Guardian angels are real, says Pope

[Jenny A]

Interesting. The pope says one thing about angels; a random theist on the Internet says another. Both have exactly the same amount of evidence. For all the difference it will make, we might just as well be discussing the mating habits of the yeti.

First catch your yeti - or in this case, angel. Then we can cook it.

Like always you are missing the bigger picture for the quick retort.

The bigger picture being the pope is supposedly the leader among leaders of christianity. Shouldn't the leader among leaders know the rule book backwards and forwards whether or not you specifically want to play this game?

It would be like me getting elected the international president of the dr.who fan club, and then decide to start referring to the good doctor as doc wuuuut. Some sharp tonged Trekkie may say, "Dr. Who's not real what does it matter what you call him, it's all the same in the end.." For the Trekkie, and other Trekkies like him he maybe right, but in the realm where the Good Dr. Is master of space and time, referring to the Good dr. As doc wuut, only shows that I as the president of the dr.who fan club doesnt know the cannon of dr. Who as I should.

The Bible is a collection of books written by men. A group of elected men decided what books to put in the Bible. Your point about the Pope?

[Cyberman]

I referenced the pope's alleged authority in my comparison to your armchair posturing, Drich. It seems that in your desire to scramble for the illusionary high ground, you're the one who missed the bigger picture. From your divided positions, both you and pope-eye are discussing the nature of mythical creatures as fact. Neither of you has any substance on which to base your statements. He, as you point out, is citing church tradition; you are citing a book. We could swap the two of you over and your arguments would still be indistinguishable. Until the basic minimum foundation is put in place, ie demonstrate that angels are an actual thing, everything else is window dressing.

[vorlon13]

Not that there is anything wrong with Protestants and Catholics sniping at each other . . .

[Minimalist]

Not that there is anything wrong with Protestants and Catholics sniping at each other . . .

Indeed. Great sport.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Barthol...y_massacre

The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy in French) in 1572 was a targeted group of assassinations, followed by a wave of Catholic mob violence, both directed against the Huguenots (French Calvinist Protestants), during the French Wars of Religion. Traditionally believed to have been instigated by Catherine de' Medici, the mother of King Charles IX, the massacre took place five days after the wedding of the king's sister Margaret to the Protestant Henry III of Navarre (the future Henry IV of France). This marriage was an occasion for which many of the most wealthy and prominent Huguenots had gathered in largely Catholic Paris.

The massacre began in the night of 23-24 August 1572 (the eve of the feast of Bartholomew the Apostle), two days after the attempted assassination of Admiral Gaspard de Coligny, the military and political leader of the Huguenots. The king ordered the killing of a group of Huguenot leaders, including Coligny, and the slaughter spread throughout Paris. Lasting several weeks, the massacre expanded outward to other urban centres and the countryside. Modern estimates for the number of dead across France vary widely, from 5,000 to 30,000.

[Dolorian]

Mine told me it was all bunk so I jumped ship.

...wait...that was just my conscience speaking, wasn't it...?

[vorlon13]

Nothing like a good religious vendetta to wash the streets in blood.

[Esquilax]

Like always you are missing the bigger picture for the quick retort.

The bigger picture being the pope is supposedly the leader among leaders of christianity. Shouldn't the leader among leaders know the rule book backwards and forwards whether or not you specifically want to play this game?

The really, truly amazing thing about you, Drich, is that despite this literally being the point of Stimbo's post, you never once, even for a moment, in any of you posts I've read, consider that maybe, just maybe, your interpretation of the bible might be the incorrect one.

It's so weird! You had it specifically pointed out to you that neither you nor the pope had any better evidence, that in terms of support you're at exactly the same level, and the only thing you come back with is "No, you don't get it! If any of that were true, wouldn't the pope be agreeing with me? "

[Tonus]

The bigger picture being the pope is supposedly the leader among leaders of christianity. Shouldn't the leader among leaders know the rule book backwards and forwards whether or not you specifically want to play this game?

I was under the impression that Catholics see the Pope as having some kind of direct line to god, so that when he speaks, it is god speaking through him. In which case, his pronouncements are divine.

The JWs practice something similar (while mocking the Pope for pretending to be essentially the same thing), where their Governing Body is supposed to be influenced by the Holy Spirit in order to provide divine guidance to the flock. It's embarrassing when they say something incorrect or just dumb, but they can always hide behind "well, we're just infallible men" or "god will reveal his plan in due time." The Pope may not have that amount of leeway, but he's way richer so maybe he's not bothered as much by it.

[Drich]

I referenced the pope's alleged authority in my comparison to your armchair posturing, Drich. It seems that in your desire to scramble for the illusionary high ground, you're the one who missed the bigger picture. From your divided positions, both you and pope-eye are discussing the nature of mythical creatures as fact. Neither of you has any substance on which to base your statements. He, as you point out, is citing church tradition; you are citing a book. We could swap the two of you over and your arguments would still be indistinguishable. Until the basic minimum foundation is put in place, ie demonstrate that angels are an actual thing, everything else is window dressing.

If this were true then why wasn't this the focous of the OP? Why wasn't the establishment of Gaurdian angels the focous till I made my points?

Again, it seems your simply trying to shut down a conversation before you get in too deep.

---

The really, truly amazing thing about you, Drich, is that despite this literally being the point of Stimbo's post,

Again if you go back to the OP stimbo does not make the points you believe to be the purpose of this thread until I made my points.

you never once, even for a moment, in any of you posts I've read, consider that maybe, just maybe, your interpretation of the bible might be the incorrect one.

The formula i use is very simple. If we are to worship the God of the bible, then it is to the bible we are bound for worship.

In this case even the pope himself per the artical does not reference the bible, but 'church traditions' to establish the validity of Gaurdian angels. Then He proceeds to describe them and their function.

I simply made the observation that the description used is/can be found in the bible, however these descriptions are not attributed to Gaurdian angels as the pope suggests. (matter of fact this gaurdian angel concept/doctrine is not found as most people understand it) I pointed out That descriptions found in the bible are acredited to the working of the Holy Spirit per the works and words of Paul in 1 cor.

So again, if the pope is refering to 'church tradition' as a means to verify his beliefs, and worship God. While anyone elses uses the bible to identify an attribute of God, and worships God using the bible, then it is to the one who uses the bible, to worship the God of the bible that will be found correct in their worship.

Therefore anyone who uses Scripture to identify a false teaching may do so boldly, no matter who is doing the false teaching. This is a story told and repeated throughout scripture. God is not a respector of rank and title. He respects those in whom are faithful to Him. Following the teaching left to us in the bible over tradition, is an example of be faithful to Him, and what He has given us.

It's so weird! You had it specifically pointed out to you that neither you nor the pope had any better evidence, that in terms of support you're at exactly the same level, and the only thing you come back with is "No, you don't get it! If any of that were true, wouldn't the pope be agreeing with me? "

Where did you read that?

I said the pope has made an error in identifying a work of God per scripture. This is important because many of you use the lack of angelic intervention as some sort of proof that God does not exist.

Again What I did was identify what an angel is per scripture and their role. Then I properly identified the works of the Holy Spirit. Why? Because there is proof of the Holy Spirit to be had for all those who A/S/K for it.

---

I was under the impression that Catholics see the Pope as having some kind of direct line to god, so that when he speaks, it is god speaking through him. In which case, his pronouncements are divine.

Indeed. But if they are not, then what he says can potentially conflict with what God has said.

We have been given the bible to measure what men say against what God has decreed. If their is ever found a descrepency, then we are told we know that the teacher of false doctrine is not from God.

The JWs practice something similar (while mocking the Pope for pretending to be essentially the same thing), where their Governing Body is supposed to be influenced by the Holy Spirit in order to provide divine guidance to the flock. It's embarrassing when they say something incorrect or just dumb, but they can always hide behind "well, we're just infallible men" or "god will reveal his plan in due time." The Pope may not have that amount of leeway, but he's way richer so maybe he's not bothered as much by it.

Even here with the JW's if their version of the H/S contradicts what the Holy Spirit has said in scripture then their teaching is wrong.

[Cyberman]

Perhaps because I wanted to post the article (note spelling) in order to garner people's opinions, rather than foist my own? All else I for one wrote has been engendered by the opinion you shared. To that end, I consider the OP entirely successful, in that it has generated discussion - the bread and butter of a discussion forum.