wad caused the 'breakaway'?
-
u see icey, from the posts here, its obvious the differences that we have in purpose of coming to this forum. In your arguments, u skew towards a zero-sum game. If you look at my answers or maybe Vince's we bring forth our points and if you dun agree, fine.Originally posted by Icemoon:This is not understanding and certainly not learning.
Let me quote an analogy since Pastor Prince also likes to use analogy. I suppose you like it this way:
If our government only converse their stand (that they need to be high handed) without convincing us, do you think we understand and learn?
No .. we don't.
We only learn the day one of our seditious comment sparks a racial riot and we get engulfed in turmoil.
I am not saying u r right or i am wrong. that isn't my purpose -
anyway, back to work. be back at night!
-
If you can't defend, what does it mean? An indirect admission of defeat?Originally posted by ben1xy:Firstly, icey, how do i answer something that i am not sure of? i posted something, if you disagree, it's fine by me. If i see something i can defend, i will defend. if i can't, i won't.
Secondly, u insist that we reduce God to below Mary? i have clarified that this isn't the case. but if u choose to insist, there is nothing i can do.
I never say it is the official position of the Catholic Church to reduce God below Mary, but that by virtue of the faulty reasoning, it is the logical conclusion. So perhaps you like to examine my reply and check the source yourself?
I suspect many Catholics just quote verbatim, that Mary is "full of grace" without verifying the sources and considering alternate viewpoints.
I say again, we are to be captive to God, not mortals. Whether you have 1 pillar or 3 pillars, the foundation is still God. -
it means that i am not well equipt enough to answer that question. isn't it obvious?Originally posted by Icemoon:If you can't defend, what does it mean? An indirect admission of defeat? -
I wasn't even asking rocket science.Originally posted by ben1xy:it means that i am not well equipt enough to answer that question. isn't it obvious?
The first issue is a matter of comprehension. The "he is true god" is quite obviously referring to God the Father, not Jesus Christ.
The second issue is a matter of evaluating my argument and coming to some sort of conclusion. I have posted the greek verses with explanation. I believe it is very easy for the reader to verify whether I have quoted correctly. My argument was about defending the biblical stand that Stephen was full of grace literally. I have shown that the original greek says so. The website source quoted by one of your brethens tries to downplay the "full of grace" of Stephen. To this my knockdown reply quoted the verse in John that says Jesus is "full of grace", note that the original greek is similar. And I have shown that the major literal translations have agreed with one another. -
Icey, when i tell u then i am not equipt to answer, it means i do not know. The summa was written by Aquinas while he was grappling with the Greeks. Without enough contextual knowledge, i will not even try to speculate why he said those things. The words did not come from my mouth, the only guilt i will admit to is this... i saw this article while surfing the net. i thought it was interesting and i posted it for reading w/o checking. if u dun like it, dun read it. if u disagree, bring up how u disagree. if possible i will help clarify if i know how to. If i can't, there's not more within my means that i can do.Originally posted by Icemoon:I wasn't even asking rocket science.
The first issue is a matter of comprehension. The "he is true god" is quite obviously referring to God the Father, not Jesus Christ.
The second issue is a matter of evaluating my argument and coming to some sort of conclusion. I have posted the greek verses with explanation. I believe it is very easy for the reader to verify whether I have quoted correctly. My argument was about defending the biblical stand that Stephen was full of grace literally. I have shown that the original greek says so. The website source quoted by one of your brethens tries to downplay the "full of grace" of Stephen. To this my knockdown reply quoted the verse in John that says Jesus is "full of grace", note that the original greek is similar. And I have shown that the major literal translations have agreed with one another.
if you do not accept it fine. i stopped. but u were the one who keeps bringing the matter up. this is the 3rd time i am telling you that i do not have the answer. Having said that, your point on St Stephen, i do not have an answer either.
What more do u want me to add? -
I think you are mistaken. We are not learning about the Summa now. So we are not concerned with what Aquinas was thinking. Since the Summa was used as a sort of citation, we have to evaluate it in a "modern light". As opposed to let's say reading the Torah, you can't read it with a modern mentality isn't it?Originally posted by ben1xy:Icey, when i tell u then i am not equipt to answer, it means i do not know. The summa was written by Aquinas while he was grappling with the Greeks. Without enough contextual knowledge, i will not even try to speculate why he said those things. The words did not come from my mouth, the only guilt i will admit to is this... i saw this article while surfing the net. i thought it was interesting and i posted it for reading w/o checking. if u dun like it, dun read it. if u disagree, bring up how u disagree. if possible i will help clarify if i know how to. If i can't, there's not more within my means that i can do.
if you do not accept it fine. i stopped. but u were the one who keeps bringing the matter up. this is the 3rd time i am telling you that i do not have the answer. Having said that, your point on St Stephen, i do not have an answer either.
What more do u want me to add?
Let me give a knockdown example - if a Christian is to use the biblical accounts of slavery to justify slavery today .. then how?
Another example - an atheist denouncing God and the Bible using the biblical accounts of slavery.
I'm sorry, my engrish not powerful, so I try to give examples whenever I can. I hope you see what I am getting.
I think it is shameful that this comes from a research student. When you cite something and was rebuked, do you say address the rebuttal or just dismiss it as "difference of perspective"? And worse, do you abide by the rule that silence is golden?
On my point about Stephen, it is just a matter of evaluating my argument in an intellectual manner. But I don't see my argument getting addressed. -
It is easy to quote one big chunk from the web and says "if you don't like you don't read".
But at least read my replies and give comments mah! -
hmm..interesting thread
-
I think i am finally seeing where you are coming from. It's a shame that u didn't ask where my epistemological perspective was rooted on. I sway towards a post modernist view where truth is a social construct (whether this contradicts my religious perspective and how i reconcile this, we can discuss it another time)Originally posted by Icemoon:Let me give a knockdown example - if a Christian is to use the biblical accounts of slavery to justify slavery today .. then how?
Another example - an atheist denouncing God and the Bible using the biblical accounts of slavery.
I'm sorry, my engrish not powerful, so I try to give examples whenever I can. I hope you see what I am getting.
U do not have to bring in my occupation into this matter. I would think of u better than to do that.Originally posted by Icemoon:I think it is shameful that this comes from a research student.
If it's in an area that i am well-informed or an area where my expertise lie, i will rebutt. If not, i won't. Or are you going to project your values unto me?Originally posted by Icemoon:When you cite something and was rebuked, do you say address the rebuttal or just dismiss it as "difference of perspective"?
fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, icey.Originally posted by Icemoon:And worse, do you abide by the rule that silence is golden?
As can be seen, u seem to be projecting your ettiquette of online foruming unto me. If i think i cannot answer, i wun. Like i mentioned, i treat this forum as a place to take a break between work and readings. when i see things i am interested in, i'll post. -
i got read ah. it's just that i cannot answer mah....Originally posted by Icemoon:It is easy to quote one big chunk from the web and says "if you don't like you don't read".
But at least read my replies and give comments mah! 
-
ok...so we have had lots to discuss abt the breakaway of the protestants from the catholics...lets move on to another breakaway...lets tok abt breakaways within protestants...i am sure u guys have heard of the bible-presbyterians...they broke away from the presbyterians...from wad i noe it was mainly cos the presbyterians were starting to get involve in the charismatic movement...any of u noe other reasons? air them here...
-
I say give some comments.Originally posted by ben1xy:i got read ah. it's just that i cannot answer mah....
I was searching for answers but I wasn't waiting for you to give me the answer. I was waiting for you to post something intelligent so I could see the flaw in my own counter-argument.
And what is something intelligent? It could be as simple as commenting on the logic used to lead the premises to the conclusion.
Which I have tried to do .. using an informal reductio, I have shown that the author's argument necessarily mean that Jesus is below Mary, by virtue that Stephen was only "full of grace" before he died (according to the author) and that the same greek is used in John 1:14.
If the greek words for "full of grace" (c.f. Acts 6:
is used to describe the Lord Jesus Christ, then Catholics better show the phrase some respect.Acts 6:8 And Stephen, full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and signs among the people. (Douay-Rheims)
I ever took the trouble to quote from the authoritative Douay-Rheims bible so no Catholic can say my translation is corrupt. You ever see vince taking the trouble to do that?
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (Douay-Rheims) -
can you please post a new topic?Originally posted by despondent:ok...so we have had lots to discuss abt the breakaway of the protestants from the catholics...lets move on to another breakaway...lets tok abt breakaways within protestants...i am sure u guys have heard of the bible-presbyterians...they broke away from the presbyterians...from wad i noe it was mainly cos the presbyterians were starting to get involve in the charismatic movement...any of u noe other reasons? air them here...
-
Interesting. I look forward to this discussion.Originally posted by ben1xy:I think i am finally seeing where you are coming from. It's a shame that u didn't ask where my epistemological perspective was rooted on. I sway towards a post modernist view where truth is a social construct (whether this contradicts my religious perspective and how i reconcile this, we can discuss it another time)
I thought no one here knows what is epistemology. The ones who know don't frequent this forum often or too bochup to even discuss it.U do not have to bring in my occupation into this matter. I would think of u better than to do that.
If davidche were to hu shuo ba dao, we can forgive him, for he is just a kid. But we can't forgive you if you make elementary mistakes.
If it's in an area that i am well-informed or an area where my expertise lie, i will rebutt. If not, i won't. Or are you going to project your values unto me?
The rules of rhetorics state that if you can't rebutt the premises or logic, you have accepted my argument.
Not my values, but the rules of rhetorics.fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, icey.
Ask you to comment on the author's logic you don't want .. but you so readily pronounce 'fallacy' on me?
As can be seen, u seem to be projecting your ettiquette of online foruming unto me. If i think i cannot answer, i wun. Like i mentioned, i treat this forum as a place to take a break between work and readings. when i see things i am interested in, i'll post.
I was too harsh on you. The issue about Acts 6:8 and full of grace didn't start from you. It was from munyc (sp?) who should be facing the blunt of my verbal attacks.
But you are still responsible for the one on Summa. -
this one i will admit.Originally posted by Icemoon:But you are still responsible for the one on Summa. -
Ok .. I hereby declare that part of Summa inadmissible in the debate.Originally posted by ben1xy:this one i will admit. -
Lets discuss another breakaway.
Why Singapore breakaway from Malaysia -
Start a new topic lah.Originally posted by gasband:Lets discuss another breakaway.
Why Singapore breakaway from Malaysia -
I have to differ.Originally posted by ben1xy:i would agree with u MC that some Catholics have lost their focus. that i do not deny.
If half of the Catholics in Singapore were to have lost focus.
Then is it not SOME Catholics. It is something serious, since it is the originated tradition and teachings.
Unless if we were to agree that (figuratively) out of 1 million, 500,000 is considered 'Some'. Then i rest my case.
-
hmm. how about i rephrase it? Those that attended proper Catechism or RCIA would understand the role that Mary has to play in the Church.Originally posted by M©+square:I have to differ.
If half of the Catholics in Singapore were to have lost focus.
Then is it not SOME Catholics. It is something serious, since it is the originated tradition and teachings.
Unless if we were to agree that (figuratively) out of 1 million, 500,000 is considered 'Some'. Then i rest my case.
1. Mary is not the Mediatrix for we only have 1 Mediator - Christ
2. We honour Mary and do not worship her
This is the official position of the Catholic Church and it's part of the syllabus for people wanting to get baptised into the Catholic Faith -
I understand your position.Originally posted by ben1xy:hmm. how about i rephrase it? Those that attended proper Catechism or RCIA would understand the role that Mary has to play in the Church.
1. Mary is not the Mediatrix for we only have 1 Mediator - Christ
2. We honour Mary and do not worship her
This is the official position of the Catholic Church and it's part of the syllabus for people wanting to get baptised into the Catholic Faith
On my part. I'm looking at the churches which tributes to Mary and the Saints - is half over the total churches in Singapore.
So it tells me alot on the Church leaders' focus.
One question though, how come the priest/bishop would chose to tribute the Church name to Mary or Saints?
What could be the possible reasons? -
haha... I ever saw a "shrine" in the city central of Cebu, dedicated to the worship of the Vigin Mary by the local catholics, really complete with flowers/incense/food stuff, the funny part is that among the offerings, are things like pacifier, milk (in baby bottles), toys for the Baby Jesus in her arms.Originally posted by M©+square:I understand your position.
On my part. I'm looking at the churches which tributes to Mary and the Saints - is half over the total churches in Singapore.
So it tells me alot on the Church leaders' focus.
One question though, how come the priest/bishop would chose to tribute the Church name to Mary or Saints?
What could be the possible reasons?
Can I says all catholics are like this? no, but I have to say, in this case, good doctrinal teaching/training is definitely lacking among the local church.
why, maybe local superstitions had been allowed to creep into the local church practices.
-
Honestly, i am not sure about that.Originally posted by M©+square:I understand your position.
On my part. I'm looking at the churches which tributes to Mary and the Saints - is half over the total churches in Singapore.
So it tells me alot on the Church leaders' focus.
One question though, how come the priest/bishop would chose to tribute the Church name to Mary or Saints?
What could be the possible reasons?
Let me list down the Catholic Churches in S'pore (i will grp them accordind who the churc is dedicated or named after)
God (Encompasses the Trinity of course)
Cathedral of the Good Shepherd
Church of the Sacred Heart
Church of the Holy Trinity
Blessed Sacrament Church
Church of the Holy Cross
Church of Christ the King
Church of the Holy Spirit
Church of the Risen Christ
Church of Divine Mercy
Mary
Church of Our Lady of Lourdes
Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour
Church of Our Lady Queen of Peace
Church of St Mary of the Angels
Church of Our Lady Star of the Sea
Church of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Immaculate Heart of Mary Church
Saints
Church of Ss Peter and Paul
St Joseph's Church
Church of St Bernadette
Church of St Michael
Church of St Teresa
Church of St Stephen
Church of St Francis of Assisi
Church of St Ignatius
Church of St Anthony
Church of St Joseph
Church of St Francis Xavier
Church of St Vincent de Paul
St Anne's Church
Church of the Holy Family - this one's difficult to categorise
On your question on how a Church gets named, i really do not know how to answer. Some probably choose to tribute it to a great misionary like St Francis Xavier. our of respect to our Matyr St Stephen? To follow thesimple faith of St Theresa?
this again is just my guess.
What's more important is to understand what the Church really is. It's not people gathering to pay tribute to the Saints. Rather it's about congregating every week for Mass to worship our Lord Jesus. Although, the church might be named after a Saint or Mary, inside every church is the Terbarnacle which holds the Blessed Sacrament. and that is what is Central to our faith -
I have mentioned before, by a church paying tribute to Mary tells alot bout how much the weight and placement of Mary in a Catholic Church.Originally posted by ben1xy:Honestly, i am not sure about that.
Let me list down the Catholic Churches in S'pore (i will grp them accordind who the churc is dedicated or named after)
God (Encompasses the Trinity of course)
Cathedral of the Good Shepherd
Church of the Sacred Heart
Church of the Holy Trinity
Blessed Sacrament Church
Church of the Holy Cross
Church of Christ the King
Church of the Holy Spirit
Church of the Risen Christ
Church of Divine Mercy
Church of the Holy Family - this one's difficult to categorise
On your question on how a Church gets named, i really do not know how to answer. Some probably choose to tribute it to a great misionary like St Francis Xavier. our of respect to our Matyr St Stephen? To follow thesimple faith of St Theresa?
this again is just my guess.
What's more important is to understand what the Church really is. It's not people gathering to pay tribute to the Saints. Rather it's about congregating every week for Mass to worship our Lord Jesus. Although, the church might be named after a Saint or Mary, inside every church is the Terbarnacle which holds the Blessed Sacrament. and that is what is Central to our faith
I wouldn't question on the teachings, because i believe it is accordance to God's word.
I would still take my stand - that many many Catholics have lost focus.
Thanks for your replies. Appreciate lots.
Cheers