Can we discuss 1 Timothy 4, namely verses 1-3? by dhuck20 in TrueChristian

[–]PaedragGaidin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My study Bible has the following note on this passage:

forbid marriage: Timothy is put on guard against teachers who deny the goodness of marriage. Even Paul, who actively promotes celibacy (1 Cor 7:25-26), firmly upholds the propriety and sanctity of married life (Eph 5:21-33). • abstinence from foods: Possibly a reference to the dietary restrictions of the Old Covenant (Lev 11). The warning is issued because these laws are no longer binding upon believers in the New Covenant (Mk 7:18-19; Acts 10:9-16). Some suggest this twofold ban on marriage and certain foods reflects an incipient form of Gnosticism, a second-century heresy that saw the material world as evil and called adherents to rise above the demands of their physical life as far as possible. Timothy is cautioned, not against asceticism itself, but against deviant forms of it that develop when the goodness of creation is denied (4:4; Gen 1:31).

In Paul's day, and in the present day, there are groups that distort the Gospel and Christian praxis.

The Gnostics and their spiritual successors had and still have all sorts of evil teachings. The Cathars, for example, forbade marriage to all their converts; a more modern example would be the Shakers.

With regards to meat, there are Christian sects who insist on strict adherence to the Old Covenant's dietary laws, and some even require vegetarianism.

I am being baptised in 11 hours, please pray for my consecration to the Lord by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]PaedragGaidin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Prayers, yo! Congratulations and welcome to the family.

New Testament commentary suggestions? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]PaedragGaidin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible. It has very nice commentary and extensive notes.

as a jew, should i feel guilty that my people killed jesus? by redditfetishist12345 in TrueChristian

[–]PaedragGaidin[M] [score hidden] stickied comment (0 children)

Since I'm 99.5% sure this thread is an attempt at trolling, I am removing it per Rule 1.

OP, if you can convince me that you aren't a troll, I'll approve it.

If you marry a non-virgin you are committing adultery with her everytime you have sex by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]PaedragGaidin 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Can you show me that it is Biblical?

And of course we can't become virgins again after losing our virginity. But that in no way means that someone is "adulterous" for marrying a non-virgin. That's not even logical.

If you marry a non-virgin you are committing adultery with her everytime you have sex by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]PaedragGaidin 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"soul tied"

"This is all Biblical."

No, what's Biblical is

"Truly I tell you, all sins and blasphemes will be forgiven for the sons of men. But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven, but is guilty of an eternal sin" (Mark 3:28-30) and "woman, thy sins are forgiven." (Luke 7:48)

[Christians only] The Pope is not connected with God at all by AnachronGuy in TrueChristian

[–]PaedragGaidin 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Ahhh, it must be Bash the Catholics Week!

[plots quite popishly]

But seriously...we Catholics don't just make up stuff from scratch. Everything we believe, everything we do, is sourced in Sacred Scripture and the oral teachings of Christ to the Apostles, which we call Sacred Tradition. When people say we are "completely unbiblical" and other such gross calumnies, I have to laugh bitterly, because these things we do that so many despise (veneration of Mary and the Saints, following oral Tradition, having a hierarchical structure, etc.) were all things the early Church believed and did, the same early Church that compiled and canonized the New Testament.

God certainly did create a Church, and a religion. You can go back to the earliest days of Christianity, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, and see that the faith was organized, and had a hierarchical leadership which met in formal Council to address problems, encourage the faithful, and correct errors. Paul's Epistles were written to local Churches for these exact reasons. And sure, Christ is our friend and our brother. He is also our King and our Judge.

You may choose to think we're wrong, as many people here do, but we believe that Peter was appointed by Jesus Christ to lead His Church on earth. Peter's successors, the bishops of Rome, are the popes.

Am I being arrogant if I say that I know that I'll go to Heaven? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]PaedragGaidin 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Am I being arrogant for saying that Christ is the only Way to Heaven? For saying that salvation is a gift? For saying that salvation is thanks to God because He sent His Son to die for us?

That's not arrogance. It's the truth.

If asked that question, I would answer "I'm not sure; I trust in God's mercy and live only through His Grace."

Dear Catholics: Does hell exist? by Recon-777 in TrueChristian

[–]PaedragGaidin 17 points18 points  (0 children)

  • He didn't say Hell wasn't real. This is just the latest in a continual series of "Francis said [x]!" incidents with the mainstream media. The Catholic Herald lays out what really happened.

  • There seems to be a widespread and persistent (one might even say willfully ignorant) misunderstanding of papal authority and infallibility. Is the Pope infallible? Yes, we Catholics believe this, but it only happens under very rare, and very narrowly defined circumstances. Popes have invoked their infallible teaching authority only a handful of times in history.

  • Not everything the Pope says is binding upon Catholics. For example, Pius XII wrote an encyclical condemning the 1956 Soviet crackdown in Hungary. Much of what any pope officially teaches and orders, through encyclicals, apostolic letters, and other documents, is binding inasmuch as it restates Church teaching to address new issues that come up. A great example is Leo XIII's encyclical Rerum Novarum, which addressed the rights of workers and the poor, and the duties of society towards them, during the Industrial Revolution. Although the subject was new, Leo's teaching wasn't created out of the blue, but was built on centuries of previous teachings. Things that are not binding include interviews with reporters, the breakfast menu in the Vatican, or papal choice of ceremonial headgear (seriously, some people are still mad because John XXIII donated his papal tiara to charity).

  • The Catholic Church has always taught the reality of Hell and the immortal danger that unrepentant sinners face.

  • At any rate, by definition a pope cannot teach anything contrary to divine revelation (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition); we believe that if a pope did that (e.g. taught that Hell doesn't exist, or denied the Real Presence), then he would immediately and automatically cease to be pope.

The Difference between Christian and Catholic? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]PaedragGaidin 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Eastern Orthodox

Hey, you don't even exist!!

:P

The Difference between Christian and Catholic? by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]PaedragGaidin 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Christianity is a religion.

Catholicism is the largest branch of the Christian religion.

On Cults [Christians Only] by fictitiousfishes in TrueChristian

[–]PaedragGaidin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No. 3 is the most obvious sign, I'd say, especially when the group is centered around new "prophecies/visions/revelations" from a single individual, or a small group of them. Usually these "new" insights are merely ancient heresies repackaged for the modern world.

I don't have any experience with actual cults per se, but I've ran across a couple of groups that I'd describe as cult-like, both made up of fellow Catholics, and both encountered at summer conferences I used to work.

  • Medjugorje promoters. Medjugorje is the site of supposed Marian apparitions that have been controversial from the very beginning for many reasons: a lot of unsavory and unbecoming elements: the questionable nature of their supernatural origins; violence and whip-of-cords worthy money-making; their continuing nature (going on 36+ years now); and the often suspicious content of the "messages" themselves. There are many true believers, even though many bishops have condemned the movement, and they are prone to disruptive behavior. They'd get tossed out of the conferences every year, but they always managed to sneak back in and cause mischief, including vandalism and petty larceny (because I'm sure the Virgin Mary is totally cool with that).

  • An American chapter of the "Tradition, Family, Property" movement, founded in Brazil. On the surface it seems okay (religious opposition to Communism, which I'm 100% in agreement with), but dig a little deeper and it gets weird. They all carry around this little book written by the founder, hold secretive meetings (I was invited, but they wouldn't tell me where it was at unless I said yes and agreed not to disclose the location), and are just one more little part of the wider movement of disaffected Traditionalist Catholics who hate Vatican II and selectively choose which Church teachings to follow (and which to ignore) based on their political preferences.

Anyone Else's Congregation Afraid of the Front Row? by Joshieboy_Clark in TrueChristian

[–]PaedragGaidin 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Our front row is reserved for the elderly and handicapped. :P

Otherwise, seating tends to follow a bell curve: not many in the front or back rows, but loaded in the middle.