Support NeoGAF

[JGS]

Could you explain more the overseer thing?

I'm not sure what else you want explained. Overseers were the ones who took the lead in a church/comgregation. They were the ones that set the example which is why there was a list of qualifications for them.

So as Christianity grew, it may have came across more people involved in polygamous relationships. These ones did not qualify for leadership positions in the church.

I still haven't seen it condemned. The closest I have seen is the example of the made as one flesh thing. There is nothing that says that a man cannot be made of one flesh with more than one woman, otherwise what would happen when a woman died and he remarried?

If you are of the opinion that because the scipture that says one flesh doesn't count, and husband of one wife doesn't count, and adultery can apply across multiple wives, then I admit to having nothing else to convince you. Feel free to marry as many as you want. For most Christians, the standard is pretty clear.

I understand the arguments about the Christian view on sex as being immoral. I still don't see any real direct prohibition within scripture of polygny, I however see many examples of it being the conduct of the Prophets of the past.

This is not what we're discussing. The OT & the NT are not mandated to teach the same thing. In fact, there wuld be no need for NT if it was the same as the OT. So I'm not quite following your lines of thought regarding the allowance of polygny unless you are saying some prophets of old included Christians.

 

[Chaplain]

According to most of the commentaries I read, multiple wives meant more than the standard eighteen that were allowed to Kings.

The bottom line is from the beginning of time, one man and one woman united as one and were married in God's eyes. This is and was His original plan.

If you read through Genesis for example, any man that had multiple wives could not love both equally because married love was never meant to be shared beyond one man and woman. One of the wives would get jealous because they did not want to share their husbands love with another woman.

I have been married for nine years in July. It is impossible for me to love my wife the way I do and love another woman at the same time. My heart would be divided because I was not created to love more than one woman at a time. I would never want to hurt my wife by sharing my love with another. It would also break my heart if she had another husband while we were married because I would not want her to share her love with another.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Have any current Christians ever been non-religious?

Yes. I was raised by active Catholics, but in terms of religious instruction I received very little. I stayed Catholic-in-name-only for most of my teen years, and mainly because I went to a Catholic school.

I was an agnostic/atheist from about 18-23, while at university. And then several things happened in my life that brought me back in from the cold.

 

[OttomanScribe]

In 1 Timothy, the Bible sets standards/criteria for being a "deacon" and an "overseer".

A deacon, diakonos in Greek would basically be a minister.
An overseer, episkopos, would be like an elder and one who sees that all is going smoothly.

The criteria is more stringent for overseers as they essentially have more responsibility to 'hold up the faith
and run the ship smoothly and make sure people aren't deviating from teaching (which was very common).

To use a sports metaphor, the overseer is the general manager/owner and the deacon is the head coach.
Both however, mention "having one wife".

Paul's charge to Timothy in Romans was to find new overseers/elders, something he didn't do, so Paul is following up to make sure that there is the proper infrastructure set up for the growing church in a tumultuous time. He's also raising up Timothy as his successor.

That is the explanation I was looking for, many thanks

It isn't.

Everything that is used as a proof would be deductive (it was 1 man, 1 women in the garden, general trend is 1 man, 1 woman, etc) although I don't agree with this.

I personally think (which is based on analysis of the Bible) that a lot of things that are taught aren't necessary biblical and more tradition based and have arose from influence from religious institutions like the catholic church, not anything in the bible.

I can understand and accept an argument from tradition. I think such a thing is valid.

I'm not sure what else you want explained. Overseers were the ones who took the lead in a church/comgregation. They were the ones that set the example which is why there was a list of qualifications for them.

So as Christianity grew, it may have came across more people involved in polygamous relationships. These ones did not qualify for leadership positions in the church.

I did not, before BucketHead's explanation, understand what the role of an Overseer was. Arguably one could conclude that because it is specified for overseers that they must only have one wife, that this was a norm at the time, and not a requirement of those who weren't overseers. Were it to have been a general requirement, it would not have been specified surely?

If you are of the opinion that because the scipture that says one flesh doesn't count, and husband of one wife doesn't count, and adultery can apply across multiple wives, then I admit to having nothing else to convince you. Feel free to marry as many as you want. For most Christians, the standard is pretty clear.

My problem with the 'one flesh' thing is that a man is allowed to re marry after the death of his wife. This clearly indicates that the 'one flesh' thing can occur more than once. Considering the fact that this is the case, there is no compelling reason to assume that the 'one flesh' means that one may only marry one woman.

I take a different law from you, so I will regardless, what I am confused about is how this became such an accepted standard amongst the Christians, when it seems so clearly shady in the texts. If it is just tradition then that is fine.

This is not what we're discussing. The OT & the NT are not mandated to teach the same thing. In fact, there wuld be no need for NT if it was the same as the OT. So I'm not quite following your lines of thought regarding the allowance of polygny unless you are saying some prophets of old included Christians.

I didn't say that it was mandated to teach the same thing, however if it was contradicting the things present in the OT (changing dietary laws, circumcision etc.) one expects it to be clearly stated.

If you read through Genesis for example, any man that had multiple wives could not love both equally because married love was never meant to be shared beyond one man and woman. One of the wives would get jealous because they did not want to share their husbands love with another woman.

I have been married for nine years in July. It is impossible for me to love my wife the way I do and love another woman at the same time. My heart would be divided because I was not created to love more than one woman at a time. I would never want to hurt my wife by sharing my love with another. It would also break my heart if she had another husband while we were married because I would not want her to share her love with another.

I have been married more than a year now, congrats to you also, it rocks doesn't it?

I have great love for my wife, I also love the Messenger of God (sullAllahu alayhi wasalaam) and the Sha'riah, and Allah, and the Prophet Jesus (alayhis salaam) and my brothers and sisters in Islam, and my family. My heart is not divided by this. I have no inclination to take another wife, but I know people who have and who have excellent relationships. It is not easy, but no relationship is.

The fact that a relationship causes problems does not seem to be a foundation in Christian morality for it to be prohibited. The relationship between our beloved Prophet Jesus (alayhis salaam) and those who followed him caused problems, do we then assume that having friends and companions is impermissable?

Clearly in the Bible's idea, the standard model of one man and one woman caused the greatest problem ever, the fall of man! Do we then ban marriage?

I can understand if someone thought sex was sinful, then they would think that having more than one wife would equal more sex and therefore be a bad thing. However I don't neccesarily see how that translates to a blanket ban on polygamy in the Bible.

 

[Chaplain]

A awesome study on overcoming idolatry, false gods, Satan's method of attacks & mental warfare:

OVERCOMING IDOLATRY - A Topical Study of LEVITICUS 26:1

 

[Raist]

A awesome study on overcoming idolatry, false gods, Satan's method of attacks & mental warfare:

I'm confused. If you go by the first verse quoted there, how could churches etc not be considered as idolatry?

 

[JGS]

I'm confused. If you go by the first verse quoted there, how could churches etc not be considered as idolatry?

A house of god is a place of worship not the thing worshipped.

Now how they decorate it is a different story perhaps.

 

[Raist]

A house of god is a place of worship not the thing worshipped.

Now how they decorate it is a different story perhaps.

Yeah well that's what I meant, not the building itself, but what's inside.

 

[JGS]

Yeah well that's what I meant, not the building itself, but what's inside.

Then it's a good point.

The reality is that many, churches use all kinds of religious symbols and I'm not sure how to explain that away.

Decorating it with images that display something about God's presence/glory (Like the Ark of the Covenant or paintings) is a little different than worshipping which many religions seem to actually do. I'll have to let them explain how that works though.

 

[Fernando Rocker]

Yeah well that's what I meant, not the building itself, but what's inside.

Well... my Church, for example, only has one big cross as part of the decoration... but we don't worship that cross and we don't pray to that image and we don't kneel to that image.

I have seen images, for example, in Catholic Churches, of several saints, and people kneel and pray to those saints. They even kiss and touch those man-made images.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Well... my Church, for example, only has one big cross as part of the decoration... but we don't worship that cross and we don't pray to that image and we don't kneel to that image.

I have seen images, for example, in Catholic Churches, of several saints, and people kneel and pray to those saints. They even kiss and touch those man-made images.

Veneration, friend, is different than worship. Have you ever looked a picture of a loved one, and thought of that person? Maybe you even prayed for him/her. Ever held an image of something in high regard because it represented something?

When a Catholic displays a corporal act of respect/honour to an image, he's not 'praying to it', but incorporating the act into his prayer to God. Humans were given eyes to see, noses to smell, ears to hear, the sense of touch - it is reductionist ridiculousness to think that God Himself didn't want us to use these in our worship of Him.

 

[The Lamp]

Veneration, friend, is different than worship. Have you ever looked a picture of a loved one, and thought of that person? Maybe you even prayed for him/her. Ever held an image of something in high regard because it represented something?

When a Catholic displays a corporal act of respect/honour to an image, he's not 'praying to it', but incorporating the act into his prayer to God. Humans were given eyes to see, noses to smell, ears to hear, the sense of touch - it is reductionist ridiculousness to think that God Himself didn't want us to use these in our worship of Him.

Looking at a painting of Jesus is different from kneeling at an ornament or seeing Virgin Mary statues whose feet are eroded from the kisses of its subjects.

Veneration is far different. I have heard Catholics tell me that they pray to Mary for her to intercede for them to God, and that is not biblical at all.

 

[Buckethead]

The bible says "nothing beyond what is written". 1 Corinth. 4:6.

You never see use of saints, crosses, etc. in the Bible.

One has to be very careful with icons and compare behavior to the scriptures.
The use of crosses for one is deeply offensive. I respect people's practices and experiences, but at the end of the day it must be compared with the bible.

I deeply respect the high degree of iconoclasm in Islam in this regard.

 

[The Lamp]

The bible says "nothing beyond what is written". 1 Corinth. 4:6.

You never see use of saints, crosses, etc. in the Bible.

One has to be very careful with icons and compare behavior to the scriptures.
The use of crosses for one is deeply offensive. I respect people's practices and experiences, but at the end of the day it must be compared with the bible.

I deeply respect the high degree of iconoclasm in Islam in this regard.

Not sure what you're replying to in that regard, but praying to a dead human being to intercede for you defeats the whole purpose of Christians being able to approach God's throne boldly in prayer, particularly after the veil of the temple was torn in two.

 

[Buckethead]

Not sure what you're replying to in that regard, but praying to a dead human being to intercede for you defeats the whole purpose of Christians being able to approach God's throne boldly in prayer, particularly after the veil of the temple was torn in two.

I was/am trying to be tactful and respectful while proving my point that none of those practices (saints, prayer beads, fashionable/personal use of crosses) are found in the Bible and was noting a scripture that explicitly states nothing beyond the Bible should be considered for Christian doctrine.

 

[JGS]

When a Catholic displays a corporal act of respect/honour to an image, he's not 'praying to it', but incorporating the act into his prayer to God. Humans were given eyes to see, noses to smell, ears to hear, the sense of touch - it is reductionist ridiculousness to think that God Himself didn't want us to use these in our worship of Him.

Although I will remain opinionless on the use of objects as your explanation clarifies my thinking regarding Catholics' use of it, but God does not expect us to use those senses in relation to worship of him- at least not in the sense of using those images to represent him.

There is nothing that we can do with our senses that are capable of describing God, so there's no point in trying.

It wouldn't be that big of a deal if not for what often happens- the thing used to venerate God turns into the thing worshipped (or thought to be embued with his power) even if that was not the orginal intent. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what happened with the Israellites and the golden calf.

That's kind of why there has always been an issue regarding the use of images in worship.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Thanks for the responses, guys. I'll try to respond to each.

The Lamp: The issue isn't in which sense you're using, it's what the actual act means to the person doing it. You can worship an image just using your eyes, and you can venerate an image by touching it.

Praying for the intercession of Mary/Saints is not how you're imagining it. Catholics view the Church in three levels: the Militant (those on Earth), the Suffering (those in Purgatory) and the Triumphant (those in Heaven). The temporary separation of the Militant and the Triumphant is not seen as an impassable impediment to communication, ie prayer. We believe that these people can and do still pray for us, just like how we know we have friends who pray for us. Prayers of intercession are just requests for a member of the Church (in this conversation it would be the Triumphant) to join our supplication to Christ.

Buckethead: The Bible isn't in 'biblical', nor is the Trinity. Both of these rely on Christian tradition to exist. And it's funny (as in odd) to me to see someone use the Bible the way you do. The dudes who assembled it did so whilst sitting in monasteries, basilicas, and surrounded by Christian art and imagery. You're saying that these fellows, who lived and breathed Sacred Tradition, were misunderstanding Paul, while you - 1700 years later - have the real goods. It's a hard sell, not to mention looooooooooong odds.

JGS: I'll have to reply to your comment at home.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Although I will remain opinionless on the use of objects as your explanation clarifies my thinking regarding Catholics' use of it, but God does not expect us to use those senses in relation to worship of him- at least not in the sense of using those images to represent him.

For Catholics, this is obviously not how we understand it. God's given us these senses to use - there is no proscription in Christian tradition that says making a mental image of Him is safe, while hanging a Crucifix is not. In this case, we'd talk about the Parable of the Talents, and how Christ seems to say, pretty clearly, that we are expected to use what we're given to worship God, and by extension, to assist us in living as Christians.

There is nothing that we can do with our senses that are capable of describing God, so there's no point in trying.

I've not ever encountered a depiction of God in my travels, so I can't say whether or not it is or isn't worth trying (satirical depictions of Him in The Simpsons notwithstanding). Christ and the Saints were real people with physical bodies, and Christians have been making images of both from the very beginning.

It wouldn't be that big of a deal if not for what often happens- the thing used to venerate God turns into the thing worshipped (or thought to be embued with his power) even if that was not the orginal intent. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what happened with the Israellites and the golden calf.

I know a lot of Catholics, and have been to churches all over North America and Europe; I still have yet to meet someone who 'worships' an image. I have seen acts of veneration during liturgy and prayer, and I've seen people genuflect toward the Tabernacle. Not once I have experienced or witnessed what you're describing.

And yea, this is purely anecdotal - but then so is what you're saying as well. You have no evidence of this happening on any kind of significant scale (I can't say it never happens, because I can't peer into people's hearts and minds), other than your own Tradition's interpretation of what us phreaky Papists really get up to.

That's kind of why there has always been an issue regarding the use of images in worship.

There hasn't really always been an issue. Byzantium saw 2 periods of iconoclasm, which had very little to do with what you believe the problem is. And the aniconism of the Reformation (which Luther himself even rejected) was as more a populist reaction to symbols associated with Catholicism than it was an expression Biblical solidarity.

In the end, how you feel about images is completely up to you. Most Christians don't have problems with it, didn't for the past 2,000 years, and won't for the next 2,000. I find being able to walk into a Catholic Cathedral and see beautiful artwork and architecture an incredibly rewarding aspect of my faith. These things help remind me of who I am, what I believe, and why I believe it.

 

[Buckethead]

Buckethead: The Bible isn't in 'biblical', nor is the Trinity. Both of these rely on Christian tradition to exist.

Ok this is a bunch of nonsense.

The word "trinity" is never stated in the bible but God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit - the tree elements that make up said concept are laid out in a very linear, simple format. All "trinity" is - is a label for said concept.

Want to follow God? The way to God is through his son.

 "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". (John 14:6)

Want the holy spirit? You need Jesus.

"the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you". (John 14:25b-26)

There are tons of scriptures that mention all three and some in direct to another. It a system of causality clearly laid out.

[

Both of these rely on Christian tradition to exist.

Tradition? If it is so important then why isn't in the Bible?

Afterall, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

and

"Watch your life and doctrine closely because if you do you will save yourself and all your hearers".
(1 Timothy 4:16)

Lots of talk in the bible about doctrine, the holy spirit, confession, and community but none about tradition and secret knowledge.

What you are saying is the same kind of bogus thinking that the Jews had. "We're the special ones... we're exclusive"...

It is Gnosticism flat out. That you need some sort of special knowledge to be 'Christian' and to get close to God is backwards to the entire concept of the holy spirit and jesus' death.

Next you'll be telling me we need priests to forgive our sins, right?

 

[Fernando Rocker]

Most of the Catholics people I know follow a lot of traditions that are not even mentioned in the Bible...

I really don't know why... I mean, the Bible is God's word... we should only do what the Bible says. And the Bible never mentions things like the sign of the cross, purgatory, praying Hail Mary, using praying beads...

Why do things not told by God's word?

 

[JGS]

For Catholics, this is obviously not how we understand it. God's given us these senses to use - there is no proscription in Christian tradition that says making a mental image of Him is safe, while hanging a Crucifix is not. In this case, we'd talk about the Parable of the Talents, and how Christ seems to say, pretty clearly, that we are expected to use what we're given to worship God, and by extension, to assist us in living as Christians.

I don't think I was saying what was safe, just that the use of sight upon the crucifix is not listed as something needed, preferred, or condoned in relation to God. The talents is very imprtant, but I'm not quite sure how it applies to images.

I've not ever encountered a depiction of God in my travels, so I can't say whether or not it is or isn't worth trying (satirical depictions of Him in The Simpsons notwithstanding). Christ and the Saints were real people with physical bodies, and Christians have been making images of both from the very beginning.

I wasn't saying this as an opinion, I was simply mentioning something from Isaiah 40 (I think). I'm not sure why there would be a need for an image of Jesus or the saints though especially if the image doesn not match their physical appearance.

However, it also reminds me of a great preaching example the apostle Paul gave regarding the unknown god in Acts. Making an image of Jesus in human form or anyone else is not the same as making an image of God.

I know a lot of Catholics, and have been to churches all over North America and Europe; I still have yet to meet someone who 'worships' an image. I have seen acts of veneration during liturgy and prayer, and I've seen people genuflect toward the Tabernacle. Not once I have experienced or witnessed what you're describing.

I sorta disagree with this one. I have met many people who bow down, pray, talk to, and hold sacred any number of things. You don't need any of those objects to approach and worship god, so you don't need to perform acts reserved for God on those things. The only mediator is Jesus and he is now unseeable.

So although it's perfectly acceptable to make something that helps us reflect or appreciate the Creator, it's something else to use that something as a tool for worship. Those aren't the same things.

Of course, it all is based on what "wosrship" is.

And yea, this is purely anecdotal - but then so is what you're saying as well. You have no evidence of this happening on any kind of significant scale (I can't say it never happens, because I can't peer into people's hearts and minds), other than your own Tradition's interpretation of what us phreaky Papists really get up to.

I wasn't saying it as proof, although anecdotal is perfectly acceptable unless you don't believe it. I assure you I have no reason to lie about it. I think there's sufficient evidence that people, Catholic or not, put emphasis on objects over the invisible. The cross alone has been in overkill mode for centuries.

There hasn't really always been an issue. Byzantium saw 2 periods of iconoclasm, which had very little to do with what you believe the problem is. And the aniconism of the Reformation (which Luther himself even rejected) was as more a populist reaction to symbols associated with Catholicism than it was an expression Biblical solidarity.

I'm not quite sure what I believe the problem to be, but Biblically, there has ALWAYS been a problem with images. I'm not concerned with church history after the Scripture because the Scripture explains what should/shouldn't be done to begin with and often provides a reason for the warning. Images were used in worship on a regular basis in the OT and the NT, so it's always been an issue. The fact that the discussions carries on to this very day (With some getting defensive/offensive about it) shows it's clearly an issue now amongst Christians.

In the end, how you feel about images is completely up to you. Most Christians don't have problems with it, didn't for the past 2,000 years, and won't for the next 2,000. I find being able to walk into a Catholic Cathedral and see beautiful artwork and architecture an incredibly rewarding aspect of my faith. These things help remind me of who I am, what I believe, and why I believe it.

Artwork & architecture is not the same thing at all as praying with a cross, or speaking to a shrine, or being scared of throwing a religious item away. There isn't a line anywhere that I said that indicated they were similar. I know you are comfortable with seperating the differences, but not everyone is like you by a long shot and sadly superstition mixes in with the artifact all the time.

The problem isn't what Christians are confortable with since we can be comfortable with a bunch of things that are non-Christian in nature. That some of those things would be embraced by the various Christian organizations is not surprising either considering that was something that would be a known danger. This is not a strength in numbers debate and it matters very much what Scriptures says about it.

We should abstain from the use of images and idols in our worship. Nothing we make can define/explain God- especially since God & his prophets indicate that's not necessary to do. It's clear as day.

However, if you say that what your faith does is not that, then who am I to argue? If you're saying there is a loophole, then I'm going to agree to disagree.

 

[Chaplain]

We should abstain from the use of images and idols in our worship. Nothing we make can define/explain God- especially since God & his prophets indicate that's not necessary to do. It's clear as day.

Excellent point.

"Long ago God spoke many times and in many ways to our ancestors through the prophets. And now in these final days, he has spoken to us through his Son. God promised everything to the Son as an inheritance, and through the Son he created the universe. The Son radiates God’s own glory and expresses the very character of God, and he sustains everything by the mighty power of his command. When he had cleansed us from our sins, he sat down in the place of honor at the right hand of the majestic God in heaven." Hebrews 1:1–3

Christianity is not about making an image of God, no matter how noble or grand. It’s about looking at Jesus, and allowing Him to conform us to His image.

 

[Chaplain]

A commentary on the Parable of the Hidden Treasure:

"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a treasure that a man discovered hidden in a field. In his excitement, he hid it again and sold everything he owned to get enough money to buy the field." - Matthew 13:44

In this parable, a man finds some treasure and immediately buys the field in order to gain the treasure therein. You may have heard this parable taught like this: The treasure in the field is Jesus. We are the man. Like the man who found the treasure, when you discover Jesus, you should forsake everything to follow Him. But I believe this is an improper interpretation. I believe Jesus is the Man, and we are the treasure.

Think about it. When you were saved, how many of you sold everything to follow Jesus? None of us did that. We were simply born again. How? Not by our will, not by our efforts, not even by our desire, but by God. God saved us; God elected us; God predestined us. We didn’t sell anything to receive Him. He, on the other hand, gave His life to purchase us. Why was the field—the world—purchased? Did the Lord want another planet? No, He wanted the treasure that was buried in the world. He wanted you.

 

[Fernando Rocker]

Game Analyst, JGS... I enjoy your comments a lot. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts here in this thread.

At first I thought that this thread was destined to fail, but now it is a respectable thread. This was kinda what I wanted this thread to be.


Now... another question I have: What do you guys things about life in another planets, galaxies, etc?

 

[bonesmccoy]

I was going to reply to Buckethead, Fernando and JGS each in turn, but you're all pretty much making the same argument, just with different levels of erudition. I appreciate that apart from Buckethead, we're not trolling each other.

To start, I ask that you consider the Bible- the actual assembly of documents that make it up. How did the Catholic Church determine which books could be included, and which couldn't? There is nothing in the Bible that says Hebrews should be included, or that Paul's letters to the Corinthians are key expositions of the faith. Instead, these 'assemblers' had to rely on Christian - and Jewish - tradition. Christians had to weigh the roots (are these books part of our faith's history?) and the fruits (are they in keeping with the Faith the Apostles gave us, and Apostolic Succession has safe-guarded?) to build what we now call the Bible.

That's 'Sacred Tradition' at work right there.

I'll post more later.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Church of Scotland votes to allow gay and lesbian ministers.

 

[bonesmccoy]

I don't think I was saying what was safe, just that the use of sight upon the crucifix is not listed as something needed, preferred, or condoned in relation to God.

This begs the question: What is listed? In my previous post, I pointed out that the Bible itself lacks a list of what documents are considered the Bible, and that its very existence is based upon tradition. How telling people they can't do such and such because it's 'not listed' is getting problematic?

I'm not sure why there would be a need for an image of Jesus or the saints though especially if the image doesn not match their physical appearance.

It's as I said before, God gave us these senses, and his admonishment was against creating false idols. Christ didn't enter the Temple and rip down the decorations.

You don't need any of those objects to approach and worship god, so you don't need to perform acts reserved for God on those things.

Need? Perhaps not, but as I've been saying, this is what people do naturally. You're making the hard sell here: All that God has created is good, and cannot be good if not ordered to him. Why wouldn't He want us to use all our senses then?

The cross alone has been in overkill mode for centuries.

Ah, ok. So you're actually coming from an extreme position - one of hyper-austerity. Lol, we're never going to find common ground on this, I don't think.

As I read the rest of your comments, I keep seeing the same repeated appeal to Scripture saying such and such and so forth. The problem I keep seeing is that you're being selective in the application of your logic. You're arguing that Scripture doesn't require us to use imagery etc in our worship of God - but Scripture doesn't even tell us what is scripture and what isn't scripture. If you're going to use this logic, you have to realize that it becomes very tricky to explain why you're perfectly fine relying on a book that was put together, basically, by the traditions of the Catholic Church, but then opposed to the use of imagery and music because its just based on the traditions of the Catholic Church.

So I guess my question is: Why are you ok with the tradition that gave you the Bible, but not ok with the tradition that gave you the basilica?

All in all, thanks to all of you for the replies to this, and I hope I didn't come across as an asshole.

It's always good to have these 'ecumenical' discussions.

 

[JGS]

Between my love for Happy Feet and fomenting heathen(lol) anger at the Catholic charities, I've been spending way too much time arguing today, but I'm also in a zone. Seriously, I'm not really arguing the point but just as you've been explaining your position I am explaining mine. Hopefully, that's fair enough.

Clearly there will be disagreements, but hopefully that won't stop you from explaining stuff.

This begs the question: What is listed? In my previous post, I pointed out that the Bible itself lacks a list of what documents are considered the Bible, and that its very existence is based upon tradition. How telling people they can't do such and such because it's 'not listed' is getting problematic?

I can't tell if you're are speaking of a Catholic teaching or an opinion. If it's opinion, then it really doesn't make much sense to argue about the use of images since it's not even about interpretation if the Bible itself is cast in doubt and based solely on tradition.

Assuming it's based on tradition for one second (It isn't), then we who go by tradition can follow a pretty good equation:

Commands forbidding use of idols/images + no examples of ones using them in a positive way = Don't do it.

It's as I said before, God gave us these senses, and his admonishment was against creating false idols. Christ didn't enter the Temple and rip down the decorations.

As I mentioned before, decorations are not what I'm discussing. Further, false is an interesting qualifier considering there's no evidence of a true idol.

The Temple was decorated because that is what ine does to this day regarding houses. Since the House of God is deserving of the best, it was only fitting that it was lavish. However, no one was paying reverence to those items

Need? Perhaps not, but as I've been saying, this is what people do naturally. You're making the hard sell here: All that God has created is good, and cannot be good if not ordered to him. Why wouldn't He want us to use all our senses then?

This is what i said as well. It is natural to want to worship what you can see. If you can't see it, then make something. The problem is you can't make a representation of God. You can describe God, you can see him in your mind's eye through his creations, but nothing is a fitting representation. Even the ark of the covenant represented his presence.

Ah, ok. So you're actually coming from an extreme position - one of hyper-austerity. Lol, we're never going to find common ground on this, I don't think.

No, not at all. The cross is not used as a reflection to remember and appreciate God. It's a fashion accesory. With that said, I don't think it something to pray to or bow down to.

As I read the rest of your comments, I keep seeing the same repeated appeal to Scripture saying such and such and so forth. The problem I keep seeing is that you're being selective in the application of your logic. You're arguing that Scripture doesn't require us to use imagery etc in our worship of God - but Scripture doesn't even tell us what is scripture and what isn't scripture. If you're going to use this logic, you have to realize that it becomes very tricky to explain why you're perfectly fine relying on a book that was put together, basically, by the traditions of the Catholic Church, but then opposed to the use of imagery and music because its just based on the traditions of the Catholic Church.

This is not true. Most of the Bible was put together way befoire the Catholic Church and the NT was accepted well before the Church likes to think so. In other words, the Catholic Church is nothing special regarding canonicity.

However, even if they were, then them picking the canon would indicated that they trusted it's words, so they should have no problem with me referring to Scripture to back up my statements.

So I guess my question is: Why are you ok with the tradition that gave you the Bible, but not ok with the tradition that gave you the basilica?

That tradition came after the Bible. One would have to believe that there was more to the story than what the bible explained. However, church history does not indicate there was anything left to add consodering what it took for the Catholic Church to grow- which was in a much different way than the tradition Biblically. If it could have been shown that Christianity benefitted from the change outside of growth, then I might accept it.

 

[Chaplain]

I am at my church right now. The live webcast is going to start in 5 minutes (7:30am pst). Click on the link below to watch the live webcast.

Quicktime Video Link

The sermon is on “Elisha, The Sucessor of Elijah” from 2 Kings 2:1-25.

 

[Dunk#7]

Christian-GAF

I need help with your opinions on my situation. My family isn't really in approval so I am looking for some answers.

Me and my girlfriend have been together for 4+ years. We are going to be engaged soon once I save up enough money for a good ring. We are both done with college and she is getting ready part ways with her current roommates. We have decided to get a two bedroom place together and just make life easier since I am currently running over to her place almost everyday.

The Bible does not specifically say anything about living together, but I am still getting lectured by my family. What should I do? I really want to make my life easier, but I don't want to have to hear the ethical arguments from my family forever either.

 

[C.Dark.DN]

First, I consider myself a Christian, but I'm probably not a very good one in your families perspective. Haven't been to church in years. I'm seeking to improve myself.

I can give some observations:

The most respectful young christian couple I know had sex at least once before marriage and didn't live together. They might have lived together at his parents for a while but in serpate rooms. Currently happily married. Her mother is a drug addict so they mostly personally chose not to live together before marriage.

My cousin is getting married in a week. They will live together after marriage. They are still in school. I could only assume they have had sex. The parents of my cousin haven't shunned my sister, who lives with her boyfriend and has no signs of marriage.

I'm assuming you guys have had sex. If you are doing that, what's the difference if you live together or not beyond parents being mad? Hopefully they'd get over it soon after marriage.

If you haven't, and hold the value to not do so, I probably wouldn't live together.

I personally would. But me and my parents aren't conservative.

 

[Dunk#7]

First, I consider myself a Christian, but I'm probably not a very good one in your families perspective. Haven't been to church in years. I'm seeking to improve myself.

I can give some observations:

The most respectful young christian couple I know had sex at least once before marriage and didn't live together. They might have lived together at his parents for a while but in serpate rooms. Currently happily married. Her mother is a drug addict so they mostly personally chose not to live together before marriage.

My cousin is getting married in a week. They will live together after marriage. They are still in school. I could only assume they have had sex. The parents of my cousin haven't shunned my sister, who lives with her boyfriend and has no signs of marriage.

I'm assuming you guys have had sex. If you are doing that, what's the difference if you live together or not beyond parents being mad? Hopefully they'd get over it soon after marriage.

If you haven't, and hold the value to not do so, I probably wouldn't live together.

I personally would. But me and my parents aren't conservative.

Thank you for your insight. I am really struggling with this decision. I wish it was not so difficult

 

[JGS]

Christian-GAF

I need help with your opinions on my situation. My family isn't really in approval so I am looking for some answers.

Me and my girlfriend have been together for 4+ years. We are going to be engaged soon once I save up enough money for a good ring. We are both done with college and she is getting ready part ways with her current roommates. We have decided to get a two bedroom place together and just make life easier since I am currently running over to her place almost everyday.

The Bible does not specifically say anything about living together, but I am still getting lectured by my family. What should I do? I really want to make my life easier, but I don't want to have to hear the ethical arguments from my family forever either.

They either assume you will start having sex or assume you already started and this verifies it and it distreeses them. After all, living together normally would include that activity.

If you and your girlfriend are sexual, then it's no different a scenario if you're living together. If you have not done it, then it's going to be tough to resist being in such close proximity. In any event, no one will believe you and will assume that living together = having premarital sex.

The Bible doesn't speak about living together because it's a fairly new concept, but usually when a man and woman move in together, that was pretty much the fulfillment of the marriage (See Mary & Joseph).

I guess I'm saying it's a personal matter. If you do know her in an intimate way or planning on it, then it's kind of between you, God, & your church's view on the matter.

Btw, It's none of my business if you are sexual, I'm just covering the bases.

 

[Buckethead]

@Dunk#7:

Two close friends (who were virgins) were engaged and rented an apartment.
They lived there for a little over a month before getting married.

From what they told me it was a valuable experience.
They got used to some of each other's behaviors and they entered into marriage in a more honest and open way.

They did not have sex/sleep in the same bed or anything.

The rationale that "people talk" is silly. Gossip is a sin. If people are gossipping about this or that then they should 1. Mind their own business and 2. Have a minister who proactively shuts down this divisive talk.

It all comes down to these questions: do you understand what sex was intended for and what marriage is intended for?

If your family loves you and has respect for the scriptures then they should respect your decision whatever it may be.

 

[Dunk#7]

Both my girlfriend and my father have mentioned just going ahead and getting the marriage liscense to ease everything

Then simply doing everything else at a later date.

I guess this is possible but it just seems very strange to me. I feel it would ruin the future wedding as it would not mean as much.

Would you all pursue this idea?

 

[Chaplain]

Both my girlfriend and my father have mentioned just going ahead and getting the marriage liscense to ease everything

Then simply doing everything else at a later date.

I guess this is possible but it just seems very strange to me. I feel it would ruin the future wedding as it would not mean as much.

Would you all pursue this idea?

A Pastor at a church that I use to do this decided to do the same thing. They said it was the best decision they ever made. They would rather honor God than please their families by waiting when they felt they couldn't wait any more.

 

[Chaplain]

I would like every Christian brother and sister to check out the film "Beware of Christians".

Here is a link to the trailer: http://bewareofchristians.com/trailer/

Four college students leave their routine Christian lives in the U.S. in a quest to find what it really means to be a follower of Jesus. Alex, Matt, Michael, and Will have grown up as Bible-believing Christians who did all the right things. As they've grown older, they've realized that the Jesus in the Bible doesn't exactly look like the healthy, wealthy American Jesus they've been trained to know and love. In search of deeper meaning and truth, the four leave their college routines behind for the summer as they travel across Europe. Their journey, often a comedy of errors, includes a lost passport, an encounter with an Austrian pop star, a surprise discovery of a nude beach, and a romantic postcard entanglement. More importantly, the four guys capture real, honest discussions about what it means to follow Jesus. This documentary film is spreading like wildfire in high school curriculums and college ministries across the country.

The film is only $10. I believe it will rebuke and encourage anyone in their walk with the Lord & help them grow closer to Jesus.

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

Church of Scotland votes to allow gay and lesbian ministers.

It always baffles me that churches are increasingly becoming tolerant of practices that they know are vile, just to gain members they go to great lengths to disobey what is found in the bible. The only Christian organization that hasn't tolerated such acts are Jehovah's Witnesses. I have nothing against gay's or lesbians but it doesn't make it to perform such practices.

 

[xelios]

It always baffles me that churches are increasingly becoming tolerant of practices that they know are vile,

The official thread of hope, faith and infinite love.™

 

[GTP_Daverytimes]

The official thread of hope, faith and infinite love.™

Explain, please.

 

[GhaleonQ]

The official thread of hope, faith and infinite love.™

Let's check to see if xelios has me on "ignore": go away, please. You're often irritating. GTP: it's not that you shouldn't engage people who disagree with you, but xelios is not coming at this with theological sophistication or an understanding of church structure or proselytizing. ...I mean, that's not even necessary. It's ultimately just a secular news story, one that he doesn't want to grasp. This particular instance will just waste your time.

Anyway, I have fun reading these posts. A question: does anyone listen to James MacMillan, the art music composers? He's my favorite working today behind Arvo Part (also Christian, incidentally) and is really, really Catholic.

He feels a bit persecuted and can be rude (maybe understandably in generally left-wing, atheist Scotland [as much as I love it]):
http://jamesmacmillaninscotland.com/blog
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/author/jmacmillan (some theological breakdowns of his music)

But he's really, really intelligent and respected. Recent video interviews:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfQO5ttxmZA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igLBp5OTG-E

Any fans? It's partially modernist, which I know some don't like, but there's a lot to like for everyone musically and theologically.

 

[Chaplain]

A great commentary on Jesus' teachings about our wicked hearts & traditions of men:

Matthew 15

 

[GhaleonQ]

A great commentary on Jesus' teachings about our hearts, & traditions of men:

That said, I think you'd agree that every generation should not look on teaching with fresh eyes. History and theological knowledge exist because centuries of smart people have thought about the same problems we have today. That's not to say that we shouldn't reform just because "tradition is important," but I don't think, "Show me where it says," is always the best response. Attention ought to be paid to physical and intellectual tradition.

As a Lutheran, the Bible should always be the basis for authorized teaching, of course.

 

[Fernando Rocker]

Can you guys help with some Bible passages about what to say to people (to help them) who believes in superstitions, bad luck, tarot, sorcery, astrology, divination, etc?

 

[Fernando Rocker]

I found Colossians 2:8-10

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces[a] of this world rather than on Christ.

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.

Will that help?

 

[PBY]

Is there a catholic age delegation in this thread? I'm struggling w the churches stance on contraception....

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

Is there a catholic age delegation in this thread? I'm struggling w the churches stance on contraception....

I want to make it clear I'm an atheist, but I'll try to argue against the Catholic Church's view as though I'm not, say a Protestant instead.

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." - Genesis 1:28

That's often the starting point from the argument against contraception. It's a clear command to have children, but isn't really a point against the use of contraception.

Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. - Psalm 127:3

God clearly thinks having children is a great thing, but one can use contraception and still have children at other times.

"And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother's wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also." - Genesis 38:8-10

This is probably the only explicit point in scripture which is against contraception. Catholics interpret that as saying he was killed because he wasted his seed. Modern protestant interpretations argue instead that it was his refusal to raise a child for his brother or that he had disobeyed his father that led to his death, though there are arguments against both of those points.

You could also possibly argue that this is part of the Law which we no longer have to live by, so is irrelevant.

Another point is that there is nothing in the Bible which says sex during pregnancy was wrong or having sex with a woman past child-bearing age. If sex was solely for the purpose of having children these would probably have been mentioned.

Catholics also argue that contraception is against natural law and how humans are designed. In response to that one could say since God gave us the ability and means to invent contraception, so it is natural.

If you are still unsure you could pray for guidance and follow the answer you receive.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Clearly there will be disagreements, but hopefully that won't stop you from explaining stuff.

I think we'll be fine. We're obviously at opposite ends of the spectrum, yet we're I think we both respect that we're making our cases in good faith.

I can't tell if you're are speaking of a Catholic teaching or an opinion. If it's opinion, then it really doesn't make much sense to argue about the use of images since it's not even about interpretation if the Bible itself is cast in doubt and based solely on tradition.

The position of the church is that sacred Tradition is just as important as sacred Scripture. For the early Church, there wasn't any such thing as canon, and Christians had many disagreements about which documents were part of the faith they'd been given by the Apostles, and which ones weren't.

So it's not about doubting the Bible, but accepting that we have what we have because of the actions of the Catholic Church.

Assuming it's based on tradition for one second (It isn't), then we who go by tradition can follow a pretty good equation:

Commands forbidding use of idols/images + no examples of ones using them in a positive way = Don't do it.

If the Bible wasn't assembled according to sacred Tradition (this encompasses the oral traditions of the early Church), then what was it? How did the Church arrive at this set of documents, and declare them to be fully representative of the Christian faith? Why is Revelations included, but not the Didache?

I guess what I have been getting at, in a very round about way, is authority. Whether you recognize right now or not, when you based your faith on what is written in Scripture, you are implicitly stating that you agree with the authority the Church exercised when it determined what was a canonical document and what was not.

When it comes to the use of images - and rosaries, and crosses, and the Mystical Body of the Church - I trust the Church's authority - the same authority you trust when you read the Bible 1,700 years after it was, essentially, codified.

This is what i said as well. It is natural to want to worship what you can see. If you can't see it, then make something. The problem is you can't make a representation of God. You can describe God, you can see him in your mind's eye through his creations, but nothing is a fitting representation. Even the ark of the covenant represented his presence.

I think we've drifted a bit here. I'm not talking about making representations of God, I'm talking about the use of images. I'm pretty sure you've made it clear that you're pretty much against the use of *all* images:

No, not at all. The cross is not used as a reflection to remember and appreciate God. It's a fashion accesory.

As I've mentioned previously: Iconography has been part of the Church from the beginning, and will remain to be. I trust the Church's authority on this, just as we both trust the Church's authority on the Bible.

This is not true. Most of the Bible was put together way befoire the Catholic Church and the NT was accepted well before the Church likes to think so. In other words, the Catholic Church is nothing special regarding canonicity.

Is that really the case? So how, as I ask above, where some documents considered canonical, and some weren't? Why was Hebrews included, but not the Didache, or Pope Clement's letter? Who made these decisions, why did they make them, and why did people like St Augustine declare that without the Church's authority on this, he wouldn't have believed a lick of it?

However, even if they were, then them picking the canon would indicated that they trusted it's words, so they should have no problem with me referring to Scripture to back up my statements.

But why did they trust its words? How did they come to trust these words? Who made the call saying that these 27 books are the proper things to include in the New Testatment?

That tradition came after the Bible.

That's not the case: We have archaeological evidence from before canon was established of Christians making rudimentary 'churhes' in private homes and in catacombs. We can see their early depictions of Christ. We have testimony from St Justin Martyr of how these people prayed to God, what they did and said in Mass; these are traditions that predate the 27 documents of Scripture.

One would have to believe that there was more to the story than what the bible explained. However, church history does not indicate there was anything left to add consodering what it took for the Catholic Church to grow- which was in a much different way than the tradition Biblically.

JGS, we know that the Bible doesn't and didn't explain the entire faith. For starters, the early Christians didn't have the 27 documents you rely on to practice their faith - they had to rely on the oral traditions handed out by the Apostles. And then we have 'official' teaching documents like the Didache that discuss things that are not dealt with in the New or Old Testament. The epistles themselves were not designed to lay out every facet of the faith: They were things address to specific churches at specific times to aid in doctrinal and dogmatic disagreements. Plus, we have the heresies of Nestorianism, Pelagianism and Arianism - these arose precisely because Scripture is not clear on several parts of the faith.

And how can you say it grew in a 'much different way than the tradition Biblically'? (I'm not even really sure what you mean.) We have accounts from St Justin-Martyr and other Church Fathers of the mass, of bishops, of the Councils. We have St Peter being given the keys of heaven and the power to 'bind and loose' on Earth in Scripture. We have the records of the Church going back to the very beginning.

If it could have been shown that Christianity benefitted from the change outside of growth, then I might accept it.

JGS, we know that the Bible doesn't and didn't explain the entire faith. For starters, the early Christians didn't have the 27 documents you rely on to practice their faith - they had to rely on the oral traditions handed out by the Apostles. And then we have 'official' teaching documents like the Didache that discuss things that are not dealt with in the New or Old Testament. The epistles themselves were not designed to lay out every facet of the faith: They were things address to specific churches at specific times to aid in doctrinal and dogmatic disagreements.

The early heresies of the Church arose precisely because Scripture doesn't lay it all out; here is a lot of our faith that we know because the Holy Spirit guided the Church through these periods of significant disagreement. Look at the Nestorian, Donatist, Pelagian, and Arian heresies, and how these were combated. It's not as if the dudes on the losing side of these battles were ignorant of Scripture - they were just making misguided attempts at looking deeper into the faith.

 

[bonesmccoy]

Is there a catholic age delegation in this thread? I'm struggling w the churches stance on contraception....

Present.

What's up? We can do this via PM if you like.

edit: The response above is excellent if you're arguing with someone from the sola scriptura tradition, but won't suffice as an argument against the CC.

 

[PBY]

Present.

What's up? We can do this via PM if you like.

Well, I guess its more of an issue where I have studied pretty much all the Church has to say about it (Humanae Vitae, etc, etc), and I can't really come to terms how contracepting, and I'm talking within marriage here, is a mortal sin. From what I've read, NFP is a huge burden on some marriages.... I don't know... its just something that I guess I disagree with, and I sort of am torn because I am also a card carrying Catholic, but I find it hard that I will:
A. Ever meet a girl, even who is Catholic, who is down with NFP (considering that something like 98 percent of Catholics contracept, according to some study)
B. Ever come to practice NFP with my marriage, and that makes me fear for my soul I guess

Sorry if my post is all over the place, its just that the concept of mortal sin both scares and confuses me.

Edit: Its stuff like this:
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=4999
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=558637