Ask a Catholic

[Salacious B. Crumb]

MODS: In this series of questions, I've been asked to explain and defend some very specific points of Catholic doctrine by a former Catholic. I would respectfully ask for a little latitude in answering his these short questions with longer, more robust answers that are necessary to do his questions justice. Thanks.

Before you try to get the mods involved, you can ask me. On page 22 of this thread (post #214), I tried to answer you as thoroughly as I could. I’ll try to again here. It’s not my fault on post #224, that you wanted to spend so much time putting in useless material that doesn’t have much to do with what we’re talking about. I said, “fair enough” to your argument about UNTIL. Then you quote something about a raven and all this other stuff with UNTIL in it, and this firstborn thing that has nothing to do with anything. Then you spend so much time with explaining how jesus, paul, james, and stephen violated Matthew 23:9 for me. I don’t feel I need to address these issues very much, because you just did for me.

In light of all these passages, does it really make sense to suggest that we should "call no man father" in a literalist sense?

No, it doesn’t. I read Matthew 23, and I don’t see how you can not take that literally. Yes, I think those verses that you quoted with father in it, are antithetical to what it says in Matthew 23.

Interceding for one another is one thing, but forgiving sins in the name of God is quite another

And, I still don’t understand the point of heavenly intercessors. Is god that much of a dick that he needs ghosts of people around him to beg him to forgive someone, even after his son died on a cross supposedly for us? Wasn’t that the point of this blood sacrifice, to allow himself to start forgiving human beings that he created (and allow them into heaven)? (since he was incapable beforehand…?) It all doesn’t make sense.

There are 40,000 "sects" because of private interpretation and sola scriptura

If this was a true religion, and the claims in this book did happen, then private interpretation at this scale wouldn’t be possible. There would be nothing arguable in it. Instead, we see a plethora of contradictions, untrue data, and stories that are so farfetched that you have to be a little “out there” to believe.

The Catholic Church is teaching the same doctrines it has for 2,000 years.

This may be true, but, the catholic church has been changing it’s mind and making up new rules since it was first established. Also, yes, we know that science has changed over the years too, but this is due to observable, testable evidence, not some men in fancy hats and robes deciding to change the rules for their own reasons.

So, "vain repetition" simply does not prohibit the repetition of words in our prayers.

I can see what you’re saying there. However, when it’s a rosary, and there’s 53 hail mary’s in it, I’d say most christians would quarrel with you on that. They would describe the rosary as vain, repetitious, and blasphemous.

It's not the amount of time on the cross but the identity of the victim that makes Jesus' sacrifice unique.

Well, I’m going to stick to my opinion, and say a few hours is nothing for someone to suffer for the sins of all humanity.

The identity of a man in a story doesn’t hold much weight either.

Also, the way the story says he was sacrificed, is nothing unique.