• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Christianity |OT| The official thread of hope, faith and infinite love.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chaplain

Member
Pretty powerful testimonies in the following video:

Victims' families confront suspected Charleston church shooter

An amazing example of the love of Christ through the Charleston victims'. They tell the murderer that they forgive him and to turn to God for help... just like Jesus said to do:

“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5)
 

Chaplain

Member
Quote of the day:

"Don’t befriend angry people or associate with hot-tempered people, or you will learn to be like them and endanger your soul." (Proverbs)

Today's blog is on Acts 7 (Stephen’s Response to the Council) verses 54-60: The Sanhedrin executes Stephen.

A summary of the study:

“For Stephen to suggest that the crucified Jesus stood in a position of authority at the right hand of God must have ranked as blasphemy in the thinking of those who knew that a crucified man died under the divine curse.” (Bruce)

"The word "ran" is the same word exactly that's used of the pigs that were demon possessed that ran off the cliff in Mark 5. It's also the very same word used in Acts 19 of the mad rush of the mob at Ephesus upon the Christians. They were a demonic mob. In fury, they just ran at Stephen. And so the contrast." (JM)

the%2Bstoning%2Bof%2Bthe%2BBiblical%2Bcharacter%2BStephen.jpg


"The Bible speaks of many who suffered on behalf on the gospel who were unwilling to abandon the precious faith entrusted to them. Consider the apostle Paul, who knew intimately what it was to write, “I bear on my body the marks of Jesus” (Galatians 6:17). Think of the stoning of Stephen and the heartache endured by those recorded in Hebrews 11. Furthermore, eleven of Jesus’s twelve disciples died a martyr’s death; not one of them anticipated how they would die when they came to him. If they had known where following Jesus would lead them, one wonders whether any of them would have started on the journey, for as they proved later, they were not particularly brave men. And yet, faithfulness over the long run is the shining example of what faith is meant to be. The story of the gospel in China is only one recent example. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong burned the seminary libraries, expelled Christians from the country, and declared that the name of Jesus would never be pronounced on Chinese lips again. He tried to bury the Christian faith completely. Today, the Chinese church is the fastest growing church in the world." (Zacharias)

Other things discussed in greater detail...

Why did the Sanhedrin gnash their teeth at Stephen?
What does it mean to be full of the Holy Spirit?
Stephen is given a vision of Jesus in heaven right before his execution/murder.
Why did the Sanhedrin consider it blasphemy that Stephen saw Jesus chillin with God in heaven?
Why did the Sanhedrin run at Stephen to execute him?
Saul supervises Stephen's execution.
Stephen’s last words as the first martyr of the church.
Did God answer Stephen's prayer about not charging the religious leaders with murder?Stephen demonstrates his faith through his works.
Why does the Bible say that Stephen fell asleep instead of died?

Video: Has Science Made God Irrelevant? John Lennox and Christopher DiCarlo discuss at the University of Toronto, 2015

Video: Can we have MLK's dream without his faith? Nancy E. Hill at Boston College, 2015

Video: Give Me an Answer - #1914 - Worship - live debate at a US University
 

Chaplain

Member
Quote of the day:

"In being a faithful witness to Jesus, we are promised that persecution will come — “If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:20). “The world hated me,” Jesus said in John 15:18, and so we should not be surprised at the hatred that we ourselves attract on account of his name (John 15:21). This is not a unique time in history. There is always a cost to reaching people with the good news about Jesus. It is a cost that perhaps many who identify with Jesus may not ultimately be prepared to pay. But this is the context within which the gospel took root and spread. Preaching a message of repentance and faith has always been challenging. It has always required courage. Our goal is not to conserve our lives at any cost but rather to live our life in obedience to the call we have received. We are not called to ignore risk or to be reckless. Everything must be prayerfully considered. But to refuse God’s call to go because of hardship is to demand something that the apostles would struggle to recognize as part of genuine Christian obedience." (Ramsden)

Jas1.12

Today's blog is on Acts 8 (Philip and the Samaritans) verses 1-4: Saul persecutes the church of God.

A summary of the study:

"In the same way, Stephen’s death might seem sort of meaningless at first glance. His young ministry of power and eloquence was cut abruptly short. His ministry also seemed to end in failure - no one was immediately brought to faith, and all that came forth was more persecution against the church. But as always has been the case, the blood of the martyrs became the seed of the church." (Guzik)

"It's interesting that criminals, according to the Jewish law, had to have a fitting burial. They had to be buried. They couldn't just let the body lie around. They had to be buried. But the law also said that they were forbidden to weep or lament over their death. And here you have a direct protest to devout men - not only bury Stephen - but they did make lamentation over him. So in a very real sense - and incidentally it was probably very public. What they were doing there was reacting by protest to the murder of this man." (JM)

"This refined, cultured, religious scholar who sat at the feet of Gamaliel — this student par excellence, this man whose command of the Greek language was greater than any other writer — lost all sense of sanity. At first he merely consented to the death of Stephen. But then, like a shark that smells blood, he began going from house to house, hauling out and imprisoning believers, committing them to their deaths." (Courson)

Other things discussed in greater detail...

Why did the apostle Paul persecute the church before his conversion?
Why does the persecution of the church always cause the church to grow?
Why was the death of Stephen good for the spreading of the gospel?
Why did Jews bury Stephen?
How did Saul's persecution of the church bring glory to God?

New sermons (right click/save as):

6/19/15 - Missions (Isaiah 49:6)
6/21/15 - Revelation 15
6/21/15 - Matthew 6:16-7:29
6/21/15 - Luke 9:1-36
6/21/15 - 1 Thessalonians 2:7-12
6/21/15 - Our Blessed Hope (I Thessalonians 4:13-18)
6/21/15 - The Father for Us (1 John 1:3, 2:15, 3:1)
6/22/15 - Genesis 6:1-14

A weekly podcast on Christian persecution that is presently going on around the world.

Middle East: “Even If You Take My Life”

“Even if you take my life here in front of my wife…I will not deny Christ.” The Iraqi Christian stood at an ISIS check point. The fighters’ guns were pointed at him. Their instruction was clear: deny your faith and become a Muslim. He said no, and miraculously God intervened and our Iraqi brother lived to tell the story. This is just one of the stories that Joe, a VOM international worker, will share this week on VOM Radio after returning from a recent trip to the Middle East. He’ll also tell how VOM helps displaced Christians from Iraq and Syria forced from their homes by the Islamic State. We’ll also learn how Muslim converts face persecution right here in the United States, and how your church can engage with Muslim immigrants and refugees in your city.

When an ISIS Fighter Wants to Talk

What would you do if an ISIS fighter wanted to meet up with you? You’d probably have lots of questions. What are his intentions? Is his spiritual hunger real, or is it a trap? Is the Lord really calling me to go to this meeting? Those questions aren’t new. Ananias had the same doubts when he was told to go visit a man named Saul. Christians in the Middle East face this dilemma today. This week on VOM Radio we’ll hear what happened when a Christian worker from YWAM was introduced to an ISIS fighter, a man with Christian blood on his hands.

Niger: “The Church Is Getting Stronger”

Christians in the Nuba Mountains of Sudan are under attack from their own government. When a plane flies overhead, our Sudanese brothers and sisters dive into fox holes to escape falling bombs. Hospitals and even schools are specifically targeted by the Islamic government of Sudan. Many Christians have fled their homes and are living in caves or in the mountains in hopes of finding safety. Yet even in the midst of attacks, some Christians are finding ways to reach out with Jesus’ love. VOM’s Dr. Jason Peters visited Christians in Sudan, and this week on VOM Radio he shares their inspiring and heartbreaking stories.

We Are All Missionaries

Sergio Cariello is a world-famous comic-book artist. And he’s a missionary. Sergio has drawn the famous faces of Batman, Spiderman and the Lone Ranger. He’s also brought the story of Jesus to life in a whole new way through the creation of The Action Bible, a tool VOM is helping to translate and distribute in the most difficult places on earth. This week on VOM Radio, Sergio shares how God is using his drawing gifts to spread the gospel and bring people to Christ, and challenges each of us to commit to serve God with the gifts and talents He has given each of us.

China: More Crackdowns, More Revival

House church leaders in China teach new believers that to be a faithful follower of Christ, one must be willing to suffer for his faith. Bob Fu led a double life in China, making his living as a teacher in a Communist Party school then working after school to lead people to Christ and build up China’s house churches. It wasn’t long before his own willingness to suffer was tested. Today, after fleeing to the West, Dr. Fu is one of the foremost voices for China’s persecuted church. This week he’ll tell us about his work and update us on a new wave of persecution in China, a wave that has extended beyond unregistered house churches and even into the Communist Party sanctioned Three Self Patriotic Movement. After listening to our conversation with Bob Fu, order a copy of his book, God’s Double Agent.

Tom Doyle: “When Jesus Calls, He Equips”

Tom Doyle, author of the books Killing Christians and Dreams and Visions, shares more this week about the true nature of Islam and how the God of the Bible is reaching and rescuing Muslims in the Middle East. Tom will also share how he deals with fear as he goes into dangerous places, and suggests ways that American Christians can reach out to Muslims living in our cities and neighborhoods, even if we don’t have a graduate degree in apologetics. We’ll also discuss specific ways to pray for people in the Middle East, both our Christian brothers and sisters and Muslims.
 

Chaplain

Member
Quote of the day:

When God wants to drill a man, and thrill a man, and skill a man;
When God wants to mold a man to play the noblest part;
When He yearns with all His heart to create so great and bold a man
That all the world might be amazed;
Watch His methods, watch His ways.
How He ruthlessly perfects whom He royally elects.
How He hammers and hurts him, and with mighty blows converts him,
Into trial shapes of clay which only God understands,
While his tortured heart is crying and he lifts beseeching hands.
How he bends but never breaks, when his good He undertakes.
How He uses whom He chooses and with every purpose fuses him,
With mighty acts induces him to try His splendor out.
God knows what He's about.

Today's blog is on Acts 8 (Philip and the Samaritans) verses 5-13: Philip preaches the gospel to the Samaritans and a Sorcerer.

A summary of the study:

"Many traditions revolve around Simon the sorcerer. It is alleged: (a) that he was the founder of the Gnostic heresies, (b) that he went to Rome and perverted Christian doctrine there, and (c) that he became involved in a miracle contest with Peter and lost. At any rate, this Simon of Samaria did practice sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria. Because of his “sorcery,” the ability to exercise control over nature and/or people by means of demonic power, people called him the Great Power. They may or may not have thought of him as possessing deity. At any rate Simon boasted that he was someone great, and the people of Samaria believed him. Furthermore, he accepted their adulation." (Walvoord)

"The contrasts and comparisons between Simon and Philip are striking. Both performed miracles, Simon by demonic power and Philip by divine power. Simon boasted and welcomed acclaim to himself, but Philip proclaimed Christ. People were amazed at Simon’s magic, but people were converted to Christ by Philip’s ministry.' (Walvoord)

Other things discussed in greater detail...

Jas3.18


Philip brings the gospel to the Samaritans.
Background on the Samaritans and why they were hated by the Jews.
Why did miracles accompany Philip sharing the gospel?
Who was Simon the Sorcerer?
Was Simon clever magician or a conduit of demonic power?
Samaritans believe the gospel.
Did Simon the Sorcerer become a born again believer?

Article: Pain and Its Relief

Article: Christianity and Violence

Article: The Touch of Truth by Ravi Zacharias

Audio: Afghanistan: “What It Means to Die for Jesus”

One of the great blessings of traveling for VOM is meeting bold and on-fire believers serving Jesus in hostile and restricted nations. That great blessing comes with a heavy burden, though. Especially when those believers—people we know and love, people with whom our staff have shared fellowship—come under severe persecution. This week on VOM Radio, Jeremy, part of VOM’s international team, will tell us about that burden. We’ll learn what it’s like to get that phone call that says one of our partners—and a close friend—has been gunned down in Afghanistan.
 

Chaplain

Member
Quote of the day:

"Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk." - Atheist Jürgen Habermas

Today's blog is on Acts 8 (Philip and the Samaritans) verses 14-25: Peter rebukes Simon for trying to buy the Holy Spirit.

A summary of the study:

"Simon’s desire to purchase this power, or a position in the church, is where the name for that evil which later permeated the church was originated-simony. That is, the purchase of a position within the church. And unfortunately, the church went through a very dark period of history where positions in the church were auctioned off to the highest bidder. And there were times where the pope and his position was actually auctioned and purchased by the highest bidder. That awful evil known as simony, that did come into the church. That purchasing of position or authority." (Smith)

"The preacher can’t believe for you, nor can he repent for you; he has enough repenting to do all on his own. The preacher can pray for you, but you better also pray for yourself – as Peter told Simon to do." (Guzik)

Other things discussed in greater detail...

1Co2.12


Why did the apostles send Peter and John to lay hands upon the Samaritans?
Why did the Samaritans need to receive the Holy Spirit if they were already born again (saved)?
Why was Simon selfish for requesting to buy the Holy Spirit (God's gift)?
Can the gifts of God be purchased?
Why did Peter response to Simon so harshly (to hell with you and your money)?
Was Simon a true Christian?
Why are pride and bitterness so closely related?
Simon’s reply to Peter reveals that he didn't want to get right with God (repent and seek God's forgiveness).
A summary of the work in Samaria.

Article: Against the Flow lecture (John Lennox)

Article: Teachers in the Dark

Article: Ethicist Peter Singer: If a House Were On Fire I’d Save 200 Pigs Before Saving One Human Child

Video: Dr. Gary Habermas: The Resurrection Evidence that Changed Current Scholarship

New sermons (right click/save as):

6/23/15 - James 2:1-9
6/24/15 - Psalms 129-134
6/24/15 - Prayer
6/24/15 - Proverbs 22:17-23:35
 

Chaplain

Member
Quote of the day:

"We pretend to be unable to understand the Bible because we know that the minute we understand, we are obliged to obey." -- Søren Kierkegaard

2Ch7.14

Today's blog is on Acts 8 (Philip and the Samaritans) verses 26-28: Philip's example of how God reveals His will to believers.

A summary of the study:

"Please note that the Lord didn't say why He was sending Philip to the desert. He just said, `Arise and go.' And Philip arose and went. If you struggle with finding God's will, know this: God's will is for you to obey what He tells you to do one step at a time. He doesn't give us the full story. He just says, `I want you to go down to the desert. And once you do that, I'll show you the next step.' That's why the Christian life is so incredibly exciting — we never know what's ahead." (Courson)

"In the search of this man for God, it would only be natural that his search would bring him to Jerusalem. The tragedy is that while in Jerusalem, he did not find what he was searching for. And now he is returning to Ethiopia just as empty as he came. A heart still yearning after God. But God saw the yearning heart. I believe that God sees every yearning heart. And that God will take measures to bring His love and truth to every true seeker after God. If a person is genuinely seeking after God in his heart, I believe that God will reveal the truth even by miracles or whatever. And I think such is the case. God saw this man, and so He stirred the heart of Philip in the midst of the revival and said, "Go down to the road that goes from Jerusalem to Gaza, that desert place." When he got there, he saw the chariot, and the man sitting in the chariot." (Smith)

Other things discussed in greater detail...

Why did the Holy Spirit lead Philip to leave his fruitful ministry?
What is the first step in knowing God's will?
Will God tell us step two of His will if we don't obey the first step?
Background on the Ethiopian government official that would met Philip.
Will reading God's Word lead us to God?
What happens to the person that genuinely wants to know God?
 

Chaplain

Member
Quote of the day:

"The wave of relativism now swamping Western thinking has increased the pressure to drop certain words from our languages and replace them with others that drive forward the secularist agenda of deconstructing the very nature of human beings and the society we live in. For instance, some words tend to fall foul of political correctness: truth, commandment, dogma, faith, conscience, morality, sin, chastity, charity, justice, authority, husband wife; whereas a host of other words and concepts take center-stage: rights, non-discrimination, choice, gender, equality, plurality, cultural diversity. These profound changes arise from a postmodern deconstruction of truth, which involves removing truth from the objective realm to the subjective, and thus effectively relativizing it. Cardinal Ratzinger, warned of a "dictatorship of relativism"...he said: "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires." The pressure to conform will be felt the moment one questions any aspect of this relativism - that all lifestyles must be approved, for instance. The right to choose trumps everything else, including tradition and divine revelation. It is the one absolute in a sea of relativism, however self-contradictory that may be." (Oxford professor John Lennox)

Today's blog is on Acts 8 (Philip and the Samaritans) verses 29-35: Philip preaches Jesus through the the book of Isaiah to an Ethiopian.

A summary of the study:

"The story of Philip in Acts chapter 8 formally introduces us to a word God exemplifies throughout the journey-stories of Scripture. Heeding the command of the Spirit to get up and head toward the south, Philip encounters an Ethiopian man on his way home from worship in Jerusalem. The man was reading from the book of Isaiah, so Philip asked him, “Do you understand what you are reading?” The man replies, “‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to get in and sit beside him” (Acts 8:31). The words chosen by the Ethiopian in this exchange are absolutely crucial. He invited Philip not to spell things out for him but to guide him. Eugene Peterson explains, “The Greek words for ‘explain’ and ‘guide’ share the same verbal root, ‘to lead,’ and have a common orientation in and concern for the [scriptural] text. But the explainer, the exegete, leads the meaning out of the text; the guide, the hodegete, leads you in the way (hodos) of the text.” Philip was given an invitation to do far more than explain an ancient text. He was invited to join the journey, to climb into the chariot, spend some time on a similar path, and show the Ethiopian how to walk in it. Philip answered the invitation by coming nearer and sitting down beside the one who asked. How much more does God do so for us." (RZIM)

"Too many preachers today focus on what we must do for God, but the gospel begins with and is founded upon what God has done for us in Jesus Christ." (Courson)

Other things discussed in greater detail...

How did the Holy Spirit guide Philip?
Why was Philip such an effective evangelist?
The Ethiopian asks a question that all people who want to understand the Bible should ask.
Is53.5

How did past Jews interpret Isaiah chapter 53?
Does every book of the Bible talk about and point to Jesus?
An example of Philip as an effective evangelist.

Article: Threads of a Redeemed Heart

One of the cardinal distinctions of the Judeo-Christian worldview versus other worldviews is that no amount of moral capacity can get us back into a right relationship with God. Herein lies the difference between the moralizing religions and Jesus’s offer to us. Jesus does not offer to make bad people good but to make dead people alive.

Article: Statement on the Supreme Court Decision (Moral, Constitutional, and Structural Perspectives)

Article: If Christians are supposed to love everyone, why do they hate homosexuals?

Audio: Unbelievable? Jean Vanier & Students roundtable discussion

Jean-Vanier-UnB-Main_article_image.jpg


Philosopher and theologian Jean Vanier recently won the Templeton Prize for his 50 years as founder of L'Arche, an international network of Christian communities for people with and without intellectual disabilities.

After the ceremony Justin Brierley hosted a roundtable discussion between Vanier and a group of students, and we hear their conversation on spirituality, disability and human value.

MP3 (right click/save as)

Audio: 6/25/2015 - The Messenger of the Gospel, Pt. 3 (Ephesians 3:5-7)
 

Chaplain

Member
Quote of the day:

"God’s conditions in the garden of Eden were not a setup, any more than the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness was a setup or that the long journey to Egypt was a setup. God wants us to understand our own hearts, and nothing shows this more than the stringent demands of a law that discloses we are not God — and neither had we better play God. Once we understand this and turn to him, we find out the truth of what the psalmist wrote: “To all perfection I see a limit, but [the Lord’s] commands are boundless” (Psalm 119:96). True fulfillment and the possibility of boundless enjoyment come when we do life God’s way. When we do it our way, we only enslave ourselves." (RZIM)

Today's blog is on Acts 8 (Philip and the Samaritans) verses 36-40: The first ever Coptic Christian believes and is baptized.

A summary of the study:

"The devil himself has the faith of the head, but he hates the truth in his heart. God wants His truth not only in our heads, but also in our hearts. We may intellectually know that Jesus died for the sins of the world, but do we know in our hearts that He died to cleanse our sins?" (Guzik)

Ac4.12


"We believe everything which the Lord Jesus has taught, but we must go a step further, and trust him. It is not even enough to believe in him, as being the Son of God, and the anointed of the Lord; but we must believe on him . . . The faith that saves is not believing certain truths, nor even believing that Jesus is a Savior; but it is resting on him, depending on him, lying with all your weight on Christ as the foundation of your hope. Believe that he can save you; believe that he will save you; at any rate leave the whole matter of your salvation with him in unquestioning confidence. Depend upon him without fear as to your present and eternal salvation. This is the faith which saves the soul." (Spurgeon)

Other things discussed in greater detail...

Why does wanting to be baptized show that we believe the gospel?
Why do we need to believe in our hearts that Jesus is the Son of God in order to be saved?
The Ethiopian believes and is baptized.
Philip’s mysterious supernatural departure.
The spiritual heritage of the Ethiopian official.
Philip begins to spread the gospel around the earth.

Audio: 6/29/15 - The Element of Surprise (I Thessalonians 5:1-3) (right click/save as)
 

Chaplain

Member
Quote of the day is taken from the "The relativist creed":

"We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin. We believe everything is okay as long as you don't hurt anyone, to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge. We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that sodomy's okay. We believe that taboos are taboo. We believe that everything's getting better despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated, and you can prove anything with evidence. We believe there's something in horoscopes, UFOs, and bent spoons. Jesus was a good man, like Buddha, Mohammad, and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher, although we think His good morals were bad. We believe that all religions are basically the same, at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on unimportant matters like creation, sin, Heaven, Hell, God, and salvation. We believe that after death comes nothing, because when you ask the dead what happens, they say nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then it's compulsory Heaven for everybody except perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan. We believe in Masters and Johnson. What's selected is average. What's average is normal. What's normal is good. We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors, and everybody else would be sure to follow. We believe that man is essentially good. It's only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditions. Conditions are the fault of society. We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter. We believe there is no absolute truth, excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth. We believe in the rejection of creeds, and the flowering of individual thought. If chance be the father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear, 'State of emergency. Sniper kills ten. Troopers on rampage. Whites go looting. Bomb blasts school,' it's but the sound of man worshiping his maker." (Poem Creed, written in 1993 by English poet and music journalist Steve Turner).

Today's blog is on Acts 9 (The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus) verses 1-2: Saul travels to Damascus to persecute Jesus' church.

A summary of the study:

Pr3.30


"Why did this religious, respected, refined man become relentless in his pursuit of those who named the name of Jesus? I believe that when Saul saw Stephen's face glow like an angel's and heard the words, `Lord, lay not this sin to their charge,' from his lips, something snapped within Saul. Witnessing not only Stephen's death, but the reality of his faith, Saul was shaken; and, in his insecurity, he became a crazed reactionary. But even as his anger ignited and his rage rose, something else happened within Saul as he watched the stoning of Stephen, for years later (Acts 17), Saul would make reference to the very message Stephen preached moments before his execution." (Courson)

"Initial followers were called “The Way” because they were following after the way of Jesus—following his way of living and being in relationship to God and to one another. Yet, to follow Jesus, and to declare him “Lord” was viewed by the many in the Roman government as an act of sedition, for there was already a panoply of parochial gods for the citizens to worship and obey. As a result, historians note that many Roman critics called the first group of Christian followers “atheists” because they rejected Roman gods. The persecution of Christians ensued, of course, and perhaps the authorities believed this would quell Christian fervor. But it did not. Christianity spread like a wildfire all across what was the pagan Roman Empire." (Manning)

Other things discussed in greater detail...

Introduction to Acts 9.
Why did Saul hate Christians?
Why were the first Christians called "the Way"?
The historicity of the early church.

New sermons (right click/save as):

6/28/15 - A Blessing God (Nm 6:22-27)
6/28/15 - Revelation 15
6/28/15 - Luke 9:37-62
6/28/15 - Marriage By God's Design (Genesis 2:18-25)
6/28/15 - A Dying Nation (Hosea 4:1-19)

Video: Is Faith Blind?: Dr Vince Vitale talks about finding God at Princeton
 
GAF is asking difficult questions from Christians again in OT.

This time it's about the end times. I did my best to answer but I don't know. The thread could use someone *cough* Game *cough* Analyst who has the time to go through scripture and write a more coherent answer with Bible quotes. :)
 

Chaplain

Member
GAF is asking difficult questions from Christians again in OT.

This time it's about the end times. I did my best to answer but I don't know. The thread could use someone *cough* Game *cough* Analyst who has the time to go through scripture and write a more coherent answer with Bible quotes. :)

Could you please give me the thread link.
 

Chaplain

Member
GAF is asking difficult questions from Christians again in OT.

This time it's about the end times. I did my best to answer but I don't know. The thread could use someone *cough* Game *cough* Analyst who has the time to go through scripture and write a more coherent answer with Bible quotes. :)

Your post was great. ^_^


Once I finish my studies for the day I will hop in the thread and see if there is anything that I can add that hasn't already been said.
 

Chaplain

Member
Quote of the day:

"We do not tolerate people with whom we agree - the word itself indicates that it is people with whom we disagree. But we support their right to hold and express their world-view, provided it is without threat or incitement to violence. However, in many countries tolerance has degenerated into a simplistic, all-affirming political correctness: a debilitating and very dangerous attitude that prevents people from saying what they believe in case anyone should take offence. It is the very antithesis of free speech, and it is having a paralysing effect on public discourse." (John Lennox, "Against the Flow - The Inspiration of Daniel in an Age of Relativism")

Today's blog is on Acts 9 (The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus) verses 3-6: God meets Paul on the road to Damascus.

A summary of the study:

Ac9.4


"According to F.F. Bruce, the rabbis of Saul’s day mostly believed that God no longer spoke to man directly, as He did in the days of the prophets. However, they believed that one could hear the “echo” of God’s voice, what they called “the daughter of the voice of God.” Here, Saul learned that one can hear God directly."

"`Why are you persecuting Me?' This is not the voice of protestation, it's the voice of consideration. 'Saul, stop and think about what you're doing — for in persecuting those people, you're persecuting Me.' We are the Bride of Christ. He's jealous for us and in love with us. Thus, when we find fault with each other — even if there's reason — He takes it personally, as any husband would. Next time you want to come down on one who is in love with Jesus Christ, be careful, for in attacking His Bride, we attack Him." (Courson)

"Who are You, Lord? We must ask this question with a humble heart, and ask it to God. Jesus showed us exactly who God is, and He can answer this question. Paul spent the rest of his life wanting to know more completely the answer to this question (Philippians 3:10)."

Other things discussed in greater detail...

Why was Saul scared hearing God's voice?.
Jesus (God) gives Saul an opportunity to repent from attacking His church?=.
Does this mean that if we persecute Christians that we are actually persecuting Jesus?
Saul asks a question that only a truly born again person ever asks.
Why did Jesus give a small parable about Saul's life ("It is hard for you to kick against the goads")?
Did Saul see Jesus?
Why does Jesus only give us one instruction at a time?


Article: An Apologetic for Apologetics by Ravi Zacharias

The ultimate calling upon the follower of Christ is to live a life reflecting who he is, and in this book we will highlight three components of discipleship. In part 1, we will look at skeptics’—and believers’—difficult questions. We will suggest that we cannot begin to understand these questions until we ourselves have also wrestled with them intellectually and personally. In part 2, we see that our answers must then be internalized—the essential, lifelong process of spiritual transformation—such that, as seen in part 3, these answers may be lived out with compassion for the lost and a passion for the gospel. These are critical issues, for as I have said many times, I have little doubt that the single greatest obstacle to the impact of the gospel has not been its inability to provide answers, but the failure on our part to live it out. two key realities sum up an effective apologetic: how to relate to the questioner and how to make sure that the answers are couched in a relevant context.

Article: What Hope? by Stuart McAllister

The effects of modernity and secularization are seen most clearly in our inability to see beyond the present, to think outside of our own circumstances, or to believe God for sustenance or change. This life, this world—the now and the immediate—come to shape and control our focus, our wishes, and our concerns. But here, Paul sets our earthbound lives beside the eternal purpose that can inform all we are and do. Becoming a people of hope means cultivating an eternal perspective, the ability to see God in the midst of trials, to persevere in the face of despair and pressure. The point is not to undervalue life in this world, but to set it all in context. Afflictions must be weighed in the light of eternity. Our hopes and expectations are anchored in a greater and ultimate reality that is both certain and transforming. Afflictions do not become less real, nor are they unimportant or less painful, but they are limited in their reach and possibilities by the knowledge that they, too, shall pass.

Article: Man of Ill Repute by Jill Carattini

While many industries confess to struggling during times of economic downturn, the identity management industry, a trade emerging from the realities of the Internet Age, is one that gains business steadily regardless. As one such company notes in its mission statement, they began with the realization that “the line dividing people’s ‘online’ lives from their ‘offline’ personal and professional lives was eroding, and quickly.”(1) While the notion of anonymity or the felt-safety of a social network lures users into online disinhibition, reputations are forged in a very public domain. And, as many have discovered, this can come back to haunt them—long after posted pictures are distant memories. In a survey taken in 2006, one in ten hiring managers admitted rejecting candidates because of things they discovered about them on the Internet. With the increasing popularity of social networks, personal video sites, and blogs, today that ratio is now one in two! Hence the need for identity managers—who scour the Internet with an individual’s reputation in mind and scrub websites of image-damaging material—grows almost as quickly as a high-schooler’s Facebook page.

New issue of RZIM's magazine: Pulse Magazine – Issue 20

The atheist who didn’t exist (the terrible consequences of bad arguments)
Big questions: Tawhid or Trinity? The nature of God in Islam and Christianity
Expanding the team: new OCCA Fellows

PDF Link
 

DonasaurusRex

Online Ho Champ
goodness , the threads that are popping up

do not throw pearls to pigs or give to dogs what is sacred

some of these are obvious trololololooo
 
goodness , the threads that are popping up
do not throw pearls to pigs or give to dogs what is sacred
some of these are obvious trololololooo

There's hardly any conversation behind had in some threads and there's a lot of confirmation bias being thrown around regarding anyone quoting the Bible and Christianity.
There's also people asking questions, which is good, but NeoGAF is hardly the place to find reflection on religious ideals/dogma.

But, it has made me reflect on how I should consider my approach to God and Christ.

I've had second thoughts about Catholicism and whether or not their ideals in Christ are congruent with my ideals of Christ and if I should consider another Christian denomination for my spiritual life.

GA, have any information or suggestion for someone looking to switch denominations?
 

DonasaurusRex

Online Ho Champ
There's hardly any conversation behind had in some threads and there's a lot of confirmation bias being thrown around regarding anyone quoting the Bible and Christianity.
There's also people asking questions, which is good, but NeoGAF is hardly the place to find reflection on religious ideals/dogma.

But, it has made me reflect on how I should consider my approach to God and Christ.

I've had second thoughts about Catholicism and whether or not their ideals in Christ are congruent with my ideals of Christ and if I should consider another Christian denomination for my spiritual life.

GA, have any information or suggestion for someone looking to switch denominations?

I've never been catholic so i dont know ..like what you are seeing different from other denominations. The important thing to remember is we all of us who are Christian affirm Christ's deity , death , burial and ressurection and have faith in God by grace given for salvation. WITHIN those core things we are different, but if you think Catholics aren't affirming that..uhh maybe you'd like a Lutheran or baptist church...most "non denominational" churches are some protestant / weslyan split. What ideals in Christ are you thinking are different from Catholics?
 

Chaplain

Member
goodness , the threads that are popping up

do not throw pearls to pigs or give to dogs what is sacred

some of these are obvious trololololooo

I think one of the consequences of rebellion against God is that the more a person gives into those desires, letting darkness fill their hearts (Matthew 6:22-23), the more they are consumed lose the ability to see impartially. David's Psalm 37 is a Psalm that speaks of the benefits of choosing to love God and the consequences allow hate to fill a persons heart. Take a moment to read it and allow the Lord to refocus your mind on what He ultimately considers important.

Psalm 37
A psalm of David.

1 Don’t worry about the wicked
or envy those who do wrong.
2 For like grass, they soon fade away.
Like spring flowers, they soon wither.
3 Trust in the Lord and do good.
Then you will live safely in the land and prosper.
4 Take delight in the Lord,
and he will give you your heart’s desires.
5 Commit everything you do to the Lord.
Trust him, and he will help you.
6 He will make your innocence radiate like the dawn,
and the justice of your cause will shine like the noonday sun.
7 Be still in the presence of the Lord,
and wait patiently for him to act.
Don’t worry about evil people who prosper
or fret about their wicked schemes.
8 Stop being angry!
Turn from your rage!
Do not lose your temper—
it only leads to harm.
9 For the wicked will be destroyed,
but those who trust in the Lord will possess the land.
10 Soon the wicked will disappear.
Though you look for them, they will be gone.
11 The lowly will possess the land
and will live in peace and prosperity.
12 The wicked plot against the godly;
they snarl at them in defiance.
13 But the Lord just laughs,
for he sees their day of judgment coming.
14 The wicked draw their swords
and string their bows
to kill the poor and the oppressed,
to slaughter those who do right.
15 But their swords will stab their own hearts,
and their bows will be broken.
16 It is better to be godly and have little
than to be evil and rich.
17 For the strength of the wicked will be shattered,
but the Lord takes care of the godly.
18 Day by day the Lord takes care of the innocent,
and they will receive an inheritance that lasts forever.
19 They will not be disgraced in hard times;
even in famine they will have more than enough.
20 But the wicked will die.
The Lord’s enemies are like flowers in a field—
they will disappear like smoke.
21 The wicked borrow and never repay,
but the godly are generous givers.
22 Those the Lord blesses will possess the land,
but those he curses will die.
23 The Lord directs the steps of the godly.
He delights in every detail of their lives.
24 Though they stumble, they will never fall,
for the Lord holds them by the hand.
25 Once I was young, and now I am old.
Yet I have never seen the godly abandoned
or their children begging for bread.
26 The godly always give generous loans to others,
and their children are a blessing.
27 Turn from evil and do good,
and you will live in the land forever.
28 For the Lord loves justice,
and he will never abandon the godly.
He will keep them safe forever,
but the children of the wicked will die.
29 The godly will possess the land
and will live there forever.
30 The godly offer good counsel;
they teach right from wrong.
31 They have made God’s law their own,
so they will never slip from his path.
32 The wicked wait in ambush for the godly,
looking for an excuse to kill them.
33 But the Lord will not let the wicked succeed
or let the godly be condemned when they are put on trial.
34 Put your hope in the Lord.
Travel steadily along his path.
He will honor you by giving you the land.
You will see the wicked destroyed.
35 I have seen wicked and ruthless people
flourishing like a tree in its native soil.
36 But when I looked again, they were gone!
Though I searched for them, I could not find them!
37 Look at those who are honest and good,
for a wonderful future awaits those who love peace.
38 But the rebellious will be destroyed;
they have no future.
39 The Lord rescues the godly;
he is their fortress in times of trouble.
40 The Lord helps them,
rescuing them from the wicked.
He saves them,
and they find shelter in him.
 
I've never been catholic so i dont know ..like what you are seeing different from other denominations. The important thing to remember is we all of us who are Christian affirm Christ's deity , death , burial and ressurection and have faith in God by grace given for salvation. WITHIN those core things we are different, but if you think Catholics aren't affirming that..uhh maybe you'd like a Lutheran or baptist church...most "non denominational" churches are some protestant / weslyan split. What ideals in Christ are you thinking are different from Catholics?

Well, I was raised in the Catholic tradition, but my parents are lukewarm Catholics and were never the type to push Mass on us kids. I am a person that needs spiritual guidance to flesh my life out.

All of the real knowledge I have of Christianity and Catholicism is within Catholic School and Sunday School. I've read the Bible in its entirely and own a copy of the KJV, but do not try to interpret it in its entirely, as I don't feel knowledgable enough to do so.

The problems I have with Catholicism in general is the historical baggage that I've leaned about in high school and college regarding dogmatic proclamations by the Vatican/Pope.

Also, I've never really took the time to research and form an opinion around the various denominations of Christianity and see if one congregation I would feel more comfortable with engaging would be the one that would reaffirm my relationship with Christ.
 

legend166

Member
Well, I was raised in the Catholic tradition, but my parents are lukewarm Catholics and were never the type to push Mass on us kids. I am a person that needs spiritual guidance to flesh my life out.

All of the real knowledge I have of Christianity and Catholicism is within Catholic School and Sunday School. I've read the Bible in its entirely and own a copy of the KJV, but do not try to interpret it in its entirely, as I don't feel knowledgable enough to do so.

The problems I have with Catholicism in general is the historical baggage that I've leaned about in high school and college regarding dogmatic proclamations by the Vatican/Pope.

Also, I've never really took the time to research and form an opinion around the various denominations of Christianity and see if one congregation I would feel more comfortable with engaging would be the one that would reaffirm my relationship with Christ.

What I think is important to consider is whether you really believe the Catholic Church's claim to authority, and on whether you agree with the basis on which they claim that authority.

My advice is read the book of Romans. How one can read that book and still come to a Catholic understanding on justification I'll never understand.

I think the Catholic Church is heretical though, just so you know where I'm coming from.
 

entremet

Member
goodness , the threads that are popping up

do not throw pearls to pigs or give to dogs what is sacred

some of these are obvious trololololooo

I've always liked this Scripture:

But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

1 Peter 3:15
 
RE: "Those" threads

I have taken the approach of just honestly telling what I believe, without trying to pick a part their worldview or what they are saying. That way, at least they will hear the gospel.
 
I've always liked this Scripture:

1 Peter 3:15
That verse is great...but it can still be frustrating. Most of us can probably give at least basic and gentle explanations about a great deal of our faith. What can be killer though is getting piledriven with questions expecting us to be able to elucidate complex theology at the level of scholars and theologians. It's not something unique to GAF though. It happens on almost every other forum as well.
 

entremet

Member
That verse is great...but it can still be frustrating. Most of us can probably give at least basic and gentle explanations about a great deal of our faith. What can be killer though is getting piledriven with questions expecting us to be able to elucidate complex theology at the level of scholars and theologians. It's not something unique to GAF though. It happens on almost every other forum as well.

Yep. It can be. The issue is that many just don't understand the concept of grace. Heck many Christians don't understand it either.

There's always a strong focus on truth without grace. But truth without grace is not Christianity.
 
Yep. It can be. The issue is that many just don't understand the concept of grace. Heck many Christians don't understand it either.

There's always a strong focus on truth without grace. But truth without grace is not Christianity.

Right. Many choose to use truth like a battle axe. That is not the Scriptural way. We should use truth more like a surgeon. The surgeon goes in and carefully removes the cancer without destroying the rest of the body.
 

Garryk

Member
That verse is great...but it can still be frustrating. Most of us can probably give at least basic and gentle explanations about a great deal of our faith. What can be killer though is getting piledriven with questions expecting us to be able to elucidate complex theology at the level of scholars and theologians. It's not something unique to GAF though. It happens on almost every other forum as well.

Whenever I get frustrated with people over such topics, this verse always help me regain my focus:

Ephesians 6:10-12 said:
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
 

Chaplain

Member
Two quotes of the day:

Mt28.20


"There is nothing in science, or in philosophy, that should lead us to conclude that our convictions are neither true nor real. Rather, let us be prepared to give answers to those who ask us for the reason for the hope that we have and make sure that we do it with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15–16). Silence is not an option when faced with hard questions from these disciplines, and, as a church, we desperately need to regain our public voice and proclaim the gospel to a world desperately in need." (Courage, Christ, and Finishing the Mission)

"According to the American Heritage Dictionary, apologetics is “formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system.” A Christian “apologetic” is not an apology as we usually use the term, that is, to say you are sorry for something. We use the word “apology” in the sense that we give a defense of the Christian faith. Apologetics comes from the Greek word apologia, “to give an answer.” 1 Peter 3:15 gives us the defining statement: “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer (apologia) to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.” The Scriptures do not divorce the content of apologetics from the character of the apologist. The apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, knew the hazards and the risks of being an answer-bearer to the sincere questions that people would pose of the Gospel. For that very reason the Scriptures give us a clear picture of the apologist: one who has first set apart Christ in his or her heart as Lord, who then responds with answers to the questioner, and does so, with gentleness and respect." (RZIM)

Today's blog is on Acts 9 (The Conversion of Saul of Tarsus) verses 7-16: God ministers to Saul through Ananias.

A summary of the study:

"God is very selective in choosing His people to do His tasks. Every one of you, listen to this, every one of you as a Christian has a specific, what should I say, specific gifts, specific ministries that the Spirit of God has designed for you to carry out within the framework of God's master plan. And you know, it's only as you're available that those things come to fruition. The willing people are the used ones. And Ananias was willing and he got used." (JM)

"We can look back in our lives and watch the processes by which God was developing us for the work that God had in mind for us to accomplish for Him. Paul, writing to the Ephesians, said, "For you are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that you should walk in them" (Ephesians 2:10). God knows what He has in mind for your life. God knows that ministry or that work that He has in mind for you to fulfill for the kingdom's sake. Now God in the meantime is working in your life as He is preparing you for that work. And one day you will discover that all of this background that I have is all a part of God's plan as he was preparing that instrument to do His work. And it's exciting then to realize that even at times when I wasn't aware of God, wasn't conscious of God, yet God was there working in my life, preparing my life for the work that God had in mind for me to accomplish. A chosen vessel. "And he is to bear My name before the Gentiles, the kings, and the children of Israel." (Smith)

Other things discussed in greater detail...

A supposed Biblical contradiction that is easily explained.
Why did God blind Saul for three days after the Damascus road?
Who was the disciple known as Ananias?
God’s message to Ananias is given with extremely detailed instructions.
One of the first signs that a person is truly converted.
Ananias reasons with God about not wanting to help Saul.
God overcomes Ananias’ reasoning by revealing His plans for Saul's life.

Video: Michael Ramsden - God of Love: Church of Arrogance?

New sermons (right click/save as)"

7/1/15 - Psalms 135-138
7/1/15 - Isaiah 21-24
7/1/15 - 2 Samuel 11:1-27
7/1/15 - Matthew 5:1-6:13

I've had second thoughts about Catholicism and whether or not their ideals in Christ are congruent with my ideals of Christ and if I should consider another Christian denomination for my spiritual life. GA, have any information or suggestion for someone looking to switch denominations?

Personally, I would look for a church with no denominational ties. Seek the Lord on where He wants you to go, and start looking. Once you find places that you believe God is pointing you to, find out what their statement of faith is and listen to some of their sermons. This will give you a good idea if what they say is Biblical or not. I would want you to find a church where the gospel is its main priority, that equips the saints to grow to reach the lost, and its foundation is built on the teachings of the Bible.

I think the following book will help you out and point you in the direction God wants you to go in.

This Little Church Went to Market (click to read online)

In a little book called, "This Little Church Went To Market", Mr. Gilley confronts today's believer about the unbiblical methods used to evangelize the lost and thereby altering the course of biblical Christianity. Rather than stay with the only true standard of doctrine and spiritual growth found in scripture alone, unbelievers are being misled by false evangelism, unchallenged by the gospel, not convicted of sin, provided with a comfortable (worldly) environment where they can be entertained and fed pop psychology sprinkled with Christian terminology. This is not the gospel of salvation. This is not the truth we are to feast on. This junk will do nothing more than feed the fleshly desires of sinners.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

My advice is read the book of Romans. How one can read that book and still come to a Catholic understanding on justification I'll never understand. I think the Catholic Church is heretical though, just so you know where I'm coming from.

You are right. I think its extremely important to know the history of the Catholic Church. Here is just one example of the heretical side of this church:

Dogmas taught by the Roman church (600-1965):

A.D. 607- Boniface III made first pope.
A.D. 709- Kissing the Pope’s foot.
A.D. 786- Worshipping of images and relics.
A.D. 850- Use of “holy water” began.
A.D. 995- Canonization of dead saints.
A.D. 998- Fasting on Fridays and during Lent.
A.D. 1079- Celibacy of the priesthood, were married prior.
A.D. 1090- Prayer beads.
A.D. 1184- The Inquisition.
A.D. 1190- Sale of Indulgences.
A.D. 1215- Transubstantiation.
A.D. 1220- Adoration of the wafer the host.
A.D. 1229- Bible forbidden to laymen.
A.D. 1414- Cup forbidden to people at communion.
A.D. 1439- Doctrine of purgatory decreed and Doctrine of seven sacraments affirmed.
A.D. 1508- The Ave Maria approved.
A.D. 1534- Jesuit order founded.
A.D. 1545- Tradition granted equal authority with Bible.
A.D. 1546- Apocryphal books put into Bible.
A.D. 1854- Immaculate conception of Mary.
A.D. 1864- Syllabus of Errors proclaimed.
A.D. 1870- Infallibility of Pope declared.
A.D. 1930- Public schools condemned.
A.D. 1950- Assumption of the Virgin Mary.
A.D. 1965- Mary proclaimed Mother of the church.

“On the day after Mary’s death, when the apostles gathered around her tomb, they found it empty. The sacred body had been carried up to the Celestial Paradise: the grave had no power over one who was immaculate. But it was not enough that Mary should be received into heaven. She was to be no ordinary citizen...she had a dignity beyond the reach even of the highest of the archangels. Mary was to be crowned Queen of Heaven by the eternal Father, she was to have a throne at her Son’s right hand.. .Now day by day, hour by hour, she is praying for us obtaining graces for us, preserving us from danger shielding us from temptation, showering down blessings upon us...” (St. Bernard)

Right. Many choose to use truth like a battle axe. That is not the Scriptural way. We should use truth more like a surgeon. The surgeon goes in and carefully removes the cancer without destroying the rest of the body.

Agreed.

I shared this before in this thread, but I can't stress enough how spot-on this article is on how to share our faith with those God places in our lives.

1. The lordship of Christ: the term “heart” does not just refer to the seat of our feelings, but also of our thoughts. Every part of us needs to be under the authority of Christ.

2. The double-minded man (Book of James): someone trying to look in two different directions. He is caught between two opinions and has not made a commitment either way. In contrast, the man who asks in faith is stable, and his prayers for wisdom are effective. He has been persuaded, and has put his trust into that which is truthful.

3. We should speak from the context of holiness. Our attitude, our actions and how we treat other people is vitally important (1 Peter 3:8 onwards). Even when faced with persecution, evil is not to be repaid with evil. The reason for the persecution is not because Christians are not obeying God’s commands – it is because they are obeying his commands. 1 Peter 3:15 is saying that because our lives and attitudes are different, due to living in obedience to God’s commands, people will ask questions as to why and we should therefore be prepared. In other words, there should actually be a demand for an apologetic because of the quality of our lives.

4. The letter of 1 Peter is addressed to the church. The command to give an apologetic is not directed to a handful of carefully selected specialists. The command to give an apologetic is one that is directed to every single member of the body of Christ. No one who is a Christian can excuse themselves.

There is a difference between the process of evangelism and the gift of the evangelist. An evangelist is someone who has the gift of precipitating a decision in someone’s life concerning their standing before Christ. Not everyone has this gift. But we are all involved in the process of evangelism (e.g. asking someone to church). It is precisely in that process that apologetics plays a role. It is not a question of whether we engage in apologetics or not, but what kind of apologetic we give when the opportunity comes by.

5. We need to be prepared. The increasing complexity and diversity of the choices we face in life, coupled with a rapidly changing post-modern society, mean that the easiest course is to run away. However, the Christian is called to an engagement with, not a retreat from, the world.

The word translated “prepared” in the NIV has its root in the idea of being fit. Opportunities to share our faith should not be lost because we haven’t taken the time to think through what we would say.

We need to “stop thinking like children,” being like infants in regard to evil, while being like adults in our thinking (1 Corinthians 14:20).

6. We must give answer for the reason for the hope that we have. Peter is quite clear: believing that Christ died so that we might be saved is not a superstition. Instead there is a reason for the hope that we have – there is a logic behind the Gospel – there are reasons that can be communicated and explained concerning the atonement. We must be ready to give an explanation, a defence, of why the Gospel is true.

7. With the lordship of Christ in our own lives as the starting point for giving an apologetic, any apologia must therefore lead to or flow from the cross. The Cross and resurrection provide our hope, and there is no other reason for our confidence.

However, at the same time we must recognise that people may have other legitimate questions that need to be dealt with before they are prepared to give us a hearing. We need to deal with these issues so that we can clear away false ideas. Then Christ can be seen for who he is.

8. Our attitude: The Gospel is to be shared with gentleness and respect. The message that is brought claims to be one of grace and peace. The Gospel is not to be compromised in any way. But the way we present it must be consistent with its content.

Our confidence rests in the reality of the relationship we enjoy with Christ, the change he has brought into our lives and the truthfulness of his claims. Our confidence is not in a system of thought. It is in the person of Christ. That is why the Apostle Paul says, “I know whom I have believed,” and not what I have believed.

This is why we are also told that we should keep a clear conscience as we talk to others. We are not called on to pretend we know something when we don’t. Nor are we boasting of how great our own minds are, as if we had figured out everything by ourselves. With humility, fear of God and honesty, we testify to the truth and reality of the Gospel message, that Christ is still alive.

The Gospel promises to change lives. It is no surprise therefore that people expect to see lives changed. If our attitude indicates that Christ makes no difference to how we live or how we treat others, we immediately undermine its credibility. Ultimately, our goal is not to win arguments, but to see people come to know Christ.

The Biblical Mandate for Apologetics (Michael Ramsden)

One of the things that I have been noticing is the increasing the attacks on anyone who believes in absolute morality. This is nothing new though. What do I mean? Herbert Butterfield (Regius Professor of History and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge) wrote an amazing analyses in 1949 on human nature in the aftermath of World War 2. I highly recommend reading this, because the parallels are just uncanny with modern society.

It seems to me... that in regard to the relations between human nature and the external conditions of the world, the study of history does open one's eyes to a significant fact... if you were to remove certain subtle safeguards in society many men who had been respectable all their lives would be transformed by the discovery of the things which it was now possible to do with impunity; weak men would apparently take to crime who had been previously kept on the rails by a certain balance existing in society; and you can produce a certain condition of affairs in which people go plundering and stealing, though hitherto throughout their lives it had never occurred to them even to want to steal. A great and prolonged police strike, the existence of a revolutionary situation in a capital city, and the exhilaration of conquest in an enemy country are likely to show up a seamy side of human nature amongst people who, cushioned and guided by the influences of normal social life, have hitherto presented a respectable figure to the world. (p. 30)

The difference between civilization and barbarism is a revelation of what is essentially the same human nature when it works under different conditions (p. 31)

One point is fundamental, however. Nobody may pretend that there has been an elimination of the selfishness, and self-centeredness of man. (p. 35)

If in a well-run city crime has significantly reduced, because the police have successfully restrained it, no one would argue that there is no longer any need for the police. Without them basic human nature would resume its criminal activity. (p. 33)

…it seems to me that Christianity alone attacks the seat of evil in the kind of world we have been considering … It addresses itself precisely to the crust of self-righteousness which, by the nature of its teaching, it has to dissolve before it can do anything else with man. The more human beings are … incapable … of any profound self-analysis, the more we shall find that self-righteousness hardens, so that it is just the thick-skinned who are more sure of being right than anyone else … At its worst it brings us to that mythical messianism – that messianic hoax – of the twentieth century which comes perilously near to the thesis: “Just one little war more against the last remaining enemies of righteousness, and then the world will be cleansed, and we can start building Paradise.” (p. 41)

John Lennox discusses this in further detail in his book on "Against the Flow - The Inspiration of Daniel in an Age of Relativism." His commentary on Daniel is one of the best I have ever read. But the most interest part are the parallels between the time Daniel was living in and what is going on in Europe and the United States right now.
 

Van

Member
Christian-Gaf, ive made a life choice, ive moved to florida to study and become a Youth Minister, and so far i finally feel happy that im away from the place i was, but i left so much, just a couple of months ago i left my family's church to go and join another church, i fell in love with it and got involved with the youth ministry there, butt then somthing fell in my lap and made me think about some things, i prayed a lot, and my friends and family wanted me to go. so i went, now that im here, i have no church and i have no idea where to start, any advice is welcome and prayers are always needed,
thanks <3
 
That verse is great...but it can still be frustrating. Most of us can probably give at least basic and gentle explanations about a great deal of our faith. What can be killer though is getting piledriven with questions expecting us to be able to elucidate complex theology at the level of scholars and theologians. It's not something unique to GAF though. It happens on almost every other forum as well.

I wouldn't worry about it. It's mainly done for Internet forum superiority/ "win" an argument.

A lot of religion is based around mystery and faith. To some people, accepting faith is just too difficult to understand and I can understand the reservation.

Asking a "fact and evidence based" Video Game message board to believe in good faith in those OT arguments... Not gonna happen.

Now, GA, I never looked at these Dogmas in detail. Wow.

Dogmas taught by the Roman church (600-1965):

A.D. 607- Boniface III made first pope.
A.D. 709- Kissing the Pope&#8217;s foot.
A.D. 786- Worshipping of images and relics.
A.D. 850- Use of &#8220;holy water&#8221; began.
A.D. 995- Canonization of dead saints.
A.D. 998- Fasting on Fridays and during Lent.
A.D. 1079- Celibacy of the priesthood, were married prior.
A.D. 1090- Prayer beads.
A.D. 1184- The Inquisition.
A.D. 1190- Sale of Indulgences.
A.D. 1215- Transubstantiation.
A.D. 1220- Adoration of the wafer the host.
A.D. 1229- Bible forbidden to laymen.
A.D. 1414- Cup forbidden to people at communion.
A.D. 1439- Doctrine of purgatory decreed and Doctrine of seven sacraments affirmed.
A.D. 1508- The Ave Maria approved.
A.D. 1534- Jesuit order founded.
A.D. 1545- Tradition granted equal authority with Bible.
A.D. 1546- Apocryphal books put into Bible.
A.D. 1854- Immaculate conception of Mary.
A.D. 1864- Syllabus of Errors proclaimed.
A.D. 1870- Infallibility of Pope declared.
A.D. 1930- Public schools condemned.
A.D. 1950- Assumption of the Virgin Mary.
A.D. 1965- Mary proclaimed Mother of the church.
 
Now, GA, I never looked at these Dogmas in detail. Wow.
Since I have more in common with Catholics than most of you probably, I'm just going to jump in and say the list posted is a typical gross Protestant attempt at attacking Catholics. I'm not entirely surprised but am disappointed to see that kind of crap posted here.

As an example, to address the "Bible banning." First off, there were no mass market Bibles at the time since the printing press wasn't made until 1436. So the ban at the time was not something that was going to affect many people. It was a ban on possession, not reading. You were certainly allowed to read the Bible at your local church (assuming you were even literate enough to do so). Second, the Bible was "banned" in 1229 because of the Albigensian heresy which was using a vernacular form of the Bible to preach their ideas. The Bible was "banned" until they could root out the heresy and get proper Bibles sent out to the faithful. Furthermore, it wasn't an ecumenical council, it was a local council, so the Bible was being "banned" from layman ownership in a specific area. It was a local restriction based on a local heresy. Not a Church-wide one. The "banning" never affected any place other than southern France, and is a far cry from the Catholic Church banning the Bible from all laymen.

But we couldn't let facts get in the way of your anti-Catholic positions right? I see this thread is going to be just as grossly anti-Catholic as the rest of GAF is anti-Christian, so I'm out. Gross.
 

Chaplain

Member
Since I have more in common with Catholics than most of you probably, I'm just going to jump in and say the list posted is a typical gross Protestant attempt at attacking Catholics. I'm not entirely surprised but am disappointed to see that kind of crap posted here.

God's church is full of hypocrisy and has been full of hypocrisy. An example of this being protestants killing other believers in Ireland in the name of Christ. Protestants are not exempt from this rebuke in the United States and in European churches. However, to remain silent when Protestants or Catholics live contrary to Biblical doctrine or proclaim teachings that contradict the teachings of the Apostles and Jesus, simply ignoring that they are not happening or have ever happened, would be hypocritical of any believer when asked.

Hope that made sense.
 
God's church is full of hypocrisy and has been full of hypocrisy. An example of this being protestants killing other believers in Ireland in the name of Christ. Protestants are not exempt from this rebuke in the United States and in European churches. However, to remain silent when Protestants or Catholics live contrary to Biblical doctrine or proclaim teachings that contradict the teachings of the Apostles and Jesus, simply ignoring that they are not happening or have ever happened, would be hypocritical of any believer when asked.

Hope that made sense.
It's a nice speech but ultimately made irrelevant when you posted baseless, untrue and contextless accusations to besmirch another Church.
 
It's a nice speech but ultimately made irrelevant when you posted baseless, untrue and contextless accusations to besmirch another Church.

The Catholic Church and the Vatican contains a significant amount of baggage that should be observed with a critical lens.

I just want historical facts Jack.
 
The Catholic Church and the Vatican contains a significant amount of baggage that should be observed with a critical lens.

I just want historical facts Jack.
True of every Church.

And if you wanted historical facts, you wouldn't be looking at that crappy list passed around on anti-Catholic apologist sites.
 
True of every Church.

And if you wanted historical facts, you wouldn't be looking at that crappy list passed around on anti-Catholic apologist sites.

So what are the facts? Where should I get my informed information about world religion and denominations, on Wikipedia?

Again, I just want facts, not opinions. I'd like some level of reasonable, objective information between denominations so I can make a decision I feel comfortable with.
 

Chaplain

Member
True of every Church.

And if you wanted historical facts, you wouldn't be looking at that crappy list passed around on anti-Catholic apologist sites.

The orignal source for that list is not from a website, but from the following book:

Boettner, L. (1962). Roman Catholicism (1st ed., pp. 8-9). Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub.

The fact of the matter is this, the dogmas I shared are taught by the Catholic church or are part of the churches history. History cannot be deleted or ignored just because we do not like it. We must examine all claims by what Scripture says. What do I mean? Here is a quote that I shared by Saint Bernard:

&#8220;On the day after Mary&#8217;s death, when the apostles gathered around her tomb, they found it empty. The sacred body had been carried up to the Celestial Paradise: the grave had no power over one who was immaculate. But it was not enough that Mary should be received into heaven. She was to be no ordinary citizen...she had a dignity beyond the reach even of the highest of the archangels. Mary was to be crowned Queen of Heaven by the eternal Father, she was to have a throne at her Son&#8217;s right hand.. .Now day by day, hour by hour, she is praying for us obtaining graces for us, preserving us from danger shielding us from temptation, showering down blessings upon us...&#8221; (St. Bernard)

This belief cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. This belief declares that Jesus is not the only mediator between God and man. The facts are that we have to opposing beliefs: one taught in the Bible, and the other nowhere to be found in the Bible.

God calls each of us to show ourselves approved by God, rightly handling and understanding what Scripture says (2 Timothy 2:15). One of the primary purposes of the Bible is to teach us to discern between truth and lies, correcting us by showing us what is wrong with our beliefs and in our lives, and training us to live in righteousness through Biblical doctrine ("in holy living, in conformity to God&#8217;s will in thought, purpose, and action") (2 Timothy 3:16). Correct doctrine allows us to understand the truth, walk in the truth, which helps us see what is true and what is not.
 
The orignal source for that list is not from a website, but from the following book:

Boettner, L. (1962). Roman Catholicism (1st ed., pp. 8-9). Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub.

The fact of the matter is this, the dogmas I shared are taught by the Catholic church or are part of the churches history. History cannot be deleted or ignored just because we do not like it.
If "taught by the Church or part of the history" you mean "thing taken completely and wildly out of context in instances" as I already explained, that's fine I guess.

I already gave an example of how poor one part was, but poor history doesn't matter when we want to bash Catholics right? When your list has stupid nonsense like this:

A.D. 1229- Bible forbidden to laymen.

I tend to lose all respect for people. Your bias is showing, given that lines like that are just complete and utter lies. It's disgustingly obvious, and really quite shameful when you're pretending to help educate people.

EDIT: hahahahahahhahaha. I checked the source that you listed. Wow, your anti-Catholicism is even more obvious! Review after review after review calls out the book for being poorly researched anti-Catholicism apologetics.
Matthew rated it 1 of 5 stars
Recommends it for: no one
Shelves: religion
this book is poorly researched, full of half-truths, misconceptions, and complete inaccuracies. Just look at the # of citations for a book this size. Two dozen? How many are primary sources?
This book is designed to lead people astray and misinform them about the Catholic Church.
I would give this zero stars.
Steven Wedgeworth rated it 3 of 5 stars
You know this book isn't that bad. I had heard it pilloried so much that I was expecting worse. It definitely uses generalizations, and there definitely some imprecisions which do amount to outright errors, however, there's also a lot that's just right. Boettner addresses pre-Vatican II RCism, and he locates a number of relevant dividing-line issues. I wouldn't use this book as my primary or only source for RC apologetics, but I think it's worth having on the shelves.
Jp rated it 1 of 5 stars
Recommends it for: Catholic Apologists
Recommended to Jp by: A protestant frind who is now a Catholic
This book is an Anti-Catholic book. It is the largest collection of misconceptions and all out lies I have ever seen. It is clear from the severe lack of footnotes and the tiny bibliography that he spent zero time researching the true Doctrines of the Catholic Faith, but very typical of 19th and 20th century Fundamentalists' weaknesses in the feild of apologetics.
Will Austin rated it 1 of 5 stars
Though I'm neither a practicing Catholic nor a defender of the Catholic faith, I could only recommend this book to a student of Catholic apologetics looking for The Sourcebook of anti-Catholic material to refute. I find it difficult to believe that such a lettered theologian as Boettner could craft such a poorly researched tome, let alone pass it off as a scholarly work.
Craig rated it 1 of 5 stars
A blueprint for misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. Sad.
Jay D rated it 1 of 5 stars
Laughable.
Hm, one decent review from Goodreads. That's interesting. But it's only one site, so let's check Amazon!

199 of 243 people found the following review helpful
A Rational Evaluation
By Stephen J. Garver on October 25, 2000
Format: Paperback
Given all the extreme rhetoric of many of these reviews, I'd like to attempt to present something closer to a rational evaluation, largely borrowing from a review I wrote for another book sales website.
Lorraine Boettner's thorough and expansive treatment of Roman Catholicism has certainly become a classic since its first publication in 1962, widely disseminated and used as a basis for further critiques. Boettner's book is, however, also infamous. The book's infamy stems from its method of argumentation which combines various strategies: not only biblical exegesis, citation of Reformed creeds, quotations from Protestant authorities, and social analysis, but also innuendo, guilt by association, half-truths, and distortions of Roman Catholic teaching. Today, the book is also rather dated, failing to take account of the Second Vatican Council and other developments in 20th century Roman Catholic biblical and theological studies. For all its 450 pages, there is very little of continuing and helpful substance. It is, however, fun to read and bears witness to the polemics of an earlier era (one would wish!).
I do not have the space here to give a complete analysis of Boettner's shortcomings, but will cite some representative examples. Moreover, I do not speak here as an apologist for the Roman Catholic church. I am, in fact, like Boettner, a Reformed Protestant, though also a philosophy professor at a Roman Catholic University. It does not seem to me, however, that the cause of Protestant Christianity is well-served by inaccurate portrayals of other traditions or criticisms that only attack straw men. I write this review, then, on behalf of truth.
Boettner's first chapter combines various ends: defining Protestantism, attempting to associate Catholicism with communism, accusing Catholicism of developing various heresies and inventions, and painting a portrait of the supposedly sad state of Roman Catholic nations. Let's consider his discussion of the "heresies" and "inventions" which he implies are held to be part of the unchanging and infallible teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and thus are "binding" upon all Catholics (pages 7-10).
In point of fact, very little of what he mentions would fall into that category. For instance, fasting on Fridays, the temporal power of popes, the withholding of the cup from the laity, and the use of Latin, have all changed since they were never a matter of Catholic "doctrine" per se. Moreover, Boettner distorts the implementation of many of these practices. For instance, the "imposition" of the Latin language by Gregory in AD 600 was done in order that the liturgy might be celebrated in the common language of the people (i.e., Latin), rather than in the Greek that was widely used up to that time. Likewise, while the discipline of celibacy was required for most priests since 1079, that is only true in the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. In the Eastern rite, married priests have always been permitted and are to this day. Nor was the Bible ever "forbidden to laymen" by a Council of Valencia in 1229. For one thing, there was no council in Valencia in 1229 since it was under Islamic control. A local council with local authority, however, was held in Toulouse that year and it did temporarily (and quite understandably) limit the use of the Bible by roving lay-preachers who were spreading the Albigensian heresy.
As another example, we can consider Boettner's treatment of the mass in chapter eight. It is evident here that the book is quite dated, presupposing a eucharistic liturgy which hasn't been enacted (except rarely) in three decades (pages 169-171). Boettner's discussion of the Roman Catholic priesthood and the "sacrifice of the mass" gives little indication of any detailed knowledge about those doctrines, their histories, or their current status. For instance, he appears unware of centuries of debate among Roman Catholic theologians on whether the notion of the eucharistic "sacrifice" is to be taken in an "oblationist" or "immolationist" fashion. The "oblationist" view focuses more upon Christ's present priestly intercesssion before the Father. The "immolationist" view, on the other hand, focuses more upon Christ's presence upon the altar in a figure of death. While the latter view is certainly problematic for Protestants and the view against which we have traditionally objected, it is the former view ("oblationism") which has gained ascendency in the 20th century and thus must be addressed today. And I know of no Roman Catholic theologian who would agree with Boettner's description that the mass is a "re-crucifixion" of Jesus and few who would even accept the language of the mass as a "continuation" of the sacrifice of Calvary (page 174). Unfortunately, Boettner's almost complete lack of bibliographical references to Catholic authorities makes it difficult to know from where he drew his information.
I cite these few examples as representative of the ways in which Boettner's book falls short. As Protestants we certainly must maintain a faithful witness to Reformation truth, but that task is not advanced by careless scholarship, distortion of one's opponents, and slipshod argumentation. While there are some things of value in Boettner's classic book, I would advise those who are interested in understanding the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church to refer to offical documents (the catechism, councils, encyclicals) and their prominent interpreters among recent theologians.
92 of 117 people found the following review helpful
Reading this book actually brought me back into the Catholic Church
By Ambrose on June 26, 2005
Format: Paperback
I read this book back in the early 90's when it was given to me by a fundamentalist co-worker. I was a lax Catholic at the time who sailed through 12 years of Catholic schooling without ever really delving deep into my faith. I read the book with interest, and an open mind, since I already began having some serious challenges with what my friend was teaching me about the "obvious contradictions" (as he saw them) between Biblical teachings and Catholic doctrine. I found many of Dr. Boettner's historical accusations so over the top, and distorted that I soon began to question his scholarship (not to mention his motives) on everything else.

My curiosity was piqued and I began to devour every book I could find that would shed some light on how the early Christians read and understood scripture (starting with William A. Jurgens', "Faith of The Early Fathers") . It took the good Dr. Boettner to get me interested enough to finally begin searching for the truth - and it led me deeper into the Faith I was raised in. Thanks Dr. Boettner!
56 of 73 people found the following review helpful
This is anti-intellectual
By K. Schwartz on September 17, 2004
Format: Paperback
"Divine tradition is the writings of the fathers and doctors of the catholic church. Now God is infallible, so divine tradition should be also. But Boettner writes that Augustine, a prolific church father, wrote a book of retractions to his writings later in life. Another Church doctor, Alphonsus Liguori, in his book, the means of salvation and perfection, wrote that if God willed all the angels to go to hell, they would willingly do so to follow the divine will. This is absurd since God cannot make a contradiction."

In response to this post and this book, all I can say is that people need to do a better job of understanding what it is they are trying to condemn. First, Boettner misleads the reader to believe that Augustine "comes to his senses later in life". Maybe the reader should, himself, read Augustine to find the TRUTH. Boettner also attempts to build up a Catholic strawman and then knock it down. He does it well (who couldn't). In fact, if this was actually what the Church taught, I would be objecting myself. Furthermore, he is dishonest, which is a cardinal sin for a "scholar".

For starters, Catholic tradition is not the "writings of the fathers and doctors of the Catholic Church". The Church fathers bear witness to Apostolic Tradition, but they aren't in themselves "Tradition". Thus, a Church Father OR Doctor CAN err. Their writings are only accurate in as much as they agree with what the Church has always taught. This does not mean that our understanding cannot grow or expand. However, teachings cannot be contradicted (i.e. cold-blooded murder is never morally acceptable). The teaching on infallibility only extends to matters of faith and morals. And that only extends to the Magisterium. Thus, a Pope declaring that one Bible is better than another one is not a contradiction on infallibility. "Faith and Morals" simply put are articles of the faith that are necessary for our salvation along with moral teachings that guide our faith.

Furthermore, the teaching on infallibility only states that the Holy Spirit will PREVENT the CHURCH from teaching error in these areas. It does not extend to INDIVIDUALS, except the Holy Father (in Ex Cathedra pronouncements). These rarely occur. Thus, both the author's accusations and all critics of Catholic (Apostolic) Tradition are unfounded. Remember, all you critics of Catholic Tradition, the words of St. Paul, "So then Brothers, stand firm and hold to the TRADITIONS we brought to you, whether by word of MOUTH or by LETTER" (2 Thess 2:15). Also, that the "CHURCH of the living God, (IS) the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of TRUTH" (1 Tim 3:15). Thus, Scripture (which is a part of Tradition itself, said St. Paul in 2 Thess 2:15) bears witness to the Church's teaching on Tradition. A teaching that was handed down by Christ and the Apostles in the once and for all, complete deposit of faith.

To sum it up, let us see what the Church teaches about it's own beliefs on Tradition. "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal" (CCC, 80). "The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a WRITTEN NEW TESTAMENT, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Traidition. Tradition is to be distinguished from the various THEOLOGICAL, DISCIPLINARY, LITURGICAL, or DEVOTIONAL traditions (little "t"), born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition (Big "T") is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's magisterium" (CCC, 83). Thus, man-made traditions can be modified or abandoned, but Apostolic Tradition is objective truth revealed by God and cannot ever change. This is what the Church claims infallibility over. Don't take my word for it, do your research, and try reading something other than anti-Catholic sentiment if you ACTUALLY want to learn what the Catholic Church teaches.
15 of 18 people found the following review helpful
The root of modern anti-catholicism
By Dalton C. Rocha on January 27, 2006
Format: Paperback
I read this bad book, here in Brazil.This book is an anti-catholic diatribe.This book is fake, ridiculous, outdated,biased,etc.A typical exemple of anti-catholic fraud is the caluny in this book, claiming that in XIII Century, a catholic concily in Valencia Spain put out of law, to read the bible by catholics.Nonsense.This concily never happended, at first because Valencia , Spain was under islamic control in XIII Century.At second the bible used in middle ages had 76 books.The "bible" adopted by almost all protestants sects, was produced first in 1629 and has 66 books.No catholic concily in XIII Century, could put out of law to read a bible knowed only in XVII Century!The level of arguments of this bad book, never is above the ground.This book is now outdated.This bad book was writen in 1950 decade, being now outdated.To exemple, this book is against use of latin, on catholic mass!

Why I'm not giving only one star for this bad book?Because this book, is the root of modern anti-catholicism.If you read the anti-catholics books from Jimmy Swaggart, Billy Graham, etc. and read this bad book, you will see, how many anti-catholics plagiarisms supposed "from God" are in fact, from this trash-book.
Oh boy, you sure have shared a great book with us! One clearly full of great scholarship and truth! I'm so glad you gave us that to look into! A list that came from that book? Obviously worth all of our time! Clearly, you are interested in giving an objective and truthful view of the Catholic Church!
lol
Come on, you're better than this. This is gross. If you're going to have a discussion of the merits of another denomination, the least you could do is try to have an honest discussion.
This belief cannot be found anywhere in the Bible.
I'm not a sola scriptura Protestant, so this doesn't scare me. Boohoo.
So what are the facts? Where should I get my informed information about world religion and denominations, on Wikipedia?

Again, I just want facts, not opinions. I'd like some level of reasonable, objective information between denominations so I can make a decision I feel comfortable with.
I'd try doing my own research instead of using a poorly researched and sourced list of crap from someone with clearly anti-Catholic bias
 

legend166

Member
I'm not a sola scriptura Protestant, so this doesn't scare me. Boohoo.

I mean, that's the whole point though right? And that's why the historical misdeeds of the Catholic Church (understatement of the millenium) deserve much greater scrutiny than those of other churches. If you place church tradition on the same level as scripture when it comes to determining truth and doctrine, the upholders of that tradition probably should generally not be massive hypocrites. Nevermind the fact that the whole idea of tradition and authority of the Pope is based on an unbroken link to the Apostolic era which is completely fanciful considering the actual history (the schisms, dueling Popes, etc).
 
I mean, that's the whole point though right? And that's why the historical misdeeds of the Catholic Church (understatement of the millenium) deserve much greater scrutiny than those of other churches. If you place church tradition on the same level as scripture when it comes to determining truth and doctrine, the upholders of that tradition probably should generally not be massive hypocrites. Nevermind the fact that the whole idea of tradition and authority of the Pope is based on an unbroken link to the Apostolic era which is completely fanciful considering the actual history (the schisms, dueling Popes, etc).
I'm not disagreeing that the Catholic Church deserves scrutiny, since I'm not part of it. I don't care about them getting a fair critique.

I'm merely laughing at the so-called "analysis" of the Catholic Church in here. It's laughable at best, anti-intellectual at worst.
the upholders of that tradition probably should generally not be massive hypocrites
Also, this is an incredibly stupid standard. Basically almost everyone on the planet and in history has been a hypocrite.
 

legend166

Member
Sure, which is why we're not supposed to place our faith in men. I'm not trying to say that Protestant faiths and denominations are more righteous than the Catholic church or don't have shameful events in their history. I love the writings of the Puritans but their link to slave ownership is horrible. Luther is a giant of the faith but had questionable views (to put it politely) towards Jews. We are all sinners and we all sin.

But it is the Catholic Church which raises itself up and puts itself as an institution on a pedestal alongside Scripture. The Catholic Church teaches that no one can be saved without the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church positions itself as the sole authority to interpret the Bible.

What I'm saying is that very same Catholic Church has been responsible for the death of untold numbers of people and of the oppression of many more. Let alone their more modern problems of working with totalitarian regimes, protecting pedophiles and amassing a stupid amount of wealth while the majority of their members live in poverty.
 
edit: Sorry if anyone feels this leaks from the OT side to here and doesn't like it, but I feel like it's important to address still.


I'm not gonna comment on the first link that much, as I'm not familiar with the US law system nor its constitution, but it would seem like the author leaves a lot of things completely untouched in order to further his point, and potentially distorts some things. Like, if the Supreme Court really had no right to command states, then they surely couldn't have banned anti-miscegenation laws in states either. But I kind of suspect there's something in there that allowed them to do this back then, and allowed them to do this now.

If the Supreme Court really still agreed that marriage was a status ordained by God, then it would seem awfully strange that people of other religion can get married in the US without God's involvement. Not to mention that even atheists can get married without any god's involvement. Nevermind separation of church and state too.

So yeah, while I admit I don't have that much knowledge about these things, it would really seem awfully strange if the author was fully right and didn't leave anything important out.

I also checked the Declaration of Independence, and maybe it's the language barrier, but I didn't see any part in it which 'declares that America will operate under the general values set forth in &#8220;the laws of nature and of nature&#8217;s God&#8221;'. It does establish God and say that God endowed certain inalienable rights to man, but it doesn't say anything about general values.

As for the second link, I'm honestly sad to see this narrative here on gaf. Like, obviously it's not as bad as outright hate against homosexuals, but it's still narrative that misunderstands people's sexuality and does heavy psychological damage to a lot of gay people.

Here's a beautiful post about it:
Well, you hit the nail on the head. I understand why you can reject this argument, but this is what I was saying.

People can disagree with the actions, and the choices made, while not hating the person.

People who hate the state of being that is gay, also hate the person. There's no way around that.

That may be wrong in your eyes, because you say they're not separate. But I think there's a difference in the type of person that is. Even if the two people who take these views are bad, and worse. I still think there's a difference.
It's not merely wrong in my view, it's just logically wrong. You beg the question by assuming as a premise part of your conclusion. "Because being gay and acting gay are separate, one can accept a gay person but reject their actions without being bigoted because they are separate."

I cannot accept that they are different because I do not acknowledge or agree with the notion that the separation upon which the difference relies even exists. Because it doesn't. Your sexuality is not simply who you are or what you are attracted to but also its expression in reality. You're attempting to divorce identity from expression of itself which makes no sense to me. You're simply restating the tired "hate the sin but love the sinner" that all LGBT people have heard all their lives. Go ahead and ask us how often we found that to be as true in practice.

I would very much advise not telling gay people what homosexuaity is and isn't, which you are doing when you try to argue that it's a divided concept that can be partly rejected and reviled.

Because let's make one other thing clear: rejecting the acts and "choices" made to reflect my orientation isn't some harmless opinion like "I didn't like Mad Max Fury Road" (although such people are monsters, clearly. :p) It makes it ok to sneer and show disgust at people being same-sex affectionate in public, be ause after al, it's just the act they're rejecting. You wanna know the psychological damage you can do to people by avoiding eye contact at best for holding hands? I know too many gay people who are too afraid to be affectionate in public because of the responses they get.

It's not harmless, and it rejects me as a person.
I'd also add that I really don't like this narrative "a lot of people think sexuality defines us so obviously they're in favor of gays having sex". I think a lot of straight people might not even understand how big a part sexuality really is of each of us. It's part of our lives every single day, whether we are single, dating or married. That smile you gave to an attractive woman? That flirting look you give to your co-worker? That handholding you do with loved one? That kiss you gave to your wife before she went to work? Sexuality isn't just about having sex. It relates to a lot of small things in your every day life. Having sex is just one part of it. Our sexuality is a core part of us all (apart from asexuals).

Telling a gay person not to have sex is telling that person "there's just something so wrong deep inside of you that you can not be yourself and express yourself as you are". It's incredibly damaging and I wonder if people thinking the "love the sinner hate the sin" thing in this case have realized that they contribute to millions of people around the world feeling alone, left out and sick and suicidal which in the worst case scenario (which really is far, far too often for gays), ends up in a suicide.
 
The Catholic Church teaches that no one can be saved without the Catholic Church.[/B] The Catholic Church positions itself as the sole authority to interpret the Bible.
I mean the bolded again is a misinterpretation of what the Catholic Church teaches again, which anyone who wanted to bother to do their research could correct. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is not quite that simple:
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

“Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.

“Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

“847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
From the "Assessment of this Council" written about Vatican II:
The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize."
Another explanation:
“Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church” …. Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!” (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a “visible” and an “invisible Church”, yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.”
Besides in which, this is all a silly complaint since the majority of world churches have the same view on salvation outside of their respective denominations.
What I'm saying is that very same Catholic Church has been responsible for the death of untold numbers of people and of the oppression of many more.
So have countless Protestant regimes that murdered untold numbers of Catholics, Orthodox, Atheists, Pagans and othes.
 
Ok its becoming clear that the Christian denomination similarities/differences conversation cannot be had in this community, so I'm gonna leave it to my priest to clarify.

Sorry I asked. I should've known I wouldnt get a straight answer on NeoGAF without some argument breaking out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom