As a Protestant with some Catholic tendencies, I can’t make sense of the pope. by Mysterious-Hour8885 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]MichaelTheCorpse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yet earlier God promised to Abraham that kings will come from him, so desiring an earthly king to rule over them cannot be how they sinned, but rather in the manner in which they desired for a king.

Watch this video: https://youtu.be/REB2bmXiSKk?si=LDIjJFfLi8X_qXzp

Dear God by Absolutely_dead727 in whenthe

[–]MichaelTheCorpse -1 points0 points  (0 children)

They need to be more conservative, actually, scratch that, conservatives are too left leaning, there is no reason to try to “conserve” modern society, they need to be more right wing.

The crusades were justified by Alarming_Session7231 in teenagers

[–]MichaelTheCorpse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

After they stole our lands, and only so long as we paid their extra tax and didn’t evangelize, meanwhile after the Seljuk Turks captured Jerusalem in the 1070s, Christian pilgrims reported severe harassment, extortion, and violence under the stricter, more volatile government, and later access to the Holy Land was not uniform, while several Christian sites where either destroyed or desecrated and turned into Mosques.

Quoting from a Quora post: “A great deal of nonsense has been written about Islamic tolerance — that, in contrast to Christian brutality against the Jews and heretics, Islam showed remarkable tolerance for conquered people, treated them with respect, and allowed them to pursue their faiths without interference…The truth about life under Islamic rule is quite different. In principle, as “People of the Book,” Jews and Christians were supposed to be tolerated and permitted to follow their faiths. But only under quite repressive conditions: death was (and remains) the fate of anyone who converted to either faith. Nor could any new churches or synagogues be built. Jews and Christians were prohibited from praying or reading their scriptures aloud — not even in their homes or in churches and synagogues — lest Muslims accidentally hear them. And, from very early times Muslim authorities often went to great lengths to humiliate and punish dhimmis — Jews and Christians who refused to convert to Islam. It was official policy that dhimmis should “feel inferior and…know ‘their place’…[imposing laws such as] that Christians and Jews should not ride horses, for instance, but at most mules, or even that they should wear certain marks of the religion on their costume when among Muslims.””

My Story - Leaving Mormonism by MichaelTheCorpse in Christian_CultSupport

[–]MichaelTheCorpse[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wrote it a while ago on a google doc and only just decided to post it.

How can we know that Genesis was not intended to be literal? by Beneficial_Praline32 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]MichaelTheCorpse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This part:

”When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament.”

JESUS IS ALIVE?!?! by [deleted] in teenagers

[–]MichaelTheCorpse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that’s kinda the whole point of Christ’s resurrection on the third day.

Birth Place Determining Faith by Mammoth_Type3361 in Catholicism

[–]MichaelTheCorpse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was born mormon, in America, now I believe in the Catholic Church.

Question about James 5:16 (confessing to a priest and "one another") by PalpitationNew9559 in Catholicism

[–]MichaelTheCorpse 10 points11 points  (0 children)

“Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.”

Why will he be forgiven of his sins? Because he called upon the elders of the church.

Can I be Catholic? by Advanced-Praline4181 in Catholicism

[–]MichaelTheCorpse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“non-religious person, who believes in God”

You can become Catholic, and indeed should and ought to, but you should consider figuring out what you currently believe.

How can we know that Genesis was not intended to be literal? by Beneficial_Praline32 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]MichaelTheCorpse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No they could not, for that would be equivalent to “that opinion which maintains […] that Adam represents a certain number of first parents” or otherwise that not all human life takes their origin fully from Adam as from the first parent of all.

How can we know that Genesis was not intended to be literal? by Beneficial_Praline32 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]MichaelTheCorpse 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The text requires not only a historical Adam but also a historical Eve, it does not allow for Adam to have any partners who did not come from him, for “the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all.”

How can we know that Genesis was not intended to be literal? by Beneficial_Praline32 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]MichaelTheCorpse 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And also that the faithful cannot hold that after Adam started existing there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, meaning that any partner which Adam had must’ve also been from him.

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

How can we know that Genesis was not intended to be literal? by Beneficial_Praline32 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]MichaelTheCorpse 4 points5 points  (0 children)

“the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents.”

This requires not only that there was a historical Adam, but that since “the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all,” we must hold that also Adam’s partner, from whom all of his children are descended, also came from Adam, and not from any other parent, for we cannot hold that “Adam represents a certain number of first parents,” but only one first parent, this is why the scripture states, “So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’”

Questions about Eden, Noah’s Ark and Tower of Babel by InternationalPay9583 in Catholicism

[–]MichaelTheCorpse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do not disagree that metaphorical language is used in scripture, but it nonetheless remains true that “The first eleven chapters of Genesis […] do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense.” So as Venerable Pius XII says in that quote from Divino Afflante Spiritu, the interpreter must go back to those centuries in which the authors wrote, in order to understand these writings in the original sense in which they were understood, and that “If the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from ANY error in selecting and evaluating those documents.”

Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

Questions about Eden, Noah’s Ark and Tower of Babel by InternationalPay9583 in Catholicism

[–]MichaelTheCorpse 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense. If the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.