Acidosis:
lol @ your name

Well, Church Of Jesus Christ

How about that?

The bolded is all you need to tell anyone ---- unless you deliberately choose otherwise for some reason of your own. If people want alternative names, I suggest:

1. The Church of God
2. The Church of Christ
3. The Church of the Lord
4. The Christian Church

The first three are clearly in the Bible; the fourth is biblical.

DrummaBoy:

@Enigma

Inviting you, sir, to view this threads. You have been conspicuously absent from the original thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/1540233/inviting-tithers-theological-discuss-miwerds

and it's result

https://www.nairaland.com/1548047/theological-discuss-tithing-rhymeyjohn-image123

Oga how now?

I'm aware of both threads and I'm trying to follow quietly though I am struggling to follow the arguments on the 'discussion' thread because both sides are working hard and the submissions can be long. I am hoping I will have time, say on a weekend, to read and follow the arguments properly. I'll try and look in on the older thread.

woky: u can go to hell with ur offence if u wish, ur Apology won't be necessary .

You Roman Catholics seem to like that expression "go to hell"! One of you used it the other day and then amended his post when confronted; and even one of the older hand Roman Catholic has used the expression or similar.

I guess, I shouldn't be surprised since the Roman Catholic Church itself condemns other Christians to hell for not accepting the authority of the Roman Catholic "pope".

Pitiful!

A Christian does not need a name for his "church". Just like the church that met in various people's houses in the Bible, e.g. Prisca, Philemon etc, did not have any name. In fact NO church in the Bible had any name other than ---- "church"!

This is because the Christian Church is not concerned about denominations --- whether it is Roman Catholic Church or Cutlass Sharp Sharp Ministry.


@Ukuts_gp

I will just say temper zeal with wisdom and greater knowledge.

The question of whether being a Christian makes one moral should really be neither here nor there for a person who is or believes himself to be an atheist. It may be that it arises as a result of introspection or subliminal doubt about the atheist position.

Now as to scandalous "pastors": I will pose the following questions and I do not even necessarily demand that they be answered on this thread or forum; I simply ask that they be pondered --- with an open mind, with an honest mind.

1. Are there any faithful "pastors" and or even Christians out there? ('faithful' meaning committed and trying to follow/practice the faith even if the person stumbles or makes mistakes)

2. Have there been any faithful "pastors" or even Christians in world history?

3. Are there "pastors" or even any Christians who have been transformed from a debased life into a faithful life as a result of becoming Christians?

4. In world history, have there been "pastors" or even any Christians who have been transformed from a debased life into a faithful life as a result of becoming Christians?

5. Globally, of all who are "pastors" and of all who are Christians, what is the proportion that falls into these "scandals" compared to the proportion that does not?

Finally, I maintain that as a matter of polemics, a Christian does not have any obligation to prove to an atheist or to a person who believes himself to be an atheist that Christianity makes one moral.

^^ And Mary also suffered for mankind -- since Mary is also co-mediatrix ...... according to the Roman catholic "church" denomination!

And yet one more!

Hebrews 12:24

"to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel."

Again I guess that as far as the#forgerymasters are concerned the sprinkled blood of Paul, and especially Mary, also speak a better word than the blood of Abel!

#masterforgers, we salute!

And another one!

Hebrews 9:15
"For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance--now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant."

I guess that, as far as the #masterforgers are concerned Paul, and especially Mary, also died as a ransom to set mankind free from sins!

1 Timothy 2:5

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus"

Well, guess which "church" does not believe the above passage from the Bible?

Gombs: Atheism?

Evangelical atheism is a religion quite certainly. Also according to the American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal "atheism" is a religion.

So, it is not impossible (though unlikely in this case) that the OP wants to change religion to (evangelical?) atheism!

^^ Paul and Mary died for mankind, perhaps?

According to one "pope" Francis:

"“The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The Church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. "

According to the apostle John we have the Holy Spirit and do not really need anyone -- whether "pope" or whatever!

1 John 2: 27

As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him.



Oh by the way, we of course also have the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself!

John 14:26

But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

So, we really do not need any "popes" or whatever ---- thank you very much!

As it happens, Galileo even had better theological insight than the Roman Catholic Church. Not just better scientific insight but also better theological insight.

He told them that, on interpretation, the Bible was not incompatible with heliocentrism. But of course the messrs "infallible" wouldn't listen and did with him what pleased them.

Now, apparently one of their recent "popes" was using style to apologise. Where is "infallibility" again?

Oh, maybe the "magisterium" was not exercising "infallibility" then!

luvinhubby: If most of us heard all Adams Oshiomhole said to that woman, it will shock us.
The woman told her she is a widow, and his response was ` you are a widow, go and die`.
The woman told him her late husband was a policeman, who probably died in active service, and with hands in his pockets and a disposition of a 17th century imperial dictator, coldly replies, `he was probably among those killing on the streets`.
That man is an animal.

And a complete (I don't even know the worst expression to use!)

@truthislight

Don't forget also that the following was said by a "pope" ---- Adrian VI


"If by the Roman Church is understood its head, that is the pope, it is certain that it can err, even in those matters which concern the Faith, by publishing heresy in its decisions and decrees. For many Roman Pontiffs have been heretics. Of recent times it is reported that Pope John XXII publicly taught, declared, and commanded to be believed by all, that purified souls do not have the clear vision of God before the Final Judgment."

truthislight:

Hehehehe.

He does not read your post ? Smh.

And he thinks all other people dont read also ?

He "doesn't read my posts" oooo! He only reports them to the Mods --- or to Police! Though how he knows what to report without reading it is another level even higher than "infallibility"! Anyway, I suggested reporting to GEJ or United Nations! Maybe reporting to one of those will be more effective?

^^ He "doesn't read my posts"!

In some better moments the Roman Catholic Church denomination indicates a willingness to compromise!

Only that they have far to go!

In one of its more sane though still defective documents -- also from the more sane but still defective Vatican II. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html


"All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials. But let all, according to the gifts they have received enjoy a proper freedom, in their various forms of spiritual life and discipline, in their different liturgical rites, and even in their theological elaborations of revealed truth. In all things let charity prevail. If they are true to this course of action, they will be giving ever better expression to the authentic catholicity and apostolicity of the Church."

truthislight:

What exactly did they teach ?

Lets see if it was the teaching that caused the problem or it was because they went against their most chrish propagandas.

Funny, I once showed how it was the Roman Catholics who defined Nepotism!

Well again, it was the Roman Catholics also who defined Propaganda --- although in fairness that one might have been well intended originally.

Something called "monothelism". You will have to read up on it. Somehow, I have a feeling that you might actually agree with Honorius on the matter!

Anyway, whatever he taught is not even key here: what is key is that he was condemned by his fellow Roman Catholics (as well as the real "Catholics", i.e. the Eastern people) ---- on a matter pertaining to faith!

Actually there is an example from earlier on this very thread where I pointed out that even the Roman Catholic denomination people's own very encyclopaedia could not deny it and says: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned."

So yeah let Roman Catholics continue to sing: Let him be anathema!


----

Addendum: in fact let me add jara from our friend dem own encyclopaedia:

"Pope Honorius I

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a , consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680)."

By the way, to get some low down on how the vote on "papal infallibility" was secured at Vatican I (with the machinations of "pope" Pius IX), it is interesting to read from the Roman Catholics who could not stomach it. And we are talking about Roman Catholic bishops, theologians and university professors.

To start with, google these two names: (1) Strossmayer, and (2) Ignatius Ignaz von Dollinger.

Your eyes will open.

You will even read that Roman Catholic Catechisms in some places like Ireland --- were saying that it was "Protestants" who were lying that Roman Catholics believed in "papal infallibility". In other words, they were saying they did not believe in it and that "Protestants" were lying against them. When the vote was passed at Vatican I, they then had to modify that line in their Catechism!

Ridiculous!

^^ On top of that, the "pope" is actually quite fallible even on matters of faith aka "the deposit of faith" --- according to Roman Catholic doctrine when studied carefully.

That is why they are able to wriggle when a "pope" is caught in heresy --- they say oh but even though he committed heresy on a matter of faith, he was not then exercising "infallibility". This is exactly the case with the "pope" Honorius who was formally declared to be a heretic by a Council and other "popes".

With the fact that Honorius' case catches them out, Roman Catholics were initially lying that Honorius was not declared a heretic ---- until official documents surfaced including the profession of faith by which, for decades/centuries", "popes" intending to take office had to decare that Honorius was a heretic.

Then Roman Catholics changed tactics: some try to say well, the Council made a mistake and that Honorius was not in fact guiilty of heresy. Again the documents easily refute them.

Then, they turn to their last refuge: they say even if Honorius was indeed guilty of heresy he was not speaking "infallibly".

You see? How oily? Teflon "infallibility"!

The whole "papal infallibility" thing is a ruse by which one "pope" in particular and some others wanted to vent their megalomania. It has nothing to do with Christianity.

Hence they defined "papal infallibility" quite vaguely such that, as I said before, even Roman Catholics cannot give an accurate, agreed or even consistent catalogue of when their "popes" have spoken "infallibly".

Another interesting one.

"The Bishop of Rome himself must fervently make his own Christ's prayer for that conversion which is indispensable for "Peter" to be able to serve his brethren. I earnestly invite the faithful of the Catholic Church and all Christians to share in this prayer. May all join me in praying for this conversion!

We know that during her earthly pilgrimage the Church has suffered and will continue to suffer opposition and persecution. But the hope which sustains her is unshakable, just as the joy which flows from this hope is indestructible.In effect, the firm and enduring rock upon which she is founded is Jesus Christ, her Lord." (John Paul II)

Note:
Although he uses "the Church" in a confusing/confused manner in the document e.g. sometimes as referring to the Roman Catholic Church, in other contexts he seems to imply "the Church" also meaning the entire Christian Church.

Accordingly it is not unreasonable to understand him as saying in the last sentence of the quote:

... the firm and enduring rock upon which the Christian Church is founded is Jesus Christ, her Lord.

And if truly that is what he meant, then I agree with him on that point certainly!

Well, something a little positive for a change.

"Nevertheless, besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, Christians cannot underestimate the burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories."


"With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions."


"What is needed is a calm, clear-sighted and truthful vision of things, a vision enlivened by divine mercy and capable of freeing people's minds and of inspiring in everyone a renewed willingness, precisely with a view to proclaiming the Gospel to the men and women of every people and nation."

John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint (All emphases from source text - but paragraphs added for better clarity)

Apologies; wrong thread! Although it was a good/friendly post that can still be read here https://www.nairaland.com/1522201/defend-catholic-teachings-here/21#19892572

JMAN05:

Are you sure they believe this?

Their "pope" said it in a document making an "infallible" pronouncement or "dogmatic definition" about Mary.

Guess who said this:

"All in the Church must preserve unity in essentials."

- The Roman Catholic Church

In one of its more sane though still defective documents -- also from the more sane but still defective Vatican II. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Roman Catholics are talking of another person's double double. OK.

But here look at the Roman Catholic Church denomination's own double double, In fact let us make it double double double.

1. Mary and Jesus double-double mediatrix (something they like to deny with lies until they are caught like this)

"... in her who, with her only-begotten Son, is the most powerful Mediatrix and Conciliatrix in the whole world; in her who is the most excellent glory, ornament, and impregnable stronghold of the holy Church; in her who has destroyed all heresies and snatched the faithful people and nations from all kinds of direst calamities; in her do we hope who has delivered us from so many threatening dangers."


2. Mary and Jesus double-double end of the law

"... after Christ, we find in Mary the end of the law and the fulfillment of the figures and oracles."


The above double double double from a supposedly "infallible" "pope"! Na so!

Infallible ko, mumuness ni!

Zikkyy:

Na wa o
......

@enigma & truthislight, if you want my position on papal infallibility, we've done this before. No need repeating myself.

https://www.nairaland.com/1104124/problem-catholism-an-introspection/7

Don't take it too seriously bro, I was half teasing.

shdemidemi:

More like are you infallible like the father 'Oga at the top' in Rome?

The "papacy" as conceived and operated by Roman Catholics is simply an institution of the devil.

It may be that someone like Bergoglio is a good person but he will need enormous help from God to reform it.