of Christs - and later written by God's faithful men for preservation.

The gospel according to Matthew - by a Jewish tax collector (If my memory does not fail)
Mark - by Paul's assistant in his ministry tothe Gentiles
Luke - by a greek doctor
John - the Beloved (I am not sure)

Then followed by theepistles (letters ) to vartious local churches.

So to answer your question - The Bible, though not yet written physically & compiled as it is now, surely preceed the church, for it is the very foundation of the exercise of the Christian faith.

nope, wrong

firstly, the Church existed 20-30 years even before the first New Testament scripture was written.  because the Church was established by Jesus on Peter.  at the time Jesus said, "...I will build My Church".  from then on, the Church of Jesus Christ began to exist, through Him and His Apostles who he then commanded to "make disciples of all nations."

the earliest that any of the new testament books were written were in 50AD, which is 20 years after Jesus Christ has died and risen and ascended into heaven.  and even then, these were just letters, nothing more.  it would take another 300 years before the books were compiled and canonized into the bible we have today.

and even so, there were more letters and books going around the early Church than what we have in the Bible today.  so what separates the books and letters in the Bible today from those that were excluded?  who's authority is it that decided the books were to be included or excluded?

The epistles have warned about those tradition, which early on, are becoming mixed with "Christian" looks! For if the Bible can not be made the basis of the church, and tradition is hardly documented and accepted by Bible scholars as something that is "inspired by God" just like the rest of the books of the Bible - then we have big problems here! But RC needed that to lay to all its claims of being the true church!

As you have pointed out, only the written (compiled) Bible was written 20-30 years after CHRIST established the church! And this basis (scriptures) now compiled and made available to the common man prompted Martin Luther's expose! But this does not mean, the letters of the Bible was not there when CHRIST established the church.

nope, the letters of the Bible were not there when Christ established the Church because they weren't written yet.  in fact, more than half of the New Testament is written by Paul or one of his scribes, and none of them were with Christ.

and you know why Martin Luther placed such emphasis on the Bible?  because he had no authority!  he wanted to take authority away from the Church and place it in a book.  for 1500 years, no one believes that the Bible is the final authority.  and by giving all authority to the Bible, people are now in danger of Biblio-idolatry.  why?  because too much emphasis, too much power is given to a book.  God is more than just a book.  for all of the history of Christianity and even the Jews, no one gave so much emphasis to a book.  so why all of a sudden Luther came up with such an unfounded idea?

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #139 on: Mar 06, 2010 at 04:49 AM »
Dont worry ... one world and one currency is in the works ... it is part of the prophecy hinting the end times!

i was thinking more of the Star Trek Utopian world

too bad selfishness gets in the way of true cooperation among mankind

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #140 on: Mar 06, 2010 at 05:58 AM »
This is one basis:

http://godlessliberalhomo.blogspot.com/2008/02/chruch-construction-billion-dollar.html

from the article:

Most atheists have realized what a racket religion can be. Just the construction of megalomaniacal megachurches is a billion dollar business. Christians try to justify their faith by saying how much churches help the poor, but look where so much of the money is going. It reminds me of the Middle Ages where the Catholic Church built enormous, ornate cathedrals while most people were in miserable poverty.

i hardly believe blogs are sources for unbiased reports

or are you one of those, "if its on the web, it must be true"

hint, majority of the Charitable organizations in the world are religion-based.  and the biggest of which is the Catholic Church (collectively).  don't think the Church is just hoarding the money it receives

It's not only the Filipinos, i have  my basis,look at the rankings. Canada is on the top ten.

PROMISCUITY RANKINGS OF MAJOR COUNTRIES*
1 United Kingdom
2 Germany
3 Netherlands
4 Czech Republic
5 Australia
6 USA
7 France
8 Turkey
9 Mexico
10 Canada

from:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article5257166.ece

i'm not comparing promiscouity in the Philippines with the western world.  we know that western countries are more "liberalized" in ideas like that
« Last Edit: Mar 06, 2010 at 05:59 AM by choy »

Offline RU9

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • DVD Addict
  • ***
  • Posts: 634
  • “While we have time, let us do good”
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #141 on: Mar 06, 2010 at 01:54 PM »
i hardly believe blogs are sources for unbiased reports
or are you one of those, "if its on the web, it must be true"

If you don't like blogs, here is the original press release.
http://www.lambert-edwards.com/press_room/read/47
http://www.lambert-edwards.com/about_us/history


i'm not comparing promiscouity in the Philippines with the western world.  we know that western countries are more "liberalized" in ideas like that

Yes I know, you were saying "i already find Filipino society very promiscous". That was only based on your belief, but comparing to other societies, we are not.

Offline barrister

  • Trade Count: (+7)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,028
  • cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #142 on: Mar 07, 2010 at 11:15 AM »
sorry, this is an age old argument that has already been flushed down the toilet many times

what language is Petra and Petros?  its greek.  did Jesus and the Apostles speak in Greek?  no.  they spoke Aramaic.  Jesus never called Simon as Petra nor Petros.  He called him Cephas (or Kephas in some translations) which is Aramaic for Rock.  when Gospels were written, they were written in Greek which is the equvialen of what English is today, a worldwide common language.  now, the problem is Petra has a feminie attribute while Petros is masculine.  the same way you don't call a guy Michelle and a girl Michael.  that is why in Greek they had to refer to Simon's new name as Petros, simply because he's a guy.  but Jesus never called him Petros, he was called Cephas, which means Rock. ...

That argument is the Catholic apologist's standard answer.  

I've studied that verse for a long time.  It is not true that the opposing view has long been discredited.
 
Matthew 16:18 states:

καγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Πέτρος/petros), and upon this rock (πέτρᾳ/petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Aramaic word Kepha/Cephas is flexible, and it can mean a boulder, a rock or a small stone.  There's another Aramaic word, "shua" that specifically means a stone, although Bible scholars say the word "shua" was probably not yet available at the time the Gospels were written.

John used the Aramaic "Kepha" (rendered phonetically in Greek as "Kephas"), but he still translated it as "stone" rather than "rock", corroborating the rendition of Matthew 16:18 which referred to Peter as "stone" rather than "rock":

ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.

And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas (Κηφᾶς/Kephas), which is by interpretation, A stone (Πέτρος/petros). (John 1:42, KJV)

Based on biblical usage of the word "petra", the alleged grammatical prohibition against the masculine usage of the word petra is doubtful.  If that were so, then 1 Corinthians 10:4 would not have called Christ "petra" [feminine gender]:

καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (πέτρας/petras) that followed them: and that Rock (πέτρα/petra) was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4, KJV)

Another example is "sophia" (wisdom).  Sophia is the feminine form, yet "sophia" was used to refer to Christ as the "wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24).


« Last Edit: Mar 07, 2010 at 12:31 PM by barrister »

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #143 on: Mar 07, 2010 at 05:29 PM »
sorry, this is an age old argument that has already been flushed down the toilet many times

what language is Petra and Petros?  its greek.  did Jesus and the Apostles speak in Greek?  no.  they spoke Aramaic.  Jesus never called Simon as Petra nor Petros.  He called him Cephas (or Kephas in some translations) which is Aramaic for Rock.  when Gospels were written, they were written in Greek which is the equvialen of what English is today, a worldwide common language.  now, the problem is Petra has a feminie attribute while Petros is masculine.  the same way you don't call a guy Michelle and a girl Michael.  that is why in Greek they had to refer to Simon's new name as Petros, simply because he's a guy.  but Jesus never called him Petros, he was called Cephas, which means Rock.

also, read along the Acts and all of the Epistles from the Apostles.  the Church has already been established and it has structure, and that structure is the same structure similar to what the Catholic Church is today.  and many times in the Bible the authority of the Church is mentioned.  so if the Church was not established on Peter by Jesus, what is this Church that has authority that they mention?

I already pointed the verses that speak Jesus is the chief cornerstone --- the foundation of the church ... and not Peter. The same is in the prophetic words of the Old Testament which foresaw the coming of Messiah - not of Peter!

Further, passages have been indicated that all the apostles are in equal footing in the establishment of the church. A church of which foundation is Jesus and whose head is Jesus.

The RC heirarchy has no biblical basis because it was just derived from (whose?) traditions ... and since RC takes tradition higher than the Bible, that's where all the contradiction of RC belief and the biblical accounts comes in.

That's why, for me, if you regard tradition as your primary ground and not the Bible ... there is no point in arguing ... just don't sound as if your doctrines are grounded on the Bible of which it is not ... it is more of the papal announcements which is considered infallible, and thus, doctrine to the RC - regardless whether the Bible agree with it or not!

So its makes sense your claim that these claims have been flushed out the toilet by your traditions ... and so thus your traditions flushed out to the toilet by Biblical truths!

« Last Edit: Mar 07, 2010 at 06:25 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #144 on: Mar 07, 2010 at 06:04 PM »
My answers in green  ;)

no one is debating that issue.  the seat of Peter occupied by the Pope is just the physical leadership on this earth.  the doctrine in the Catholic Church as taught by Jesus and the Apostles is that the Church extends beyond earth, into heaven.  that is why we have the Church Militant (those still on earth) and the Church Triumphant (those in heaven) and the Communion of Saints (the oneness of believers on earth and in heaven).  Jesus Christ is the overall head of the Church, he is the Head and the Church is the Body.  Peter nor his successors never replaces Christ, they just lead the Church on earth and make sure that everyone stay true to the doctrines instituted by Christ.  they have received the authority from Christ and this authority is important so that no one may make misleading teachings, which has been happening constantly over the years
oh, but there are tons of references

-->  This has been openly exposed by Martin Luther citing biblical doctrines/passages. The pope was never figured in the New Testament.

Paul didn't start preaching until he received the authority to do so from Ananias, who is a bishop of the Church
also, Acts 1 shows how new Apostles are "ordained" into the brotherhood, when Peter and the Apostles chose Mattias to replace Judas

--> the appointment of Mattias is just to replace Judas … not to perpetuate apostleship … the qualification of apostleship necessitates that you have been an eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry & death … and Paul qualifies as such. The subsequent generations can not be!


the Universal Church is the Catholic Church (greek Katholikos - english translation - Universal) and the dispensal of these gifts are the Sacraments of the Church, which is validly dispensed by those who inherited the authority to do so by Apostolic Succession.  as is today, there are only two religions with valid Apostolic successions, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches.  to a lesser extent, the Anglican Church has some validity in their succession (they have valid priests but not valid bishops)

--> The subsequent division in the Catholic (Universal) Church are more politics than religion - so we have RC (as qualifier) … apostolic succession is not a Biblical doctrine … it is just a tradition used to justify RC hierarchical organization at present


of course all of us are called to be priests, but to receive the authority as presbyters, as helpers of the bishop in sheperding the flock of Christ, we have to receive this authority.  you can read in the Acts that no one just becomes a bishop or priest or deacon just because they want to.  they laying of hands is important in imparting the authority from someone who has the valid authority, which they received through a succession from the Apostles themselves, who received such authority from Jesus

if this version has been invalidated, why did Peter and Paul and the other Apostles appoint presbyters?  presbyters = priests

--> I undestand appointment of presbyters & bishops (church leaders), not priest, as if to officiate sacrifices (similar to old testament) … this is priest RC continue to propagate, together with their unbiblical) doctrine holy eucharist, the person who can only access holy of holies, as shown in putting those bread in a temple-like location with veil in it! …

But of course, it is perfectly fine for it to be called unbiblical … simply because tradition is more important to RC!



nope, wrong

firstly, the Church existed 20-30 years even before the first New Testament scripture was written.  because the Church was established by Jesus on Peter.  at the time Jesus said, "...I will build My Church".  from then on, the Church of Jesus Christ began to exist, through Him and His Apostles who he then commanded to "make disciples of all nations."

the earliest that any of the new testament books were written were in 50AD, which is 20 years after Jesus Christ has died and risen and ascended into heaven.  and even then, these were just letters, nothing more.  it would take another 300 years before the books were compiled and canonized into the bible we have today.

and even so, there were more letters and books going around the early Church than what we have in the Bible today.  so what separates the books and letters in the Bible today from those that were excluded?  who's authority is it that decided the books were to be included or excluded?

nope, the letters of the Bible were not there when Christ established the Church because they weren't written yet.  in fact, more than half of the New Testament is written by Paul or one of his scribes, and none of them were with Christ.

and you know why Martin Luther placed such emphasis on the Bible?  because he had no authority!  he wanted to take authority away from the Church and place it in a book.  for 1500 years, no one believes that the Bible is the final authority.  and by giving all authority to the Bible, people are now in danger of Biblio-idolatry.  why?  because too much emphasis, too much power is given to a book.  God is more than just a book.  for all of the history of Christianity and even the Jews, no one gave so much emphasis to a book.  so why all of a sudden Luther came up with such an unfounded idea?


--> and here lies the crux of RC belief … tradition, of questionable origin, passed on to people … and comparing it to Biblical text will you find it tremendously wanting … simply because tradition has more weight the Biblical truths.

Even if you question at what authority is the present Bible accepted as God’s word or not in a Christian world is just another way of saying the Bible can not be taken as source of correct doctrine, and that we can not derived all our beliefs from the Bible … This is RC which I have known long ago … which propagated a lot of rituals (traditions) not known in the Bible … typically a mixture of paganistic practices wrapped with some “Christian” looks!

And this is the reason RC never, early on, wanted Bible distribution to common man, because all RC’s claims will be expose just by reading the Bible (which happened to Martin Luther).

And sensing that Bible distribution can not be stopped, it necessitated to warn their faithful not to interpret the Bible on their own way.

But in this age of ours, proclamation of the unadulterated gospel is now possible because the only thing one has to do is take time to read the Bible, and be serious at it!


« Last Edit: Mar 07, 2010 at 06:33 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline aHobbit

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • DVD Guru
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,256
  • Think HARDER - HOLLOW Heads! No FO0Ls Please!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #145 on: Mar 07, 2010 at 06:42 PM »
i wouldn't attribute parenting failure to the Church.  why?  why do people like to pass on the failure of their parenting to anyone else?  you're the parent, you take responsibility.  example, a lot of emphasis on the media for violent shows that would negatively affect children.  i grew up watching the violent robot anime, i didn't become a violent person.  why?  i attribute it to good parenting.  since i was little i knew that superman was fake, so i shouldn't be trying to jump off the window to immitate him.  that cartoons aren't real, so i shouldn't be trying to immitate Voltes V or Daimos or Maziner Z.  if those cartoons influenced me to be a bad person, its not the fault of those who made the cartoons, its the fault of my parents who didn't teach me any better

condoms will not cut down on AIDS or unwanted births.  trust me.  there are still a ton of pregnant teenagers in the US and here in Canada were kids get sex education in highschool and get free contraceptives.  there are still tons of STDs going around.  in fact, in the US, 40% of people have Herpes.  explain that.  they have all these condom programs, why is it that 2 out of 5 people still have Herpes?  these contraceptives are not the solution to the problems.  in fact, they only introduce more problems of their own


And here should the church influence their members to be in the know ... for if the church (RC) can not sway its membership (in correct parenting) the right way, why bother the state who will influence the citizens to be protected?

IF the state have not initiated its own prerogative in sex education, how do you know the occurrence of promiscuous practices will not increase than its present numbers?

Those tons of numbers does not in any way invalidated the state's initiative - for all we know it maybe much much larger had the state not done its own mandate!
« Last Edit: Mar 08, 2010 at 05:05 PM by aHobbit »
Anti PDVD Malware (STUP1Ds & F0OLs)

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #146 on: Mar 09, 2010 at 06:27 AM »

And here should the church influence their members to be in the know ... for if the church (RC) can not sway its membership (in correct parenting) the right way, why bother the state who will influence the citizens to be protected?

IF the state have not initiated its own prerogative in sex education, how do you know the occurrence of promiscuous practices will not increase than its present numbers?

Those tons of numbers does not in any way invalidated the state's initiative - for all we know it maybe much much larger had the state not done its own mandate!

and how does the RH bill sway people into right parenting?

like i said, most western countries have these programs for decades, and they're still in the same mess as the Philippines is.

not because people are taught to use contraceptives means they will use them.  there are many things you are taught in school that you didn't use

and don't blame the Church.  how many people don't even pay attention to the priest when he's making his sermons?  most are daydreaming or tapping away on their cellphones.  and if the Church tries to be more proactive, people like you protest that you are being forced into something you do not want to do.

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #147 on: Mar 09, 2010 at 06:32 AM »
That argument is the Catholic apologist's standard answer.  

I've studied that verse for a long time.  It is not true that the opposing view has long been discredited.
 
Matthew 16:18 states:

καγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Πέτρος/petros), and upon this rock (πέτρᾳ/petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The Aramaic word Kepha/Cephas is flexible, and it can mean a boulder, a rock or a small stone.  There's another Aramaic word, "shua" that specifically means a stone, although Bible scholars say the word "shua" was probably not yet available at the time the Gospels were written.

John used the Aramaic "Kepha" (rendered phonetically in Greek as "Kephas"), but he still translated it as "stone" rather than "rock", corroborating the rendition of Matthew 16:18 which referred to Peter as "stone" rather than "rock":

ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· σὺ εἶ Σίμων ὁ υἱὸς Ἰωάννου, σὺ κληθήσῃ Κηφᾶς, ὃ ἑρμηνεύεται Πέτρος.

And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas (Κηφᾶς/Kephas), which is by interpretation, A stone (Πέτρος/petros). (John 1:42, KJV)

Based on biblical usage of the word "petra", the alleged grammatical prohibition against the masculine usage of the word petra is doubtful.  If that were so, then 1 Corinthians 10:4 would not have called Christ "petra" [feminine gender]:

καὶ πάντες τὸ αὐτὸ πνευματικὸν ἔπιον πόμα· ἔπινον γὰρ ἐκ πνευματικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας, ἡ πέτρα δὲ ἦν ὁ Χριστός.

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock (πέτρας/petras) that followed them: and that Rock (πέτρα/petra) was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:4, KJV)

Another example is "sophia" (wisdom).  Sophia is the feminine form, yet "sophia" was used to refer to Christ as the "wisdom of God" (1 Corinthians 1:24).

sophia was never used as a name for Jesus.  its just an attribute
Peter can never be called Petra by name because he is male

you're missing the point there

all those other attributed given to Jesus are attributes, it was never his name.  therefore they don't have to be gender specific.  throughout the Bible, God has been given Feminine attributes, but never was He called God the Mother, its always The Father.  because The Father is His name.

if petra is used to describe Simon as an attribute, then yes.  but Simon was renamed into Peter, thus Petra is unacceptable.  its not an attribute anymore but a name

Offline choy

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Collector
  • **
  • Posts: 314
  • Hello!
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #148 on: Mar 09, 2010 at 07:12 AM »
aHobbit, please don't put your reply into the quotes because its hard for me to reply to them afterwards


Martin Luther seeked to justify his new church, and therefore he had to find ways to discredit a Church that has existed for 1500 years.

even by schism, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have existed 500 years before Luther, but they never came up with what Luther has.  why?  because both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches carry the tradition faithfully from the time of the Apostles.  what Luther did was disregard that history and threw it out and kept only what only agrees with his point of view.  its easy to say that Luther was right with what he has to prove it, because he basically establish a belief that would disregard any other fact from other credible sources.


but the Apostleship did perpetuate.  Saul became Paul and is an Apostle.  even Mark eventually earned the rank of Apostle.

Paul was not an eyewitness to Jesus.  he never saw Jesus preach on earth.  he never lived in Jerusalem.  and even though he received a vision from Jesus, he still had to be baptized and receive the laying of hands from Ananias, who is a bishop


the subsequent division of the Catholic Church into the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches was due to some doctrinal disagreements.  but those disagreements are not as major as the doctrines introduced by the reformists.  essentially the Catholics and Orthodox still remain true to the Apostle's Creed, and still carry the teachings and traditions of the Apostles.  that is why they are the valid Church.  where as the Protestants threw away the history of the Church, which disregarded what the Apostles actually taught


Holy Eucharist is biblical.  John 6 speaks mostly about this where Jesus explicitly says that only those who eat His flesh and drink His blood will gain eternal life.  and the breaking of the bread is done throughout Acts and mentioned in some of Paul's epistles.  also, even ancient Christian artifacts have revealed that in the center of Christian gatherings back then was a dinner table.  because Christ instructed the Apostles to do the Eucharist in memory of Him

also, it seems you don't understand much about the roles of Bishops, Preists/Presbyters and Deacons.  Priests are essentially the helpers of Bishops.  Deacons are proclaimers of the Gospel and helpers of the priests.  Priests are there in the stead of the Bishop, but themselves have no authority over teachings.  they can't decide to change practices on their own as this authority comes from the bishop.  the bishop is the only one who has authority (the Pope is himself a Bishop).  this is the same way how it was in the first century onwards.  in fact, if you read the writings of those who we call the Church Fathers (early centure bishops right after the apostles), you will see that all the practices and traditions has been the same since then until today (with minor improvements of course)


the reason Luther outlawed tradition because if you look to tradition, it would instantly invalidate all the lies he has propagated.  tradition has been very important since the past, with Abraham, with Moses and all the Jews all the way to the time of Jesus.  in fact, nothing in the history of Christianity and Judaism ever threw out tradition until the time of the Reformation.  why?  simply because Luther needed to validate himself.  or to be more accurate, Luther needed to remove any evidence that will invalidate him.

tradition has always been there.  Paul himself told in his letters that people should stick to the teachings AND TRADITIONS that he and the other Apostles have taught them.  and these are in the matters of questioning what to do.  because at that point the people were confused on what to do and what to follow, and Paul was away.  so who should they ask?  Paul gave them a straight answer, teachings and traditions.  if traditions were to be done away with, why did Paul tell the people this?


Martin Luther you're forgetting is a Catholic Priest.  he always had access to the Bible

the Church never thought of distribution of the Bible because the Bible is not central to Christian faith.  imagine, there were Christians for 325 years before the Bible was made.  even the Jews who memorize scripture, never had copies of scripture at home.  the rolls of scriptures were kept in the temple and the synagogues, not in their homes.  so the Church had the same practice.  scripture were kept in the Church, not in people's homes.  people needed to learn about Jesus from teachings from their elders, those who have been taught to teach and have received the authority to teach.

and so now you can see what great evil Martin Luther has brought to the world.  everyone who picks up a bible thinks hes instantly a bible scholar.  this is why there's roughly 33,000 different denominations of Protestants in the world.  each one with their own different interpretation of the teachings of Christ.  but there are not 33,000 different teachings, there is one.

Offline dpogs

  • Trade Count: (+95)
  • PinoyDVD Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,397
  • love and discipline
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 483
Re: Separation of church and state
« Reply #149 on: Mar 09, 2010 at 09:40 AM »
COPIED


Rocks and Stones

Question: Please comment on the following argument which I read in a Catholic website. It can be summarized like this:

  • Jesus spoke Aramaic. So, what Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’
  • The Aramaic word kepha is translated petra or petros in Greek. The two words are synonyms in first century Greek.
  • Jesus could not have said, ‘You are petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’ because that would have entailed giving Simon a feminine name. So, Jesus changed the ending of the noun to render it masculine. “You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church.”
  • That is the real reason why Jesus employed two different words and not as Protestants argue, that ‘this rock’ may refer to something or somebody else other than Peter.

Answer: The question about the papacy is broader than the interpretation of petros and petra in Matthew 16:18. Do not be fooled by Catholic apologists who make a big deal about ‘this rock’ as if the papacy is vindicated if it could be proved that ‘this rock’ refers to Peter. This passage says nothing about universal jurisdiction, successors or Roman bishops.

Even if this can be conclusively proven (and I think it cannot), it does not confirm the papacy, i.e. the universal rule of the bishop of Rome over the whole church. In fact there is a sense in which the apostle Peter, together with the other apostles and the prophets, form the foundation of the church because the Gospel was first given through them. This has nothing to do with the claimed universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome as the Roman apologist would have us believe.

But let me just deal with the convoluted Aramaic/Greek argument that you kindly sent to me.

It is true that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. But how do the Catholic scholars know what Jesus said in the Aramaic language, since all the existing manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew are written in Greek? You realize that this business of what Jesus must have said in Aramaic is pure speculation. I don’t know what were Jesus’ original words in Aramaic, neither do our Catholic friends. Should we build an argument - indeed the structure of the church of Jesus Christ - on mere speculations?

The Catholic apologist bends over backwards to convince us that petros and petra are equivalent Greek words that mean the same thing. They say that it is merely a question of different gender ending. The truth of the matter is that these are two distinct Greek words with similar, but not identical meaning. According to the Greek Lexicon, petros is “a rock or a stone”, whereas petra is “a rock, cliff or ledge.” Jesus illustrates the meaning of petra as a massive foundational rock: “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock” (Matthew 7:27).

Still, assuming they know what Jesus originally said in Aramaic, the Catholic apologist goes on to explain why Jesus employs the two different Greek words. He puts these words in the mouth of a Protestant missionary:

"Wait a second," he said. "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"

To this the Catholic apologist answers triumphantly:

“Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings. You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.”

So that’s why He uses Petros! Not to give Simon a feminine name!

But I’m sure that the reader can think of a third option. Contrary to the Catholic apologist assertion, He had another choice!

Why not use petros in the second part of the sentence if the Holy Spirit wanted to make it absolutely clear that He was building His church on the son of Jona, and avoid the gender problem? If petra and petros mean the same thing (as the Catholic apologist insists), Jesus could have said:

“Thou art PETROS and upon this PETROS I will build my church.”

There, the third option! That way any ambiguity would have been avoided – if indeed Jesus wanted to identify the foundation rock with the apostle Peter! Needless to say, that is not what Jesus said. Rather, He said:

“Thou are PETROS and upon this PETRA I will build my church.”

Christ insisted on a distinction! At the very least we can say that the rock upon which the church is built could refer to something other than Peter.

So, rather than speculate on Jesus’ original words in Aramaic, we should study the inspired words of the Holy Scriptures, and in Matthew 16:18, the Holy Spirit employed two different words to distinguish between ‘Peter’ and ‘the rock’. That is what we can say with certainty.

I hope you can see the emptiness of the Catholic argument. They want it to sound that it is obviously clear that Jesus built His church on Peter. It is not so. And though any Catholic reading this article may not be inclined to trust me, I would appeal to you to listen to St Augustine’s explanation of this message:

“For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my church. For the Rock (petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation no man lay that this is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” (Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John).

"This rock" is Peter's confession; the rock, the foundation is Jesus Christ!
[/list]
There is none righteous, no not one.