Religion, what's the point?

Herman, Jesus said "This is my Body". Not "This represents my body".

The texts fully support the Catholic position as I demonstrated in the links I sent you. The Hebrews text you quote has nothing to do with transubstantiation. The Pope is the successor of Peter and Peter was given authority by Jesus, as Matthew 16:18-19 clearly states, with no wriggle room. I'm not going to continue saying the same things to you, as unfortunately you have been taken in by a modern-day sect with has received no authority from anyone but Terry Virgo. Cheerio and good luck.
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
There are all manner of congregations out there I view to be heretical, oates. We can start with the Roman Catholic Church, we can talk about the Unitarians, we can also mention many of the charismatic revivals of the past and sections of the charismatic Church today. It is also increasingly true that the Church of England is conceding ground to secular ideas of egalitarianism and hence we see women in positions they shouldn't be Biblically.

The question of when a church becomes heretical is interesting, but rather than focussing on where the line is, I prefer to focus on staying well away from heresy in the first place and to holding fast to Christ.
Click to expand...

So a church founded by Terry Virgo which displays many cultish features should be held up over and above the Church founded by Peter? And btw Peter ordained 'The Rock' Matthew 16:18 was named 1st amongst the apostles, the other 11 to go and commission.

Can you not tell me what your church is founded on and how your leaders are anointed?
 
Penna said:
Herman, Jesus said "This is my Body". Not "This represents my body".

The texts fully support the Catholic position as I demonstrated in the links I sent you. The Hebrews text you quote has nothing to do with transubstantiation. The Pope is the successor of Peter and Peter was given authority by Jesus, as Matthew 16:18-19 clearly states, with no wriggle room. I'm not going to continue saying the same things to you, as unfortunately you have been taken in by a modern-day sect with has received no authority from anyone but Terry Virgo. Cheerio and good luck.
Click to expand...

Remarkable how people can claim a devotion to Christ while dismissing scripture. I gave you the truth, but you would rather have man-made tradition and allegiance to Rome, not Christ.

Tell me, Penna, when Christ said, this is my body, which is given for you, when was his body given? Was it given at the time they ate the bread and drank the wine or was it given on the cross?
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
I don't agree with you that there is an absence of evidence for design.
Click to expand...

Ok, lets start here. What compelling evidence can you offer that there is intelligent design. Where is the tangible proof ?

And the answer can't be something along the lines of "Well you don't have evidence that there was no design, so by deductive logic, it must be possible".
 
oates said:
So a church founded by Terry Virgo which displays many cultish features should be held up over and above the Church founded by Peter? And btw Peter ordained 'The Rock' Matthew 16:18 was named 1st amongst the apostles, the other 11 to go and commission.

Can you not tell me what your church is founded on and how your leaders are anointed?
Click to expand...

I think you should just be honest with yourself, oates, and acknowledge that you aren't reformed and that the reason you contend with me is because the exclusivity of Christ offends you.
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
I think you should just be honest with yourself, oates, and acknowledge that you aren't reformed and that the reason you contend with me is because the exclusivity of Christ offends you.
Click to expand...
I think you should be honest and answer the questions put to you instead of slurring myself with double speak you either know nothing about or is intentional.

Now answer the questions:

So a church founded by Terry Virgo which displays many cultish features should be held up over and above the Church founded by Peter? And btw Peter ordained 'The Rock' Matthew 16:18 was named 1st amongst the apostles, the other 11 to go and commission.

Can you not tell me what your church is founded on and how your leaders are anointed?
 
I gave you the truth, but you would rather have man-made tradition and allegiance to Rome, not Christ.
​
You see, this is what gets me. Where is the proof that it's true?
It reminds me of that episode of Brass Eye.
"It's a scientific fact. There is no real evidence for it, but it is a scientific fact."
 
This thread just seems to be Herman dodging important and relevant questions that he doesn't dare to answer because if he did he'd be destroying his own argument. Either that, or he's wumming by deliberately refusing to answer questions and instead spinning it back on the other person every time.
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
I think you should just be honest with yourself, oates, and acknowledge that you aren't reformed and that the reason you contend with me is because the exclusivity of Christ offends you.
Click to expand...

That's a bit twattish of you since Penna and Oates are the most likely in this thread to believe your fairy-tales. I don't think you've a chance of converting them from their own fairy-tale now.
 
Raoul said:
Ok, lets start here. What compelling evidence can you offer that there is intelligent design. Where is the tangible proof ?

And the answer can't be something along the lines of "Well you don't have evidence that there was no design, so by deductive logic, it must be possible".
Click to expand...

One example would be life itself. It is not possible to get the genetic code, the proteins to operate it for synthesis, a selectively permeable membrane, etc all in one place at the same time by chance. Statistically, this is an impossibility. Even if you were to increase the proposed age of the earth and the universe many times over it would still be an impossible occurrence, let alone getting from a single-celled organism to human beings in all their wonderful design in the relative blink of an eye. There isn't anywhere near the rate of mutation necessary and there isn't a selection pressure strong enough without making life extinct every generation. This is not a problem with science not being able to explain something, it is a problem with science identifying design and few wanting to acknowledge it.
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
One example would be life itself. It is not possible to get the genetic code, the proteins to operate it for synthesis, a selectively permeable membrane, etc all in one place at the same time by chance. Statistically, this is an impossibility. Even if you were to increase the proposed age of the earth and the universe many times over it would still be an impossible occurrence, let alone getting from a single-celled organism to human beings in all their wonderful design in the relative blink of an eye. There isn't anywhere near the rate of mutation necessary and there is a selection pressure strong enough without making life extinct every generation. This is not a problem with science not being able to explain something, it is a problem with science identifying design and few wanting to acknowledge it.
Click to expand...

That's Craig's argument. The problem with this view is that it presupposes only three options - accident, chance, or design - and omits a critical fourth choice of no reason at all (which technically could fall under "accident"). Our brains seem to want answers and our cultural evolution seems to crave "reasons" as to why we're here. In many ways the question itself may be radically inappropriate, as Dawkins said, it would be like asking "what is the color of jealousy"? Rather than follow the why, we should be pursuing the mechanics of how.
 
Raoul said:
That's Craig's argument. The problem with this view is that it presupposes only three options - accident, chance, or design - and omits a critical fourth choice of no reason at all (which technically could fall under "accident"). Our brains seem to want answers and our cultural evolution seems to crave "reasons" as to why we're here. In many ways the question itself may be radically inappropriate, as Dawkins said, it would be like asking "what is the color of jealousy"? Rather than follow the why, we should be pursuing the mechanics of how.
Click to expand...

So we're here without any rational explanation? Do you hold to that view, Raoul?
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
One example would be life itself. It is not possible to get the genetic code, the proteins to operate it for synthesis, a selectively permeable membrane, etc all in one place at the same time by chance. Statistically, this is an impossibility. Even if you were to increase the proposed age of the earth and the universe many times over it would still be an impossible occurrence, let alone getting from a single-celled organism to human beings in all their wonderful design in the relative blink of an eye. There isn't anywhere near the rate of mutation necessary and there is a selection pressure strong enough without making life extinct every generation. This is not a problem with science not being able to explain something, it is a problem with science identifying design and few wanting to acknowledge it.
Click to expand...

And of course, you and Terry Virgo would know more about the chemical/biological probabilities of life than the experts who actually spend a life time studying the subject.
 
rednev said:
And of course, you and Terry Virgo would know more about the chemical/biological probabilities of life than the experts who actually spend a life time studying the subject.
Click to expand...

I don't need to know more than the scientists, I just need to follow their findings. You're trying to create a division between science and the lay person here which needn't exist. Most scientists know that the laity are critical in the acceptance or rejection of theories. Why do you think popularisers of science, like Dawkins, are so esteemed? If the laity can't understand any of this stuff, then why not just call the scientists the new priests bringing us the natural revelation? Lol.
 
So I suppose animals were created for a reason, too? What would that be?
I assume they won't go to Heaven because they don't understand Jesus.
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
I don't need to know more than the scientists, I just need to follow their findings. You're trying to create a division between science and the lay person here which needn't exist. Most scientists know that the laity are critical in the acceptance or rejection of theories. Why do you think popularisers of science, like Dawkins, are so esteemed? If the laity can't understand any of this stuff, then why not just call the scientists the new priests bringing us the natural revelation? Lol.
Click to expand...

But you are not following their findings. You are making a scientific claim that is rejected by virtually all serious scientists in the relevant field.
 
rednev said:
But you are not following their findings. You are making a scientific claim that is rejected by virtually all serious scientists in the relevant field.
Click to expand...

You realise theoretical constructs are based on findings (I am attributing that to you, not asking). Rejecting a theory does not equate to rejecting the findings. Similarly, that many scientists would reject my claim isn't really here or there. Science is the governor here, not scientists.
 
oates said:
I think you should be honest and answer the questions put to you instead of slurring myself with double speak you either know nothing about or is intentional.

Now answer the questions:

So a church founded by Terry Virgo which displays many cultish features should be held up over and above the Church founded by Peter? And btw Peter ordained 'The Rock' Matthew 16:18 was named 1st amongst the apostles, the other 11 to go and commission.

Can you not tell me what your church is founded on and how your leaders are anointed?
Click to expand...

You take the same escape route every time. Even if the church I belonged to was really secretly very heretical (a fact I just wasn't aware of because I hadn't seen the egregious elements of it) how would that mitigate anything I've said?

You are now attempting to legitimate the Roman Catholic Church. You cannot, therefore, be reformed by simple deduction. How can you be a part of the Protestant Church if you agree with Papal authority? I am amazed anybody can attempt to argue this way. Why aren't you a Roman Catholic?
 
Zarlak said:
This thread just seems to be Herman dodging important and relevant questions that he doesn't dare to answer because if he did he'd be destroying his own argument. Either that, or he's wumming by deliberately refusing to answer questions and instead spinning it back on the other person every time.
Click to expand...
On balance I would think he's running scared and wumming Zarlak.
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
You take the same escape route every time. Even if the church I belonged to was really secretly very heretical (a fact I just wasn't aware of because I hadn't seen the egregious elements of it) how would that mitigate anything I've said?

You are now attempting to legitimate the Roman Catholic Church. You cannot, therefore, be reformed by simple deduction. How can you be a part of the protestant Church if you agree with Papal authority? I am amazed anybody can attempt to argue this way. Why aren't you a Roman Catholic?
Click to expand...
Answer the questions Herman, your statements are faulty, been proved wrong by scripture.

What, no answers all of a sudden Herman.

Let's try some new ones then.

Do your pastors encourage you to tithe?

You speak of 'Reformed' can I take that to mean that you consider yourselves to be Reformationists?
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
You realise theoretical constructs are based on findings (I am attributing that to you, not asking). Rejecting a theory does not equate to rejecting the findings. Similarly, that many scientists would reject my claim isn't really here or there. Science is the governor here, not scientists.
Click to expand...

It's not your rejection of any theory I am taking issue with here, it is your assertion of a scientific position that is not shared by any serious scientist who has studied biopoiesis. Your assertion is that it is a statistical improbability that self-replicating molecules were synthesized naturally from not living matter. Do you have any evidence for this? Are you able to provide a single serious peer reviewed study to back up your claim? Can you explain why your view is not shared by the experts who actually study the topic?
 
oates said:
Answer the questions Herman, your statements are faulty, been proved wrong by scripture.

What, no answers all of a sudden Herman.

Let's try some new ones then.

Do your pastors encourage you to tithe?

You speak of 'Reformed' can I take that to mean that you consider yourselves to be Reformists?
Click to expand...

Oh, I am sorry, I must have missed the part where you dealt with all the scriptures I raised and the systematic way in which I demonstrated the Roman Catholic Church to be in error.
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
Oh, I am sorry, I must have missed the part where you dealt with all the scriptures I raised and the systematic way in which I demonstrated the Roman Catholic Church to be in error.
Click to expand...
Well I saw you reply to Penna regarding Matthew 16:18 with some doublespeak but not quoting the verses and also stating that Paul had rebuked Peter but then Paul wasn't anointed The Rock as the foundation of the Church was he? But then your elders do like to do this don't they? They use contradictory statements and scriptures in their arguments in efforts to instil cognitive dissonance brow beating their congregation don't they?

Are you an Elder of your church Herman? I'm beginning to wonder.

Anyway, any answer yet on whether your Elders encourage you to tithe and whether you consider yourselves Reformationists?

Or are you going to attempt more doublespeak/distraction/diversion?
 
oates said:
Well I saw you reply to Penna regarding Matthew 16:18 with some doublespeak but not quoting the verses and also stating that Paul had rebuked Peter but then Paul wasn't anointed The Rock as the foundation of the Church was he? But then your elders do like to do this don't they? They use contradictory statements and scriptures in their arguments in efforts to instil cognitive dissonance brow beating their congregation don't they?

Are you an Elder of your church Herman? I'm beginning to wonder.

Anyway, any answer yet on whether your Elders encourage you to tithe and whether you consider yourselves Reformationists?

Or are you going to attempt more doublespeak/distraction/diversion?
Click to expand...
Herman Virgo.
 
oates said:
Well I saw you reply to Penna regarding Matthew 16:18 with some doublespeak but not quoting the verses and also stating that Paul had rebuked Peter but then Paul wasn't anointed The Rock as the foundation of the Church was he? But then your elders do like to do this don't they? They use contradictory statements and scriptures in their arguments in efforts to instil cognitive dissonance brow beating their congregation don't they?

Are you an Elder of your church Herman? I'm beginning to wonder.

Anyway, any answer yet on whether your Elders encourage you to tithe and whether you consider yourselves Reformationists?

Or are you going to attempt more doublespeak/distraction/diversion?
Click to expand...

Lol, OK, we've got some kind of weird psychological profiling going on now to avoid the central issue. Again.

More questions about the position I occupy within my church and the dastardly dealings of the congregation, even though you have never been to my church and don't know any of the people there (including me). By the way, i have not criticised your particular congregation in the same way. I don't know how you can consider your presumptions about the elders at my church as Christ-like but then the repeated pattern of your behaviour demonstrates immaturity of faith, oates. You should repent of that and deal with the central issues instead of engaging in ad hominem and introducing red herrings.

So Paul wasn't the The Rock of the Church so that proves that Peter was infallible, so I guess we just don't know how Paul was able to rebuke him then? And we still don't know how Jesus did it. He must have become infallible over the other apostles after those instances. Cognitive dissonance indeed.
 
So to sum up, @Herman Van Rompuy despite slurring other churches and christians is unhappy to give any details on his own organisation, how they are formed, how its leaders are appointed, elected or anointed, while claiming to follow solar scriptura whether they consider themselves Reformationists, and whether they teach Tithing.

Herman cannot back up his claims about other churches and he can't back up his own claims about his church being superior and what it is founded upon.

Must be terribly difficult questions. You'd think a Christian spouting his ability to witness and mirror Christ would have a bit more gumption.
 
Zarlak said:
Are you ever going to answer a question Herman or are you going to continually ignore it because you know you don't have an answer?
Click to expand...

OK. I'll answer some questions, just for you, zarlak.

Paul wasn't anointed The Rock as the foundation of the Church was he? Not being one of the 12, no.

But then your elders do like to do this don't they? I am sure they love to answer questions like this all the time.

They use contradictory statements and scriptures in their arguments in efforts to instil cognitive dissonance brow beating their congregation don't they? No

Are you an Elder of your church Herman? No

Anyway, any answer yet on whether your Elders encourage you to tithe and whether you consider yourselves Reformationists? This.Poster.Does.Not.Care.For.Any.And.All.Red.Herrings.Or.Personal.Attacks.

Or are you going to attempt more doublespeak/distraction/diversion? See above.
 
oates said:
So to sum up, @Herman Van Rompuy despite slurring other churches and christians is unhappy to give any details on his own organisation, how they are formed, how its leaders are appointed, elected or anointed, while claiming to follow solar scriptura whether they consider themselves Reformationists, and whether they teach Tithing.

Herman cannot back up his claims about other churches and he can't back up his own claims about his church being superior and what it is founded upon.

Must be terribly difficult questions. You'd think a Christian spouting his ability to witness and mirror Christ would have a bit more gumption.
Click to expand...

Oates, why not ask me about infant baptism? Why not ask me about baptism by sprinkling, immersion, etc?
 
Herman Van Rompuy said:
OK. I'll answer some questions, just for you, zarlak.

Paul wasn't anointed The Rock as the foundation of the Church was he? Not being one of the 12, no.

But then your elders do like to do this don't they? I am sure they love to answer questions like this all the time.

They use contradictory statements and scriptures in their arguments in efforts to instil cognitive dissonance brow beating their congregation don't they? No

Are you an Elder of your church Herman? No

Anyway, any answer yet on whether your Elders encourage you to tithe and whether you consider yourselves Reformationists? This.Poster.Does.Not.Care.For.Any.And.All.Red.Herrings.Or.Personal.Attacks.

Or are you going to attempt more doublespeak/distraction/diversion? See above.
Click to expand...
So that's a yes.

For others, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter 1st paragraph to see whether Herman knows his onions.

As for the rest obviously nothing to be proud of then Herman?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.