Some questions from Roman Catholics...
-
what sedition act? He might not even be Singaporean.Originally posted by fymk:Why should I ask? He would have justified it instead of playing with words. He is the one who is edging dangerously near the Sedition Act. Not me.
if you want him to justify, he can. We know 'cos we are here long enough.
-
On this matter, you are correct, the phrase "holy catholic church" used in the Apostle's Creed is generally used to refered to as the universal church of God and not the Roman Catholic Church.Originally posted by fymk:Ask the anglicans when they say the apostle's creed. Why there is a catholic in it.
Oh yeah here is the definition from the web too :
Catholic (literally meaning: according to (kata-) the whole (holos) or more generally "universal") is a religious term with a number of meanings: * The term can refer to the notion that all Christians are part of one Church, regardless of denominational divisions -
It is because you quoted the Apostle's Creed that's why you shot yourself in the foot, IMHO.Originally posted by fymk:I absolutely enjoy the way you take my points out of the context that they were placed in . They were from the Apostle's creed and that perspective would be better seen if you have just bothered to quote the whole comment.
The Creed defines 'church' to be universal church, with Jesus Christ as the head. The layman understanding of church is the registered entity, so when I ask which church you from, do you tell me "I'm from Roman Catholic"?
In short, how can you expect Brey to understanding your 'church' as the RCC? -
Look at how the Creed is translated:Originally posted by vince69:On this matter, you are correct, the phrase "holy catholic church" used in the Apostle's Creed is generally used to refered to as the universal church of God and not the Roman Catholic Church.
Read line 9. Yay .. every Christian should be Anglicans. -
not really, but the reverse may be true, as in All Anglicans should be Christians (as one that belongs to Christ)Originally posted by Icemoon:Look at how the Creed is translated:
Read line 10. Yay .. every Christian should be Anglicans. 
-
Maybe you did not read my edits but here goesOriginally posted by Icemoon:It is because you quoted the Apostle's Creed that's why you shot yourself in the foot, IMHO.
The Creed defines 'church' to be universal church, with Jesus Christ as the head. The layman understanding of church is the registered entity, so when I ask which church you from, do you tell me "I'm from Roman Catholic"?
In short, how can you expect Brey to understanding your 'church' as the RCC?
definitions:
The word is used in two senses: the visible and the invisible church. The visible church consists of all the people that claim to be Christians and go to church. The invisible church is the actual body of Christians; those who are truly saved. The true church of God is not an organization on earth consisting of people and buildings, but is really a supernatural entity comprised of those who are saved by Jesus
And the part about church being defined in terms of denomination:
Roman Catholic: the Christian Church based in the Vatican and presided over by a pope and an episcopal hierarchy
RC which brey brought into dispute is the Christian Church based in Vatican and presided over by a pope and an episcopal hierarchy . That is the context of my definition.
Oh I don't suppose we think brey is that stupid not to know about whether he is degrading the Roman Catholic church intentionally. -
This forum is I suppose in Singapore - so therefore if moderators do not curb seditious behaviour - guess who is responsible?Originally posted by Icemoon:what sedition act? He might not even be Singaporean.
if you want him to justify, he can. We know 'cos we are here long enough.
Brey can justify using the sins of individuals and pin it on the whole church. In every church, Roman Catholic or Protestant churches, not everybody who go to church are saint like. There are always the good and the bad in every organisation. However I do believe that the punishment for the clergy is far worse should they chose to sin after all blasphemy in God's name is a great sin .
I am not indoctrinated heavily to think that individuals within a church are sinless. I am only too aware of the sins that have been committed in the past .
All I know is that I have my belief in God and I prefer tolerant measures than measures of segregating whose church is better or who is right /wrong or whose religion is wrong or right. Wars/Violence happen because of intolerance on all sides. -
Why do you think Brey used the words 'per se'?Originally posted by fymk:And the part about church being defined in terms of denomination:
Roman Catholic: the Christian Church based in the Vatican and presided over by a pope and an episcopal hierarchy
RC which brey brought into dispute is the Christian Church based in Vatican and presided over by a pope and an episcopal hierarchy . That is the context of my definition.
Oh I don't suppose we think brey is that stupid not to know about whether he is degrading the Roman Catholic church intentionally. -
I don't think you have addressed Brey's argument.Originally posted by fymk:This forum is I suppose in Singapore - so therefore if moderators do not curb seditious behaviour - guess who is responsible?
Brey can justify using the sins of individuals and pin it on the whole church. In every church, Roman Catholic or Protestant churches, not everybody who go to church are saint like. There are always the good and the bad in every organisation. However I do believe that the punishment for the clergy is far worse should they chose to sin after all blasphemy in God's name is a great sin .
I am not indoctrinated heavily to think that individuals within a church are sinless. I am only too aware of the sins that have been committed in the past .
All I know is that I have my belief in God and I prefer tolerant measures than measures of segregating whose church is better or who is right /wrong or whose religion is wrong or right. Wars/Violence happen because of intolerance on all sides.
I don't think the argument is about sin per se.
Ahem. -
Like I said we could all go around playing with words but his words used against the Roman catholic church is very clear .Originally posted by Icemoon:Why do you think Brey used the words 'per se'?
Like I also said - tolerance - I believe in God and that is all that matters - all religions lead to some form of good even though it might differ. What I won't tolerate is someone slandering anyone's church without a clear justification or even at least a notion of understanding . -
Originally posted by fymk:
'cos no RC wants to engage Brey in an exegesis showdown, that's why to the audience Brey is doing all the slandering.
Like I said we could all go around playing with words but his words used against the Roman catholic church is [b] very clear .
Like I also said - tolerance - I believe in God and that is all that matters - all religions lead to some form of good even though it might differ. What I won't tolerate is someone slandering anyone's church without a clear justification or even at least a notion of understanding . [/b]
Without any form of discussion, how do you make him learn? -
With all due utmost respect , the definition is per se - by itself.Originally posted by Icemoon:I don't think you have addressed Brey's argument.
I don't think the argument is about sin per se.
Ahem.
The Roman Catholic Church is per se the Roman Catholic Church, as in Brey's context.
I got only this to say for your per se.
I would point out that my dispute with Brey is to to tone down on degradatory remarks and to practice tolerance. That is my main reason why I am even posting in EH. -
Why does he not go approach a theologian from the Roman Catholic church to ask as I suggested ? Instead turning to the forums where laymen are not the clergy. A theologian will be more than qualified to entertain his enquiries.Originally posted by Icemoon:'cos no RC wants to engage Brey in an exegesis showdown, that's why to the audience Brey is doing all the slandering.
Without any form of discussion, how do you make him learn?
I don't go round asking people on the forum on religious doubts because that would be an almost certain waste of time especially when wrong information can be given and verification of correct information on the web can be very tedious.
It is a similar situation to having a very bad pain- would you actually log on the forum to ask why you are having some agonising pain or would you go straight to a hospital where qualified advice would be given? -
Can't you see Brey was confused? You accused him of slandering a church, which to him means a registered entity. That's why he asked you to get your facts straight. At this point in time, you have two choices (as I see it):Originally posted by fymk:With all due utmost respect , the definition is per se - by itself.
The Roman Catholic Church is per se the Roman Catholic Church, as in Brey's context.
I got only this to say for your per se.
I would point out that my dispute with Brey is to to tone down on degradatory remarks and to practice tolerance. That is my main reason why I am even posting in EH.
1. Assume he trying to deny his degradatory remarks.
2. Assume he misunderstood.
Which one more likely? Usually when someone tries to deny his remarks, he will choose not to answer you .. right? -
For once I can agree with you ,when someone tries to deny his remarks , he can choose not to answer me or especially using a play of words.Originally posted by Icemoon:Can't you see Brey was confused? You accused him of slandering a church, which to him means a registered entity. That's why he asked you to get your facts straight. At this point in time, you have two choices (as I see it):
1. Assume he trying to deny his degradatory remarks.
2. Assume he misunderstood.
Which one more likely? Usually when someone tries to deny his remarks, he will choose not to answer you .. right?
Brey has the option of approaching the catholic theologian as I suggested , to clear his profound confusion. He also has an option of disagreeing with the theologian based on his convictions but no more option on throwing degradatory remarks about the Roman Catholic Church -
1. Brey was not asking questions per se. Your reply should be reserved for people like SIS and skyfoo. (read the locked topic in CC)Originally posted by fymk:Why does he not go approach a theologian from the Roman Catholic church to ask as I suggested ? Instead turning to the forums where laymen are not the clergy. A theologian will be more than qualified to entertain his enquiries.
I don't go round asking people on the forum on religious doubts because that would be an almost certain waste of time especially when wrong information can be given and verification of correct information on the web can be very tedious.
It is a similar situation to having a very bad pain- would you actually log on the forum to ask why you are having some agonising pain or would you go straight to a hospital where qualified advice would be given?
2. Your analogy of the bad pain fails. A more appropriate analogy would be non life threatening every-day problems like acne or blocked nose.
A forum is a good place for discussion and learning. The one who reply can choose to do it seriously. If you do it seriously, people will be edified and your mastery of theology and language will increase.
Asking the clergy is good, but can be problematic. Imagine the email correspondence. I don't think they are that free to entertain your follow-up questions. Same for trying to fix an appointment face to face. -
On the contrary, Brey is not confused. Someone who is confused will not write with great convictions like him.Originally posted by fymk:Brey has the option of approaching the catholic theologian as I suggested , to clear his profound confusion. He also has an option of disagreeing with the theologian based on his convictions but no more option on throwing degradatory remarks about the Roman Catholic Church
PS: the one who is confused is CK. After so many topics, no one here has an inkling what he is talking about. -
I agree....Originally posted by Icemoon:the one who is confused is CK. After so many topics, no one here has an inkling what he is talking about.
but brey sound too much like a judaizer anyway..... -
he is erring on the safe side.Originally posted by laoda99:I agree....
but brey sound too much like a judaizer anyway.....
better than preaching things your itching ears like to hear which has been warned in Scripture. -
Originally posted by Icemoon:Can't you see Brey was confused?
Maybe I am the confused oneOriginally posted by Icemoon:On the contrary, Brey is not confused. Someone who is confused will not write with great convictions like him.
Yup, brey writes with great convictions and is probably very clear as to what he is doing, but whether his belief is in sync with generally accepted church teachings or not is another issue. Of course, I realise that "generally accepted" does not necessarily mean that such teachings are correct.
his relentless attacks on Roman Catholic doctrines is already quite famous, so it is quite correct to assume that he does not agree with the RC teachings. -
Originally posted by vince69:The way some folks is using the word "God", "god" in sgforum, I think I too will have to switch to using Yahweh to address God to be able to differentiate the God we christians worship, and the "God", "god" they claim to be.
Brey, don't mind if I copy you ah
I don't think we need to get too hung up about the caps being used. Some times, due that heat of the moment, we forget to press the shift button....Originally posted by laoda99:yeah.........good then.....let's use Yahweh........
I guess we can address God with any of the names mentioned in the Bible, the last thing I want to hear are folks telling me that their particular way is the only way to address God.
Myself...??? I like "El Shaddai" - God Almighty! -
I always tot the issue between jewish christians and gentile christians are long over until Brey brought it up again.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Maybe I am the confused one
Yup, brey writes with great convictions and is probably very clear as to what he is doing, but whether his belief is in sync with generally accepted church teachings or not is another issue. Of course, I realise that "generally accepted" does not necessarily mean that such teachings are correct.
his relentless attacks on Roman Catholic doctrines is already quite famous, so it is quite correct to assume that he does not agree with the RC teachings.
I am sure Brey is not the only one who dun agree with RC teachings, but there is no need to shout heresy all the time. -
exactly! if it boils down to that, there are tons of things to be objectionable in all churches.Originally posted by laoda99:I am sure Brey is not the only one who dun agree with RC teachings, but there is no need to shout heresy all the time. -
use only when necessary....Originally posted by Chin Eng:I don't think we need to get too hung up about the caps being used. Some times, due that heat of the moment, we forget to press the shift button....
I guess we can address God with any of the names mentioned in the Bible, the last thing I want to hear are folks telling me that their particular way is the only way to address God.
Myself...??? I like "El Shaddai" - God Almighty!
God bless. -
Just want to carify, my personal opinion is this (think I must have said this before), there are doctrine that are essentials, and there are the non-essentials.
For those that are essential, we do have to make a stand.
example: if someone is to say we are write our own Bible based on our relationship with God,
or, if someone is to say, we have to add on to what Christ had done for us, by adding onto it our own works ...etc
these are things that to me have to make a stand against.
Others like, whether we are to eat meat/pork or not to eat, to keep long hair or short hair, fast song or slow song, even in regards to the practice of tongues, these are non-essential (personal opinion again), these we can have disagreement on and should not impose on others at all.
shalom peace