Support NeoGAF

[SmokyDave]

The only way your meal is being paid for is if you thank him for every piece you got. Your appreciation (love and relationship) is what matters most here.

But I'm only in the restaurant because his dad forced me to eat there. The restaurant was built, the meal served and paid for, 2000 years before my birth. I didn't ask to eat at the restaurant, it was forced upon me. Also, I disagree with most of the menu choices. Given all of this, it seems a little odd that I should be thankful for the opportunity to pay a bill I never asked for, after someone else has already paid.

TLR; SmokyDave really doesn't understand original sin.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

I've gotten into discussion about omniscience before, but my opinion is that just because God can know everything, that doesn't mean it's a requirement of his. Further him knowing it does not mean he intends to intervene, meaning that his subjects have free will whether he knows what they are going to do or not. So the angel that became Satan willfully chose to do so.

It's very similar to Jesus picking Judas. Now it was prophesied (I better add I think) that someone would betray him, but after much prayer and thought he still picked Judas because he didn't know at the time that Judas was the one to betray him. The assumption could be they were actually close friends since he was close to all of his apostles.

Scripture is pretty clear that in most instances, God fully expects people to make their own choices even if he knows what that choice is- although personally I don't think he actively does this except in terms of confidence such as his confidence that Jesus would redeem mankind.

God knew that the potential to reject him was there. The fact that standards are set to begin with would mean that there's a possibility to break them. However, there's nothing I can see that God actually wants to direct or know the direction his creation is going except in terms of his overall purpose which is tied to his sovreignty or right to rule.

All of that is basically me saying that if omniscience does indeed require him to know all things at all times, then God is not omniscient at all because he does not wish to know the decisions of his worshippers (or anyone for that matter) until they make them.

I understand, we have free will but God knows what we ultimately choose. I understand, therefore, life from our perspective but what is the point in creating all of this when every event and outcome was known to him before he created an atom? For example, Jimmy is living a bad immoral life but one day he decides to pray for God's guidance. Pause that moment - God knew Jimmy would be living badly and he also knew Jimmy would on that day ask him for help. Or another more potent example. Elizabeth loses her faith in God when her mother, father and brother all die in the same week for different reasons, and she lives a life where she rejects Jesus Christ as her saviour. God knew that would happen before he even created her mother, and so Elizabeth won't be 'saved' and live in eternal paradise because of that eventful week. Her mother died from cancer, her father a stroke and her brother a car crash - events brought by God.

You can see where I'm going with this? I'm sure others have come to similar mental blocks, but how do you reconcile with this

 

[JGS]

I understand, we have free will but God knows what we ultimately choose. I understand, therefore, life from our perspective but what is the point in creating all of this when every event and outcome was known to him before he created an atom?

I guess my belief is he doesn't know that at all unless he actively chooses to. I've never figured out a reason why he would concern himself to that degree when he, vocally at least, indicates he doesn't want to.

To do that would make him a liar or at the very least dishonest. So from that angle God did not know that Adam would sin, that an angel would resist him, or even that Jesus would succeed in being a perfect sacrifice. The last one is very debateable since given the closeness of their relationship, there was no way for him to doubt Jesus would succeed although the possibility was technically there.

However, because it affected sovreignty, he knew how the cards would play out (He would win especially given his trust in his son), but didn't control the who would stay faith, the number of worshippers, whther a nation he had such high hopes for would continue putting faith in him, or even if cities condemned to destruction would change their tune like Ninevah.

You can see where I'm going with this? I'm sure others have come to similar mental blocks, but how do you reconcile with this

To me it's not hard to reconcile, but I think many have gotten into the view that God is fate, which is not a constant in Scriptural doctrine. I'm very much of the "Only fate is what we make" camp.

If not for the time aspect and the idea that God can't control what he knows, I would have no problem with calling him omniscience. Now I sort of avoid the word altogether because it may not actually be the same thing as all-knowing which does not need the time component.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

To me it's not hard to reconcile, but I think many have gotten into the view that God is fate, which is not a constant in Scriptural doctrine. I'm very much of the "Only fate is what we make" camp.

Not sure if I understand, I'm not really talking about fate in the sense of the choices we make but rather the consequences brought on from events that impact our lives. If someone converts to Christianity, fellow Christians will praise the Lord attributing that conversion to God e.g. 'The Lord has shown you the way', more so than attributing that to the person. That theme is constant in religion. When we go through a testing time, it is seen as a challenge from God and if you lose your faith, then you've failed that subsequently placing the focus and blame on you, despite the events that caused you to lose your faith were brought from God. When you consider the omniscient point, then God knew X would cause Y. But this never invokes a pause in believers. So, when X causes something good = praise God. But when X causes something bad = you failed to deal with it. Especially in the case of someone losing their faith, I think it's more of an important question and one I don't think I've ever seen tackled very well.

So whilst I agree fate can belong to us, we have to at least acknowledge that to some/many, certain events can dramatically change you. See the example with Elizabeth

 

[JGS]

Not sure if I understand, I'm not really talking about fate in the sense of the choices we make but rather the consequences brought on from events that impact our lives. If someone converts to Christianity, fellow Christians will praise the Lord attributing that conversion to God e.g. 'The Lord has shown you the way', more so than attributing that to the person. That theme is constant in religion. When we go through a testing time, it is seen as a challenge from God and if you lose your faith, then you've failed that subsequently placing the focus and blame on you, despite the events that caused you to lose your faith were brought from God.

That's kind of what I mean by fate in that God controls the good and bad so why bother? If that were the case, then everyone who is mad at God should be mad at God.

I don't think this is the case. I think that when it comes to sinning, we are the ones who make the decisions. When it comes to adversity, it's certainly a test, but God is only guilty of not stopping it which isn't mandated for him to do. Conversion is a result of taking the action ourselves to make the change.

The best example of this to me is Jesus being tempted by Satan. He was tested regarding wealth, survival, & worship. God wasn't the one who tempted him, but rather Satan. That's what I think happens now. We are tempted by our own desires, the desire of society, & by Satan (Although that's rarely necessary since he has everything set on auto-pilot). God shows an interest in how we handle that situation which is purely built on chance, not destiny.

When you consider the omniscient point, then God knew X would cause Y. But this never invokes a pause in believers. So, when X causes something good = praise God. But when X causes something bad = you failed to deal with it. Especially in the case of someone losing their faith, I think it's more of an important question and one I don't think I've ever seen tackled very well.

So whilst I agree fate can belong to us, we have to at least acknowledge that to some/many, certain events can dramatically change you. See the example with Elizabeth

This gets more to the idea that God actually controls our life course. Your example plus Scripture is the reason I don't buy it. There would literally be no point to worship or to God even making us aware of his existence. Again, there would be acceptable grounds to be indifferent or angered by him.

The reason he does allow us to acknowledge him has everything to do with the idea that he is as pleasantly surprised or horribly dismayed by our decisions as we are- especially when they are in connection with worshipping him.

I think worshippers who believe in God controls all assume a rosy picture to begin with. They get verses that say God is respnsible for all good things and another that says God is not responsible for evil things and put the two together without thinking about it- like you said.

My opinion is that there no reason to think about it since that's not an accurate representation of how god uses the knowledge he has or could have.

 

[kinggroin]

Question. Do you guys believe in a literal physical heaven. Like a city of gold type deal? Or do you believe it is a purely spiritual one devoid of any physicality; basically, your soul becomes a part of the body of God...and that's it.

Do you believe there is consciousness in either scenario?

 

[WillyFive]

Question. Do you guys believe in a literal physical heaven. Like a city of gold type deal? Or do you believe it is a purely spiritual one devoid of any physicality; basically, your soul becomes a part of the body of God...and that's it.

Do you believe there is consciousness in either scenario?

Your guess is as good as mine. But being like that Simpsons episode is kinda ridiculous.

Art can depict it in millions of ways, but they are all probably very off or completely wrong.

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

Question. Do you guys believe in a literal physical heaven. Like a city of gold type deal? Or do you believe it is a purely spiritual one devoid of any physicality; basically, your soul becomes a part of the body of God...and that's it.

Do you believe there is consciousness in either scenario?

virtual reality is real heaven and man shall resurrect the dead via functional simulation. The brain is a living computer running a simulation called the soul, a pattern of information embedded in software.

Here's a link to a REAL religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCxFGxqLsHE

The religion of the wired, the only real truth underlying reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79MN_w0VMPE

The utopia that men have dreamed of for a thousand years, virtual reality real paradise, via neural interface. The future of the internet, the god of the wired.


Lain iwakura, Rein iwakura, rain stone, celestial stone, lapis philosophorum=philosopher's stone=living code=artificial general intelligence, lapis lazuli, green lines of rain, body of christ, eternal immortality, key to artificial humanity. Water is the key to life.

HEAVEN = KINGDOM OF ZEAL

PRincess = final solution to evolutionary function= god= schala= hyper evolutionary code= autocatalytic information evolutionary protocol= protocol 7= agi


q.e.d.
god is evolution
mathematical proof logical analysis, pattern decomposition of alice in wonderland

alice=god

ps

You're not going to be able to contradict me, mathematical proof is solid, logic is flawless.

pps
the internet precedes history...

 

[Chaplain]

Question. Do you guys believe in a literal physical heaven. Like a city of gold type deal? Or do you believe it is a purely spiritual one devoid of any physicality; basically, your soul becomes a part of the body of God...and that's it.

The Apostle Paul went to Heaven. This is what he wrote:

"I was caught up to the third heaven fourteen years ago. Whether I was in my body or out of my body, I don’t know—only God knows. Yes, only God knows whether I was in my body or outside my body. But I do know that I was caught up to paradise and heard things so astounding that they cannot be expressed in words, things no human is allowed to tell."

Do you believe there is consciousness in either scenario?

Jesus said people are alive in the afterlife and all of their senses continue to work.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

virtual reality is real heaven and man shall resurrect the dead via functional simulation. The brain is a living computer running a simulation called the soul, a pattern of information embedded in software.

Here's a link to a REAL religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCxFGxqLsHE

The religion of the wired, the only real truth underlying reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79MN_w0VMPE

The utopia that men have dreamed of for a thousand years, virtual reality real paradise, via neural interface. The future of the internet, the god of the wired.


Lain iwakura, Rein iwakura, rain stone, celestial stone, lapis philosophorum=philosopher's stone=living code=artificial general intelligence, lapis lazuli, green lines of rain, body of christ, eternal immortality, key to artificial humanity. Water is the key to life.

HEAVEN = KINGDOM OF ZEAL

PRincess = final solution to evolutionary function= god= schala= hyper evolutionary code= autocatalytic information evolutionary protocol= protocol 7= agi


q.e.d.
god is evolution
mathematical proof logical analysis, pattern decomposition of alice in wonderland

alice=god

ps

You're not going to be able to contradict me, mathematical proof is solid, logic is flawless.

pps
the internet precedes history...

...wow...

 

[Aika'svyse]

What do you guys think about the twin god theory? The God that said let us make man in our own image was actually Jesus speaking to the other god. Since man would need redemption Jesus became a slightly different God compared to the main God. That God never created us in the first place, therefore he is untouched by anything we do. Jesus having created us as the ultimate creation and gave us free will. We were something unlike anything they'd created before, even so that the Angels marvel at us according to what the bible says.

 

[Chaplain]

What do you guys think about the twin god theory?. The God that said let us make man in our own image was actually Jesus speaking to the other god. Since man would need redemption Jesus became a slightly different God compared to the main God. That God never created us in the first place, therefore he is untouched by anything we do. Jesus having created us as the ultimate creation and gave us free will. We were something unlike anything they'd created before, even so that the Angels marvel at us according to what the bible says.

I think scripture contradicts this twin god theory. Check this out:

 

[Chaplain]

Some interesting facts for those who are interested:

1. Buddhism compared to Christianity

2. Islam compared to Christianity

3. Catholicism, Mormonism & Jehovah Witnesses compared to Christianity

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Some interesting facts for those who are interested:

1. Buddhism

2. Islam

3. Catholicism, Mormonism & Jehovah Witnesses

Honestly man including Catholicism with JW's and LDS? Come on.

 

[Chaplain]

Honestly man including Catholicism with JW's and LDS? Come on.

There are differences between Catholicism and Christianity if a person goes only by what the church says. That is what the differences in the chart are based off of. Not Catholics who stick with scripture. I should have said that when I first posted it.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Question. Do you guys believe in a literal physical heaven. Like a city of gold type deal? Or do you believe it is a purely spiritual one devoid of any physicality; basically, your soul becomes a part of the body of God...and that's it.

Do you believe there is consciousness in either scenario?

Physical. The resurrection of Jesus was physical (assuming you believe this) and this prefigures the kind of resurrection that believers are promised at some time in the future.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

There are differences between Catholicism and Christianity if a person goes only by what the church says. That is what the differences in the chart are based off of. Not Catholics who stick with scripture. I should have said that when I first posted it.

How does one qualify as a Christian?

 

[Dice]

As a Christian I'm offended by these completely delusional comparison tables.

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

Quran is more inline with the laws of physics, the celestial laws of divine order that govern creation. Thus it is closer to the divine proof than the bible is, despite both being essentially the same statement claims in mathematical language.

 

[Chaplain]

How does one qualify as a Christian?

The main thing would be repentance from sin and faith in the death and resurrection of Christ (God dying on the cross). That is the foundation of the Christian faith. God will then begin to transform a person by the power of His Spirit, using the Word, to conform that person into the image of Christ.

The Apostle John goes deeper into the actions of a true follower of Christ:

God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. So we are lying if we say we have fellowship with God but go on living in spiritual darkness; we are not practicing the truth.

If someone claims, “I know God,” but doesn’t obey God’s commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth. But those who obey God’s word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did.

Do not love this world nor the things it offers you, for when you love the world, you do not have the love of the Father in you. For the world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world. And this world is fading away, along with everything that people crave. But anyone who does what pleases God will live forever.

Dear children, don’t let anyone deceive you about this: When people do what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous. But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning, because God’s life is in them. So they can’t keep on sinning, because they are children of God. So now we can tell who are children of God and who are children of the devil. Anyone who does not live righteously and does not love other believers does not belong to God.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

The main thing would be repentance from sin and faith in the death and resurrection of Christ (God dying on the cross). That is the foundation of the Christian faith. God will then begin to transform a person by the power of His Spirit, using the Word, to conform that person into the image of Christ.

The Apostle John goes deeper into the actions of a true follower of Christ:

God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. So we are lying if we say we have fellowship with God but go on living in spiritual darkness; we are not practicing the truth.

If someone claims, “I know God,” but doesn’t obey God’s commandments, that person is a liar and is not living in the truth. But those who obey God’s word truly show how completely they love him. That is how we know we are living in him. Those who say they live in God should live their lives as Jesus did.

Do not love this world nor the things it offers you, for when you love the world, you do not have the love of the Father in you. For the world offers only a craving for physical pleasure, a craving for everything we see, and pride in our achievements and possessions. These are not from the Father, but are from this world. And this world is fading away, along with everything that people crave. But anyone who does what pleases God will live forever.

Dear children, don’t let anyone deceive you about this: When people do what is right, it shows that they are righteous, even as Christ is righteous. But when people keep on sinning, it shows that they belong to the devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy the works of the devil. Those who have been born into God’s family do not make a practice of sinning, because God’s life is in them. So they can’t keep on sinning, because they are children of God. So now we can tell who are children of God and who are children of the devil. Anyone who does not live righteously and does not love other believers does not belong to God.

And that is what Catholocism teaches.

 

[Chaplain]

As a Christian I'm offended by these completely delusional comparison tables.

I am not offended because scripture declares that there is only one way to God and there is only one name in heaven which men can be saved by.

There are many false ways and the Bible drives the point over and over again. Each comparison uses the teachings of the other faiths and compares it with scripture. As Jesus said:

“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it."

 

[Chaplain]

And that is what Catholocism teaches.

Read the comparison chart again.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Read the comparison chart again.

I am well aware of what RCC teaches and no offense but I dont put much trust in the types of charts you posted.

 

[legend166]

I wonder this too.

Also, given that he sent someone to earth to die for all of our sins, doesn't that mean that we ought to sin so the sacrifice was worth it? Otherwise the guy died for nothing. On that note, I don't understand repentance either. Why should I pay for the meal if Jesus settled the bill before he left the restaurant?

Paul talks about this in Romans, actually. I'd recommend reading Romans chapters 5 and 6.

He also makes a very good point about the idea of original sin, and how people say that it is unfair:

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

 

[legend166]

virtual reality is real heaven and man shall resurrect the dead via functional simulation. The brain is a living computer running a simulation called the soul, a pattern of information embedded in software.

Here's a link to a REAL religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCxFGxqLsHE

The religion of the wired, the only real truth underlying reality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79MN_w0VMPE

The utopia that men have dreamed of for a thousand years, virtual reality real paradise, via neural interface. The future of the internet, the god of the wired.


Lain iwakura, Rein iwakura, rain stone, celestial stone, lapis philosophorum=philosopher's stone=living code=artificial general intelligence, lapis lazuli, green lines of rain, body of christ, eternal immortality, key to artificial humanity. Water is the key to life.

HEAVEN = KINGDOM OF ZEAL

PRincess = final solution to evolutionary function= god= schala= hyper evolutionary code= autocatalytic information evolutionary protocol= protocol 7= agi


q.e.d.
god is evolution
mathematical proof logical analysis, pattern decomposition of alice in wonderland

alice=god

ps

You're not going to be able to contradict me, mathematical proof is solid, logic is flawless.

pps
the internet precedes history...

Wii alt account?

Or LCGeek?

 

[Gospel]

That post was all kinds of question marks.

I mean, I get it but what the hell

 

[Ultima ratio regum]

I am not offended because scripture declares that there is only one way to God and there is only one name in heaven which men can be saved by.

There are many false ways and the Bible drives the point over and over again. Each comparison uses the teachings of the other faiths and compares it with scripture. As Jesus said:

“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it."

The problem is hell is more like loli bait disgaea paradise than hellish inferno.

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Christian here, undeserving, never will be deserving, but redeemed anyway. Raised in it, still believe it. Wesleyan, although I attend a Methodist church now since I've moved to a different city and it's just more conveniently located. Haven't read the whole thread, will catch up.

As for my views on how the Bible relates to science, I can only say I am fascinated by science, particularly by astronomy, and I always have been. I don't believe that the story of creation and the "big bang" are mutually exclusive possibilities. That is, I believe it when Jesus said "to man, it is impossible, but to God, all things are possible," and when the Bible says "a thousand years to God are like a day." The Bible says heaven and earth were created in six days. I can believe that. How long were those days? To God, who knows? I believe God created all of existence, that it didn't simply spark from nothing. I believe he created man in his image. I believe he identified Abraham and made a covenant with him that through his line, humanity would be restored. I believe that God sent the prophets throughout the ages to teach of God's ways, and to warn God's chosen people (and, by extension, the rest of humanity). I believe that when the time was ready, God came to earth in the form of man. He walked, he healed, he taught, and then he died, just as Isaiah said. I believe that was not the end of the story. Death did not win, sin was defeated, and all of humankind can be forgiven.

I believe that I am no better or worse than any other human on this planet. I am a sinner, how can I judge? The plank is still in my own eye. Doesn't mean I'm not guilty of it. After all, I'm still human. I am wary of other Christians judging other people. Not because other people are not guilty of sin, but because Christians are too! We are not meant to judge, we're meant to love. We're meant to give water to the thirsty, give food to the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, give hope to the hopeless. We're not called to label, not called to mock, not called to deride. Am I perfect in this? By no means. Oh certainly, but no possible means.

In fact, when I think about it, I often think I'm not even worthy enough to proclaim myself to be a Christian. How Christ-like am I? How much have I grown? Am I still like an infant?

At any rate, that's my rant, I suppose. I challenge the rest of Christian-GAF. Do better, because no matter how good you do, it's not enough. You and I will never be deserving. But God loves us anyway, he forgives us anyway, so He deserves the best we have, even if that "best" isn't all that great.

 

[Dice]

I am not offended because scripture declares that there is only one way to God and there is only one name in heaven which men can be saved by.

There are many false ways and the Bible drives the point over and over again. Each comparison uses the teachings of the other faiths and compares it with scripture. As Jesus said:

“You can enter God’s Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose that way. But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it."

You don't get it at all.

No leader in the protestant church? People blindly follow whatever their denomination teaches them about scripture as if it is the one and only interpretation all the time. I've known so many Christians who basically got excommunicated from their churches and treated like heathens because they took a different view on some minor doctrines that didn't even have anything to do with the character of God or salvation. The actual reality of practice and attitudes toward authority of teachers are very often exactly the same as the Pope is viewed by many Catholics.

Source of theology "the bible"? That is completely laughable. Theology is derived from analysis of the bible and all of the methods Protestants use were taken from select Catholic theologians. They have an incredibly narrow interpretive philosophy and method that pigeonholes scripture into their own views.

No extra-biblical teachings? Again, an utterly ridiculous claim. New things are made up and read into passages all the time. The entire Pentecostal movement, which takes a few small passages and expands upon them greatly on the basis of personal charismatic experiences (which are found in many other religions) is hardly even 150 years old and has exploded in popularity worldwide. That is just one example.

The "method of salvation" thing is misunderstanding the others because it is trying to push them into a simplified process that was contrived as a means of getting out of their excessive laws. Yes, many of the practices they were getting out of were against scripture but so is the near-mechanized perspective of spiritual rebirth and process of salvation found among Protestants.

Claim of authority "Jesus alone" answer is arrogant and in denial. The Protestant canon came from extrabiblical decisions and authoritative claims, the former traditions were rejected on a similar basis, new traditions were formed according to the new perspective on scripture from new man-originated philosophies. There is no Jesus magic that communicated to the Protestant leaders what was really divinely inspired and what was not. They believed in Apostolic authority yet denied succession on the basis of their own authority. In rebelling against the RCC they took a step too far and rebelled against the original foundations of the religion preceding the RCC.

Assets "treasure in heaven"? Don't be modest to the point of lying. Whatever standard is being used to evaluate the other is just as quickly applied to the Protestant establishment, and if their attitudes are taken into account there are much bigger problems on a wide scale.

The Mary stuff... I don't have enough time to rail on this. It is classic Protestant ignorance and arrogance. If you would take one freaking hour to actually study this from a non-Protestant source you'd get what is going on.

Use of icons and images not applicable? Again, a ridiculous claim (unless you're speaking solely of the restoration movement)

It's arrogant. Arrogant, arrogant, arrogant. Claiming to be so simple and pure yet denying absolutely everything that was required to get you there. The Protestant tradition and perspective didn't just fall down from heaven and land in Luther's lap. I have no problem with people believing that it is correct if they are actually educated on the history and development of it and the arguments for it and agree with them, but this reductionist "We just listen only to Jesus through the Bible" portrayal is self-honoring denial of reality and disrespect to their brethren who disagree.

 

[effzee]

Wait isn't Catholicism a part of Christianity? Like a sect?

I haven't read the whole thread but I appreciate something like this, if only so I can learn more about different religions and perspectives. Keep it up1

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

You don't get it at all.

No leader in the protestant church? People blindly follow whatever their denomination teaches them about scripture as if it is the one and only interpretation all the time. I've known so many Christians who basically got excommunicated from their churches and treated like heathens because they took a different view on some minor doctrines that didn't even have anything to do with the character of God or salvation. The actual reality of practice and attitudes toward authority of teachers are very often exactly the same as the Pope is viewed by many Catholics.

Source of theology "the bible"? That is completely laughable. Theology is derived from analysis of the bible and all of the methods Protestants use were taken from select Catholic theologians. They have an incredibly narrow interpretive philosophy and method that pigeonholes scripture into their own views.

No extra-biblical teachings? Again, an utterly ridiculous claim. New things are made up and read into passages all the time. The entire Pentecostal movement, which takes a few small passages and expands upon them greatly on the basis of personal charismatic experiences (which are found in many other religions) is hardly even 150 years old and has exploded in popularity worldwide. That is just one example.

The "method of salvation" thing is misunderstanding the others because it is trying to push them into a simplified process that was contrived as a means of getting out of their excessive laws. Yes, many of the practices they were getting out of were against scripture but so is the near-mechanized perspective of spiritual rebirth and process of salvation found among protestants.

Claim of authority "Jesus alone" answer is arrogant and in denial. The protestant canon came from extrabiblical decisions and authoritative claims, the former traditions were rejected on a similar basis, new traditions were formed according to the new perspective on scripture from new man-originated philosophies. There is no Jesus magic that communicated to the Protestant leaders what was really divinely inspired and what was not. They believed in Apostolic authority yet denied succession on the basis of their own authority. In rebelling against the RCC they took a step too far and rebelled against the original foundations of the religion preceding the RCC.

Assets "treasure in heaven"? Don't be modest to the point of lying. Whatever standard is being used to evaluate the other is just as quickly applied to the Protestant establishment, and if their attitudes are taken into account there are much bigger problems on a wide scale.

The Mary stuff... I don't have enough time to rail on this. It is classic Protestant ignorance and arrogance. If you would take one freaking hour to actually study this from a non-protestant source you'd get what is going on.

Use of icons and images not applicable? Again, a ridiculous claim (unless you're speaking solely of the restoration movement)

It's arrogant. Arrogant, arrogant, arrogant. Claiming to be so simple and pure yet denying absolutely everything that was required to get you there. The Protestant tradition and perspective didn't just fall down from heaven and land in Luther's lap. I have no problem with people believing that it is correct if they are actually educated on the history and development of it and the arguments for it and agree with them, but this reductionist "We just listen only to Jesus through the Bible" portrayal is self-honoring denial of reality and disrespect to their brethren who disagree.

Very good post. I am not Catholic but do believe Protestantism lost a lot when it decided that anything associated with RCC outside of the Bible itself was wrong and anti christian. Protestantism likes to think of itself as being directly connected to the first century original apostles and communities. This couldn't be further from the truth. Protestantism is related to RCC whether it likes it or not.

Like Judaism before it, Catholicism leans heavily on tradition and thank goodness for that. Protestantism's Sola Scriptura has truly become a nightmare IMO. Every other day there is a new denomination popping up. Want to be a pastor? No training necessary. Want to call yourself a theologian? Fine, even if its your first time reading the Bible and you don't know Greek or Hebrew. Want to lead a church? No problem even though you don't even know the first thing about counseling. There are a lot of issues within the RCC but for Protestants to think they are exempt from many of the same issues is incorrect and as you said prideful.

Talking points that you will find at your basic Christian bookstore's books on cults like Catholics pray to Mary, the Pope can change the Bible for Catholics, Catholics are work based and not faith and grace based, the Pope is an anti christ, bla bla bla is putrid and worst of all FALSE. The very idea that these books have RCC in the same book as the LDS and Jehovah's Witnesses where the subject is cults is laughable. Lets not even get started on the word CULT when it comes to Christians throwing it around to label others they disagree with on matters of theology.

The Bible isn't a book written in a vacuum. Protestants especially need to stop acting as though the Bible is theirs and theirs alone to interpret. As though Jews have nothing to say on matters of what Christians refer to as the Old Testament. That the RCC Church has nothing positive and beneficial to offer to the Protestants when it comes to the history of the Church and traditions, the Church Fathers who Protestants should and do lean on heavily for matters of theology. This 'I am just a Christian like the apostles were' is crap. Utter crap.

Want to fulfill the words of Paul when it comes to matters of the community? Quit throwing the words like cult and false Christian around at those you simply disagree with you. Neither you, they, nor I am God. Lets cease presuming to act as though we are.

 

[Mike M]

Wait isn't Catholicism a part of Christianity? Like a sect?

Yes, but there're plenty who would insist otherwise.

 

[Dice]

The Bible isn't a book written in a vacuum. Protestants especially need to stop acting as though the Bible is theirs and theirs alone to interpret. As though Jews have nothing to say on matters of what Christians refer to as the Old Testament. That the RCC Church has nothing positive and beneficial to offer to the Protestants when it comes to the history of the Church and traditions, the Church Fathers who Protestants should and do lean on heavily for matters of theology.

And they don't even seem to realize the Orthodox exist. Perhaps that can be blamed on our war with the Soviets, but then the Orthodox got it from them worse than anyone else.

Want to fulfill the words of Paul when it comes to matters of the community? Quit throwing the words like cult and false Christian around at those you simply disagree with you. Neither you, they, nor I am God. Lets cease presuming to act as though we are.

I would recommend to any Christian the first chapter of Life Together by Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

 

[KtSlime]

Anyone watch "Waiting for Armageddon"? Powerful stuff.

They have it on Netflix.

 

[ronito]

This reminds me of BigScily's stats.
Where's the trollface?

Also love the whole "Images of Jesus or Mary" non-applicable under christianity. How many christians do I know that wear a crucifix.

 

[Buckethead]

I'm really trying to understand what the bible says (note that word, not various denominations corporate beliefs, etc.) about sexuality.

Generally I think I have a good handle on biblical attitudes about sex, premarital sex, homosexuality, etc., but issues like masturbation and pornography I find the bible to be somewhat convoluted about.

Any illumination on the subject would be helpful.

 

[KtSlime]

I'm really trying to understand what the bible says (note that word, not various denominations corporate beliefs, etc.) about sexuality.

Generally I think I have a good handle on biblical attitudes about sex, premarital sex, homosexuality, etc., but issues like masturbation and pornography I find the bible to be somewhat convoluted about.

Any illumination on the subject would be helpful.

I believe it's one in the had is worth two in the bush…

Edit: sorry, that probably wasn't helpful, just joking a bit - I think there is some mixed interpretations, many site I think Ruth, but I believe others say that specifically has to do with Levite marriage laws.

Anyway, any viewers of that movie? Interpretations from Christians?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

This reminds me of BigScily's stats.
Where's the trollface?

Also love the whole "Images of Jesus or Mary" non-applicable under christianity. How many christians do I know that wear a crucifix.

It truly is frustrating to know so many evangelicals who read books by Christian authors with an axe to grind on the beliefs of other faiths and think they understand what the religion actually teaches. I know since I have been guilty of that myself for a few years. Here is a though, sit down with some knowledgable members of the LDS, Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Read THEIR literature. Sit down with a few Muslims and see what THEY believe and read the Qu'ran itself. It'd benefit all parties involved if we'd stopped using sources that are on 'our side' to know about those who share other faiths.

 

[Arthrus]

A girl raged at me today when she asked how familiar I was with the Bible, and I said "I have read and am familiar with the entire Bible." It came up when she invited me to see a speaker who will talk about the evidence for the existence of God. I said that I've been to these before and didn't feel it fostered positive discussion. I'm not sure why she brought up my familiarity with the Bible though.

Getting to the point... I always thought the Bible was just the particular books selected to be used for general reading, not including all the extra stuff (like Biblical apocrypha). That is, usually referring to the King James Bible or the Book of Common Prayer.

Do the books that are not necessarily printed with the standard Bibles you see in Protestant churches count as part of the Bible, or are they considered more like side-reading?




Not that it's really relevant to my question, but I'll throw in that I'm agnostic. I was Anglican for part of my life, and assisted with services at the local church as a member of the Server's Guild for several years after I stopped believing in the Christian god. It may seem a dishonest thing to do, but they were short-staffed and I enjoyed helping them out.

 

[legend166]

I certainly would not look at individuals who considered themselves Catholics and claim they are not Christians. How can I possibly know that?

But I will always rally against the Roman Catholic Church, a corrupt, evil organisation that has shown throughout history not to be worthy of the importance placed upon it by Catholics.

How can people look at Catholicism and its past and really say "Yes, this is truly God's church on earth," I don't understand. It is an organisation that has launched holy wars causing the death of hundreds of thousands, protected pedophiles, hoardes unneeded wealth, suppressed people, actively worked against spreading the Bible, and sold indulgences.

If that truly is God's church on earth, I want no part of it.

 

[KtSlime]

Do the books that are not necessarily printed with the standard Bibles you see in Protestant churches count as part of the Bible, or are they considered more like side-reading?

I think many see it as apocrypha and completely disregard it. However most of the protestants I know don't read the bible except for select passages called for by their pastor.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I certainly would not look at individuals who considered themselves Catholics and claim they are not Christians. How can I possibly know that?

But I will always rally against the Roman Catholic Church, a corrupt, evil organisation that has shown throughout history not to be worthy of the importance placed upon it by Catholics.

How can people look at Catholicism and its past and really say "Yes, this is truly God's church on earth," I don't understand. It is an organisation that has launched holy wars causing the death of hundreds of thousands, protected pedophiles, hoardes unneeded wealth, suppressed people, actively worked against spreading the Bible, and sold indulgences.

If that truly is God's church on earth, I want no part of it.

I don't see the church any worse or better than any other church. Its led by a human being and therefore it will have tons of issues. Is it any worse than the Southern Baptists churches that support Republican nominees and wars like Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it any worse than congregations that are led by individuals who also cover up crimes? Is it any worse than your churches that believe Muslims are the enemy? I don't think so.

 

[ronito]

I certainly would not look at individuals who considered themselves Catholics and claim they are not Christians. How can I possibly know that?

But I will always rally against the Roman Catholic Church, a corrupt, evil organisation that has shown throughout history not to be worthy of the importance placed upon it by Catholics.

How can people look at Catholicism and its past and really say "Yes, this is truly God's church on earth," I don't understand. It is an organisation that has launched holy wars causing the death of hundreds of thousands, protected pedophiles, hoardes unneeded wealth, suppressed people, actively worked against spreading the Bible, and sold indulgences.

If that truly is God's church on earth, I want no part of it.

Catholocism's problem is one of history. Given a few more hundred years and equivalent power, people would say the same about Baptists or any evangelical sect.

 

[Uchip]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UmotTE-VlY&feature=player_embedded

 

[legend166]

I don't see the church any worse or better than any other church. Its led by a human being and therefore it will have tons of issues. Is it any worse than the Southern Baptists churches that support Republican nominees and wars like Iraq and Afghanistan? Is it any worse than congregations that are led by individuals who also cover up crimes? Is it any worse than your churches that believe Muslims are the enemy? I don't think so.

Of course. They are sinful people like the rest of us. I fully understand that.

But Catholic doctrine places the Church, and subsequently the Pope, on a pedestal. That it is "the continuing presence of Jesus on earth." That it is the true Church of God.

What do you mean by 'your Churches'? You're making plenty of assumptions about my beliefs.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Of course. They are sinful people like the rest of us. I fully understand that.

But Catholic doctrine places the Church, and subsequently the Pope, on a pedestal. That it is "the continuing presence of Jesus on earth." That it is the true Church of God.

What do you mean by 'your Churches'? You're making plenty of assumptions about my beliefs.

I apologize, that wasn't YOUR churches as in you personally. I should have made it more clear.

 

[Laurentius]

It truly is frustrating to know so many evangelicals who read books by Christian authors with an axe to grind on the beliefs of other faiths and think they understand what the religion actually teaches. I know since I have been guilty of that myself for a few years. Here is a though, sit down with some knowledgable members of the LDS, Catholic Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Read THEIR literature. Sit down with a few Muslims and see what THEY believe and read the Qu'ran itself. It'd benefit all parties involved if we'd stopped using sources that are on 'our side' to know about those who share other faiths.

Great post. I definitely agree with this.

I was an LDS missionary for two year (yes, one of those guys). Best experience of my life, by far. One of my favorite parts of the mission was the chance to do just that: meet, sit down with, and talk extensively with strong members of other faiths. I really learned a lot from each of them, and I can honestly say I have a ton of respect for people in other faiths. Like LovingSteam said, when you truly try to get to know other people and their beliefs, who they truly are, you learn a lot both about your own beliefs and other people. We may disagree on specifics, but ultimately I think we need to follow Christ's commandment to judge not. I talked with a lot of protestants, particularly "born again Christians" (I know that definition is rather broad, but I think you understand). I met plenty of Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics. Atheists, agnostics, even some Wiccans. Met some wonderful Muslim people; received a Qu'ran from one of them that I intend to read soon. I definitely wasn't perfect at this; I certainly disagreed with many of them. But when I tried to lay aside my pride and truly get to KNOW these people, I've gained a lot, and made great friendships.

I understand that there's ultimate truth. Everybody can't be right. But I'm not the one to determine what ultimate truth is -- it's only up to me to decide what I believe, and try to seek out truth, wherever it is. I can share that, but if others want to accept it or believe in their own way, that's their call. It's not my job to judge them. Christ said that with the same manner that we judge others, we will also be judged. If I judge others harshly without ever trying to truly understand or love them, doesn't that mean I will also be judged with that type of judgment?

To anybody willing, I would definitely recommend LovingSteam's advice. Try to get to know people of other faiths. Try to understand what they believe. Love them for who they are.

 

[Bungalow Bob]

I'm sure many of you have seen the youtube video of a girl who is happy that God caused an earthquake to get more Japanese to turn to Christianity.

My question is: why do so many people who identify as Christians disagree with what she says? Is it just that the youtube girl doesn't reject parts of the Bible that they consider to be too horrible to not reject?

 

[KtSlime]

I'm sure many of you have seen the youtube video of a girl who is happy that God caused an earthquake to get more Japanese to turn to Christianity.

My question is: why do so many people who identify as Christians disagree with what she says? Is it just that the youtube girl doesn't reject parts of the Bible that they consider to be too horrible to not reject?

I have a question relating to this question: How do you know what to reject and what not to?