Evidence for God from Science

Guys...fellas...

Theres not much use attacking people who havent posted in 7 years.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Byblos? Are you there?

Oh I'm here, watching the show just like you are. I honestly don't have the energy for this any more.

I hear you buddy, if only we Christians spent less time fighting over denominations or creation positions and focused more on Christ.

Catholic-bashing is fun and gives one a sense of superiority...I know because I've done it. However, if you take the time to look into RCC documents (those with the Imprimatur only) you will find RCC doctrine/catechism to be quite close to what mainline evangelicals accept. Do your homework, Catholic-bashers, and I guarantee you'll shut up.

And never forget to check your eye for stray beams...

FL

And never forget to check your eye for stray beams...

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Byblos? Are you there?

Oh I'm here, watching the show just like you are. I honestly don't have the energy for this any more.

I hear you buddy, if only we Christians spent less time fighting over denominations or creation positions and focused more on Christ.

The focus IS on Christ...and whether his atoning death was totally sufficient to cover ALL our sins , or, if WE have to do a plethera of things to help erradicate certain sins because Christs atonement was lacking . Im speaking of the fanciful manmade Purgatory doctrine in particular.

RickD wrote:

CallMeDave wrote:

Mastermind wrote:Catholics ARE Christian. I have no idea why people keep saying they're not. -____________-

A Christian is defined in the Bible as One who is trusting in the sole sacrifice of Christ on Calvary as a free undeserved gift from God . But the RCC teaches you need that PLUS . You ALSO need good works, meritorious deeds, charity showing , salvation merits thru doing sacraments, attending the RCC which the Vatican calls 'the visible sacrament of salvation' , trusting in Mary, trusting in the Eucharist , and trusting in dead Catholics good works which has been deposited into a CHurch treasury for you to draw from...plus other means .

So, it cant be both. It has to be either one or the other . Which is the correct one ?

Dave, can you prove your points, by showing Catholic doctrine that what you said is true? Are all these you mentioned, official Catholic doctrine? I hope you're not just going to make another hit-and-run post, with no evidence to back up what you said.

If youre referring to my post regarding OEC and YECism....I didnt 'hit and run' ...in fact, I gave you specific evidence to back up my YEC belief both theologically and scientifically in the form of 2 specific website pages for the sake of brevity.

If you are interested to discover the plethera of ways the RCC adds to the Finished work of CHrist on Calvary for salvation , then you can go categorically to each issue I mentioned in this convenient online book which is written by a former staunch Catholic :
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp (the specific catholic catechism reference is given for each topic and compares that to scripture) . The teaching of the RCC Treasury of Merits which i mentioned is not in this book so i have included that specific teaching , herewith, and this teaching explicitly says that the good works and deeds left behind from Mary AND all other dead Roman Catholics can be drawn from and applied to a living Catholics eventual salvation (directly from the catholic catechism which nearly every Catholic doesnt know about -- CCC1476-77) :

CCC #1476: We also call these Spiritual Goods of the Communion of Saints, the Church's Treasury, which is not the Sum Total of the Material Goods which have Accumulated during the Course of the Centuries. On the contrary, the Treasury of the Church is the Infinite (∞) Value, which can never be Exhausted, which Christ's Merits have before God. They were Offered so that the Whole of Mankind could be set-free from Sin, and Attain Communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer Himself, the Satisfactions and Merits of his Redemption, Exist and Find their Efficacy.

CCC #1477: This Treasury includes as well the Prayers and Good Works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are Truly Immense, Unfathomable, and even Pristine in their Value before God. In the Treasury, too, are the Prayers and Good Works of all the Saints, all those who have Followed-in the Footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His Grace have made their Lives Holy, and Carried-out the Mission the Father Entrusted-to them. In this way, they Attained their own Salvation and, at the same Time, Cooperated-in Saving their Brothers in the Unity of the Mystical Body
.

If youre referring to my post regarding OEC and YECism....I didnt 'hit and run' ...in fact, I gave you specific evidence to back up my YEC belief both theologically and scientifically in the form of 2 specific website pages for the sake of brevity.

Dave, you made a specific point that you never attempted to prove.

Ive concluded that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way.

There was nothing in your copy and paste posts, that proved OEC does what you say it does. How does Day Age philosophy cause specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever? And, how does DA malign God's character?

I'm not letting you off the hook until you back up your statement. Copy and pasting articles from someone who argues against a straw man of OEC and Theistic Evolution, just doesn't cut it, Dave.

(hey Rick, I changed my mind )

CallMeDave wrote:If you are interested to discover the plethera of ways the RCC adds to the Finished work of CHrist on Calvary for salvation ,

The finished work of Christ according to whom? Your understanding of it or the Catholic understanding of it? If the former, then you're attacking a straw man because it is not a position any Catholic holds. If the latter, please provide the official Catholic teaching on the finished work of Christ then critique THAT position from THAT point of view.

CallMeDave wrote:then you can go categorically to each issue I mentioned in this convenient online book which is written by a former staunch Catholic :
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp (the specific catholic catechism reference is given for each topic and compares that to scripture) .

Yes, of course. How to best attack a position? Find the most critical writer on that position and use him as a source instead of using that position's official teachings. If I were to attack a Protestant position I certainly would not be starting with material from former Protestants.

CallMeDave wrote: The teaching of the RCC Treasury of Merits which i mentioned is not in this book so i have included that specific teaching , herewith, and this teaching explicitly says that the good works and deeds left behind from Mary AND all other dead Roman Catholics can be drawn from and applied to a living Catholics eventual salvation (directly from the catholic catechism which nearly every Catholic doesnt know about -- CCC1476-77) :

CCC #1476: We also call these Spiritual Goods of the Communion of Saints, the Church's Treasury, which is not the Sum Total of the Material Goods which have Accumulated during the Course of the Centuries. On the contrary, the Treasury of the Church is the Infinite (∞) Value, which can never be Exhausted, which Christ's Merits have before God. They were Offered so that the Whole of Mankind could be set-free from Sin, and Attain Communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer Himself, the Satisfactions and Merits of his Redemption, Exist and Find their Efficacy.

CCC #1477: This Treasury includes as well the Prayers and Good Works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are Truly Immense, Unfathomable, and even Pristine in their Value before God. In the Treasury, too, are the Prayers and Good Works of all the Saints, all those who have Followed-in the Footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His Grace have made their Lives Holy, and Carried-out the Mission the Father Entrusted-to them. In this way, they Attained their own Salvation and, at the same Time, Cooperated-in Saving their Brothers in the Unity of the Mystical Body
.

Do you even know what communion of the saints means? For clarity, here is 1474 and 1475:

In the Communion of Saints

1474 The Christian who seeks to purify himself of his sin and to become holy with the help of God's grace is not alone. "The life of each of God's children is joined in Christ and through Christ in a wonderful way to the life of all the other Christian brethren in the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ, as in a single mystical person."86

1475 In the communion of saints, "a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things."87 In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.

Granted we have disagreements on whether or not saints who went before us can intercede on our behalf but indulge me here for a moment and assume that they do and we are all, on this earth or up in heaven, one single community joined together to make up the mystical body of Christ. Reading the CCC paragraphs you quoted through that prism, what exactly would your problem be with them?

As for purgatory, as I've argued many, many times, if you believe in the Bema seat judgement of Christ you (implicitly and unknowingly) believe in such a thing as purgatory. They are 2 sides of the same coin.

RickD wrote:

If youre referring to my post regarding OEC and YECism....I didnt 'hit and run' ...in fact, I gave you specific evidence to back up my YEC belief both theologically and scientifically in the form of 2 specific website pages for the sake of brevity.

Dave, you made a specific point that you never attempted to prove.

Ive concluded that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way.

There was nothing in your copy and paste posts, that proved OEC does what you say it does. How does Day Age philosophy cause specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever? And, how does DA malign God's character?

I'm not letting you off the hook until you back up your statement. Copy and pasting articles from someone who argues against a straw man of OEC and Theistic Evolution, just doesn't cut it, Dave.

1. I made the specific point that OECism has to be read into scripture in Genesis. The 10 dangers of Theistic Evolution including Day Ages , addressed that and specifically listed why millions of years to create is an affront to Gods character .

2. Go back and re-read the 10 Dangers that was listed if you are still not clear. This thread we are in is to do with Catholics and Christians as the topic states , and other threads should not be brought into it. If you had a problem with a different thread i responded to, then you should have private mailed me regarding it, out of courtesy to this thread and Original Poster.

Byb, I've heard you make the argument numerous times. my initial reaction is that you are conflating. If I'm wrong please help me out. I'm not saying there aren't interpretations where these two might have some similarities, but in general I don't see it.
The RCC states.

"All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned"(CCC 1030–1).

If one is comparing to the Bema seat, then first you would presume that the word "judgment" holds that the dead believer lacks something NECESSARY, that is in fact preventing them from heaven's welcome. This is definately true in the case of the catechism in its plain reading. It is important to note that one strongly supported position of Bema seat (if there is one) has to do with reward. Rev. 22:12 This has to do with crowns, such as the crown of life mentioned in james, and again in Revaltion. But here we'd really get into a tough doctrinal discussion. Anyway, nothing to do with the believer lacking the proper purification. For further reading if you are interested. http://bible.org/article/doctrine-rewar ... ema-christ
That said, unless you can show otherwise I think you are in error to confuse the Bema Seat with purgatory. At best a sweeping generalization.

The finished work of Christ according to whom? Your understanding of it or the Catholic understanding of it? If the former, then you're attacking a straw man because it is not a position any Catholic holds.

Nothing wrong with pointing out fallacies, but we shouldn't commit one while doing so. I hardly think you are qualified to state what position every Catholic holds. I know that I am not qualified to tell you what position any or every Southern Baptist holds. Even if we share a creed, that doesn't mean our interpretations of that creed will agree. I suspect a little no true Scotsman.

Dave,
There is not much point in directly addressing posters who haven't been active for a long time.

CallMeDave wrote:

RickD wrote:

If youre referring to my post regarding OEC and YECism....I didnt 'hit and run' ...in fact, I gave you specific evidence to back up my YEC belief both theologically and scientifically in the form of 2 specific website pages for the sake of brevity.

Dave, you made a specific point that you never attempted to prove.

Ive concluded that if Day Age philosophy is true that it causes specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever, and, has a direct bearing on our Creators nature and character in a dissending way.

There was nothing in your copy and paste posts, that proved OEC does what you say it does. How does Day Age philosophy cause specific scripture and major doctrines to make no sense whatsoever? And, how does DA malign God's character?

I'm not letting you off the hook until you back up your statement. Copy and pasting articles from someone who argues against a straw man of OEC and Theistic Evolution, just doesn't cut it, Dave.

1. I made the specific point that OECism has to be read into scripture in Genesis. The 10 dangers of Theistic Evolution including Day Ages , addressed that and specifically listed why millions of years to create is an affront to Gods character .

2. Go back and re-read the 10 Dangers that was listed if you are still not clear. This thread we are in is to do with Catholics and Christians as the topic states , and other threads should not be brought into it. If you had a problem with a different thread i responded to, then you should have private mailed me regarding it, out of courtesy to this thread and Original Poster.

Please continue this topic in this thread:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 63#p114763
I'm holding you accountable, to back up your statement, with scripture. Make sure you are accurate with what you are arguing against. There are two links in the thread, so you can understand what actual Day Age/Progressive Creationists themselves believe. Not what Young Earth Creationists say they believe.

I reserve the right to determine HOW deep I wish to go in a dialogue on any particular subject matter ; that is the beauty of personal freewill. You and I will have to agree to disagree on what was provided by myself for substantiation of a young earth ; Ive ping-ponged YEC with OEC ists many times in the past , and some periphial issues simply arent worth dying for --- in all things : charity toward another . What I DID provide was a specific list why millions of years between each creation event (day) cannot and should not be read into scripture , a list of factual scientific reasons why the Earth simply cannot be millions of years old, and, a link to Hugh Ross' progressive creation / day age philosophy which includes rebuttals to each of his OEC views. I encourage you to properly read them all , just as I read the Home link you provided .

If you want to discuss Roman Catholicism and how it denies scripture and the total sufficiency of Christs finished atonement for sins, then this is the appropriate place and time to do so . Otherwise, please stop hounding that is rapidly approaching harrassment which is a violation of Forum Rules . Please respect how deep and what measures another Individual desires to go on any given thread . , and I will afford you the same courtesy. Regards. Dave.

jlay wrote:Byb, I've heard you make the argument numerous times. my initial reaction is that you are conflating. If I'm wrong please help me out. I'm not saying there aren't interpretations where these two might have some similarities, but in general I don't see it.
The RCC states.

"All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned"(CCC 1030–1).

If one is comparing to the Bema seat, then first you would presume that the word "judgment" holds that the dead believer lacks something NECESSARY, that is in fact preventing them from heaven's welcome. This is definately true in the case of the catechism in its plain reading. It is important to note that one strongly supported position of Bema seat (if there is one) has to do with reward. Rev. 22:12 This has to do with crowns, such as the crown of life mentioned in james, and again in Revaltion. But here we'd really get into a tough doctrinal discussion. Anyway, nothing to do with the believer lacking the proper purification. For further reading if you are interested. http://bible.org/article/doctrine-rewar ... ema-christ
That said, unless you can show otherwise I think you are in error to confuse the Bema Seat with purgatory. At best a sweeping generalization.

I had intended to address this but didn't get the chance until now.

Sure, I will try to show the similarities between the two and how I came to the conclusion that they are basically referencing the same thing. In the end it is just my opinion on the matter, with which you are free to disagree.

First, let me state a few clarifications on purgatory:

- It is NOT a place where a decision (heaven or hell) must still be made. Souls in purgatory WERE saved by Christ and ARE on their way to heaven.
- We know from Rev 21:27 that nothing unclean enters heaven
- We also know Jesus said to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect (Mat 5:48)
- Since no one is able to attain perfection in this life to be deemed ready for heaven, it stands to reason this perfection/purification process happen after death
- Contrary to popular belief, the notion of 'time' does not exist in that realm so for all we know the duration in purgatory may very well be instantaneous (even though it may not seem so to us time-bound creatures).

The above is just a basic summary, there are complete treatises on the subject. Having stated that, the very first commonality I noticed between the Bema seat judgement and purgatory is that 1 Cor 3:10-15 is used in defense of both. In the case of the Bema Seat judgment, it is used to defend heavenly rewards, and in the case of purgatory it is used to defend the purification process (by fire). Another common area still within 1 cor 3:10-15 is that the rewards process (or lack thereof) will entail being with Christ face to face and accounting for our deeds, good or bad. For the good we shall receive our just rewards, and the bad will be a source of great shame and sorrow (as well as lack of rewards), which will be burned up as though through fire. That accounting of the bad deeds and their burning in fire is what I also see in common with purgatory since by accounting for our bad deeds we are purged of the guilt of doing them. In 1 Cor 3:15 the Greek word used is 'zemiothesetai' which is from root word 'zemioo' which can also refer to punishment. This process cannot be taking place in heaven since it would entail punishment in heaven but nothing imperfect can be in or enter heaven. It is not in hell either since the person is saved.

See Part II here for more details on Purification after death by fire.

As I said, this is my opinion formulated through years of observation and discussion with Protestants on the subjects of the Bema Seat Judgment and purgatory. I'm sure you will disagree and you are certainly entitled to do so.

jlay wrote:

The finished work of Christ according to whom? Your understanding of it or the Catholic understanding of it? If the former, then you're attacking a straw man because it is not a position any Catholic holds.

Nothing wrong with pointing out fallacies, but we shouldn't commit one while doing so. I hardly think you are qualified to state what position every Catholic holds. I know that I am not qualified to tell you what position any or every Southern Baptist holds. Even if we share a creed, that doesn't mean our interpretations of that creed will agree. I suspect a little no true Scotsman.

Of course I am qualified to state what position every Catholic holds, the same as any other Catholic would be just as qualified. The reason for that is simple, for a Catholic there is but one position and that is the position of the Church. So if Dave wishes to attack the Church's position I am fine with that, let him state what that position is and have at it. What he cannot do is attribute a false position to be that of the church's then proceed to attack it. That's a straw man.

"and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life." (Rev. 21:27)
Well, the first problem in how you are reading the verse is it misses the 'but.' But those whose names are what? Written in the Lamb's book of life. You would have to figure, under this position, that one cannot be in purgatory and also not written in the book of life. The problem, if we interpret scripture in light of scripture is that, "whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev. 20:15) And the lake of fire is not a place of purification for saved people, but a place that has been prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matt 25:41)
This interpretation also fails to understand something that seems basic. Shall EVER come into it. That is exclusive, not conditional. Not sure how one would interpret this as saying this applies to people who are saved, but need to be fire cleansed first. If that is the case, then they will come into it. Certainly everyone who is saved has practiced lying at some point. So, to say they shall NEVER come into it, leaves everyone, condemned to the Lake of Fire. This fails in multiple ways. Obviously Romans 8:1.

You said your opinion is formed through discussions with protestants regarding the Bema seat. I'm certainly not going to defend positions I don't hold. So, did you read the link I supplied, and if so, would this article be consistent with equating the two? (Ignoring your admitted preconceived bias and considering this article on its own merit.)

Let's also look at that in contrast to Col. 1:28. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation--
How are we reconciled? This also makes a Western interpretation of the word perfect, which is not implied in the original Greek. Perfect means complete. Yet you say we aren't complete in Chrst. We aren't free from accusation or blemish. That somehow we will drag our earthly sin into the afterlife, even though it is under the blood and nailed to the cross.

As I said, no true Scotsman fallacy. Or should I say, no true Catholic fallacy. I was implyng that would result to this defense. The problem is that not even the RCC really practices that. RCC positions have changed, and will continue to change. They've changed before, they'll change again. Just as they have changed regarding Protestants. The Word of God is unchanging. Not to mention that just as Christians differ on interpretations of scripture, RCCs differ on interpretation of RCC tradition as well.
And of course that's the very main problem I and many others have with the RCC, that the man made hierarchy and changing traditions are given equal if not preferential status to the unchanging word of scripture. And please spare me the, 'where did you get your scripture?'

jlay wrote:"and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life." (Rev. 21:27)
Well, the first problem in how you are reading the verse is it misses the 'but.' But those whose names are what? Written in the Lamb's book of life. You would have to figure, under this position, that one cannot be in purgatory and also not written in the book of life. The problem, if we interpret scripture in light of scripture is that, "whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev. 20:15) And the lake of fire is not a place of purification for saved people, but a place that has been prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matt 25:41)
This interpretation also fails to understand something that seems basic. Shall EVER come into it. That is exclusive, not conditional. Not sure how one would interpret this as saying this applies to people who are saved, but need to be fire cleansed first. If that is the case, then they will come into it. Certainly everyone who is saved has practiced lying at some point. So, to say they shall NEVER come into it, leaves everyone, condemned to the Lake of Fire. This fails in multiple ways. Obviously Romans 8:1.

The way you're reading it then it would mean that if one's name is found in the Lamb's book of life they are not only clean but also never practiced abomination and lying. We know this is not true. A simple alternative read is that those whose names are found in the Lamb's book of life are found there unmerited through Christ's work. It says nothing about if a cleansing may or may not come after death.

jlay wrote:You said your opinion is formed through discussions with protestants regarding the Bema seat. I'm certainly not going to defend positions I don't hold. So, did you read the link I supplied, and if so, would this article be consistent with equating the two? (Ignoring your admitted preconceived bias and considering this article on its own merit.)

We all have our preconceived biases don't we. It's just that some are admitted and some are not.

I did read the link and understand very well the writer's point of view that the Bema Seat Judgment is not about punishment but rewards; that much is clear (and understandably so). I disagree. And considering the article itself points out 3 different explanations for the Bema Seat Judgment, it goes to show you that there is disagreement as to its intent. Here's the quote from the article:

Three Views of the Bema
For a summary of three major views, let me quote Samuel L. Hoyt from Bibliotheca Sacra.

Some Bible teachers view the judgment seat as a place of intense sorrow, a place of terror, and a place where Christ display all the believer’s sins (or at least those unconfessed) before the entire resurrected and raptured church. Some go even further by stating that Christians must experience some sort of suffering for their sins at the time of this examination.

At the other end of the spectrum another group, which holds to the same eschatological chronology, views this event as an awards ceremony. Awards are handed out to every Christian. The result of this judgment will be that each Christian will be grateful for the reward which he receives, and he will have little or no shame.

Other Bible teachers espouse a mediating position. They maintain the seriousness of the examination and yet emphasize the commendation aspect of the judgment seat. They emphasize the importance and necessity of faithful living today but reject any thought of forensic punishment at the Bema. Emphasis is placed on the fact that each Christian must give an account of his life before the omniscient and holy Christ. All that was done through the energy of the flesh will be regarded as worthless for reward, while all that was done in the power of the Holy Spirit will be graciously rewarded. Those who hold this view believe that the Christian will stand glorified before Christ without his old sin nature. He will, likewise, be without guilt because he has been declared righteous. There will be no need for forensic punishment, for Christ has forever borne all of God’s wrath toward the believer’s sins.5

This last view I believe to be the one that is in accord with Scripture. Reasons for this will be set forth and developed as we study the nature, purpose, and basis for the Bema. But for now, lest we draw some wrong conclusions, we need to be ever mindful that God’s Word clearly teaches there are specific and very serious consequences, both temporal and eternal, for sin or disobedience. Though we will not be judged in the sense of punished for sin at the Bema since the Lord has born that for us, we must never take sin lightly because there are many consequences.

Even if one subscribes to the notion that the Bema Seat Judgment is for rewards and not punishment (which does not change anything regarding purgatory by the way), the mere fact that we must face Christ and have to account for our deeds is both awesome and terrifying at the same time. Yes, we will receive rewards for our good deeds, but do you really think for one minute we won't feel shame and sorrow for the bad deeds we have done and for which rewards will be withheld? This feeling of shame and sorrow, where is this happening, in heaven? Heaven is perfect J, no such feelings can exist or even enter there. We already know this is not happening in hell for the person is already saved. So if not in heaven and not in hell, then where?

jlay wrote:Let's also look at that in contrast to Col. 1:28. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation--
How are we reconciled? This also makes a Western interpretation of the word perfect, which is not implied in the original Greek. Perfect means complete. Yet you say we aren't complete in Chrst. We aren't free from accusation or blemish. That somehow we will drag our earthly sin into the afterlife, even though it is under the blood and nailed to the cross.

As I said, no true Scotsman fallacy. Or should I say, no true Catholic fallacy. I was implyng that would result to this defense. The problem is that not even the RCC really practices that. RCC positions have changed, and will continue to change. They've changed before, they'll change again. Just as they have changed regarding Protestants. The Word of God is unchanging. Not to mention that just as Christians differ on interpretations of scripture, RCCs differ on interpretation of RCC tradition as well.
And of course that's the very main problem I and many others have with the RCC, that the man made hierarchy and changing traditions are given equal if not preferential status to the unchanging word of scripture.

Talk about (unadmitted) preconceived biases. This is nothing but your unsupported opinion J. If there's any claim going for the RCC is that it has NOT changed, precisely because its historical claim is back to the apostolic age and guidance by the power of the Holy Spirit. If you can show me anywhere where the RCC has made a dogmatic pronouncement then it was rescinded then you might have a case that the church has changed. In the absence of that, opinions are a dime a dozen.

Jlay wrote:And please spare me the, 'where did you get your scripture?'

Oh I had no intention (but nice preemptive dodge anyway). You know as well as I do the question of authority is the root of all these discussions, they will always lead to it, whether we like it or not.

It says nothing about if a cleansing may or may not come after death.

Whose side are you arguing????

The way I was reading it was from how you presented it, regarding a purgatorial cleansing. You quoted Rev. 21:27 as a verse to clarify the doctrine of purgatory. Then you say is says nothing about whether purgatory is or isn't. So, why should I be placed in such a position? That's an end around. Of course we know that is not true. since no liar will enter his presence, and we are all liars, then there must be a caveat for those written in the Lamb's book. The LBOL then becomes a matter of identity. Who we are, "in Christ." Are we liars? No. In fact Paul says, (that before we ever die) we are made to sit in heavenly places. (Eph 2:6) Can we claim to be without sin? No. If we do the truth is not in us. But are we sinners? Is that our identity in Christ? Who are we, in Christ? No condemnation for those who are IN CHRIST.

If there's any claim going for the RCC is that it has NOT changed, precisely because its historical claim is back to the apostolic age and guidance by the power of the Holy Spirit.

If you really want to have that discussion, then so be it. As we know it is fruitless. I am very aware of how the RCC deals with such criticisms. You said a mouthful when you say, "CLAIM." All Christian believers can claim such, as "In Christ" we are part of one body. Not because of some graph on a church hierarchy. Are you saying that all church decrees have always been, and have never been ammended or re-interpreted since the apostolic age? Well, they have, and other traditions have been added. In fact the apocryphal works were not canonized until the COT in 1546. Byb, this is a common ciritque of the RCC, and the RCC has made it a case to be very careful when "modifying" to say things such as, "as the church has always taught....". It's a have your cake and eat it too that's based in circular reasoning, and I don't suspect I'll be changing anyone's mind.

"Development of Doctrine," was, is and will continue to be an issue of the RCC. I don't even care to deny the continuity of the RCC, but certainly how things were interpreted have greatly changed and issues such as how the church accepted and later condemned slavery are an obvious example. FWIW, I have no problem with such development. In fact, it is the right way IMO. However, when one tries to have their cake and eat it too, problems arise. Saying its unchanging but changing. Here is an article from a RCC position that attempts to defend the DOD. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop Now, you may see no issue, but for me and many others, the circularity of it is overwhelming.

This feeling of shame and sorrow, where is this happening, in heaven? Heaven is perfect J, no such feelings can exist or even enter there.

This statement is blatently self-defeating. If it is happening in heaven, and such things can't exist heaven, then you have a contradiciton.
Will we feel shame? I don't know. Since we won't have this body to drag around, I'm not sure how 'feelings' will play into at all. I do know that we have been (completed) justified through faith, we have (NOW) peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Rom. 5:1

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace that he lavished on us. (Eph 1:7,8) So, we have to spend some time paying for our blemishes?