A Question for Christians [Archive]

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 12:49 AM

Why do you subscribe to your particular flavor of Christianity? I've always wondered this, but I've never been really in a position to ask people in real life, so I figured I'd ask on here and maybe I'd get a sampling of answers. I ask because I have a hard time figuring out how people justify that their beliefs are the correct ones, because personally, I've only been able to see/understand the arguments for being Catholic or Orthodox. I have some more specific questions about things that have bothered me, too.

I don't want this to turn into a debate about which type of Christianity is correct, I was just interested in hearing people's answers. If you could just point me to websites that are apologetic for your faith, that'd be fine, too. I'm just curious. But now for some more specific questions:

To Protestants in general, how do you justify Protestantism not existing for at least 1,500 years after Jesus' death? Do you think that true Christianity didn't exist for all those years?

To fundamentalists, on what grounds do you think the Bible is literal and inerrant? From what I've understood, the Bible (well, the New Testament) was pieced together from many different writings about Jesus in the fourth century by Catholic/Orthodox clergy. Why do you accept their choices and don't go looking for the other, "lost" Gospels or other writings about Jesus?

And to Anglicans, and members of other state churches, I don't understand how anyone can believe in a state church.

EricNau

Mar 26, 2007, 01:14 AM

To Protestants in general, how do you justify Protestantism not existing for at least 1,500 years after Jesus' death? Do you think that true Christianity didn't exist for all those years?
That question, quite frankly, doesn't make any sense. I don't think you completely understand why the Reformation took place, or the differences between the two religions.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 01:23 AM

That question, quite frankly, doesn't make any sense. I don't think you completely understand why the Reformation took place, or the differences between the two religions.

I'm pretty sure I understand both quite well. :confused: I have studied both pretty well (I thought). Could you explain what you mean?

Bobdude161

Mar 26, 2007, 03:49 AM

The Protestant Reformation was a movement in the 16th century to reform the Catholic Church in Western Europe. Many western Christians were troubled by what they saw as false doctrines and malpractices within the Church, particularly involving the teaching and sale of indulgences. Another major contention was the tremendous corruption within Church's hierarchy, all the way up to the Bishop of Rome, who appointed individuals to various positions within the Church (bishop, cardinal, etc.) on the basis of financial contributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

solvs

Mar 26, 2007, 04:27 AM

I still haven't really picked an official religion. Pretty open to pieces of some and pieces of others. It would be nice to have a name for what I am for when people ask, but I usually just say I'm agnostic or an existentialist. Or Taoist.

And when someone asks me if it's any good, usually I say it's alright. Not bad but not great. ;) (sorry, bad Taoist/existentialist joke)

Desertrat

Mar 26, 2007, 05:25 AM

Hey, I'm 72 and i still haven't really figured out this religious thing. I've been over a pretty good bit of the world and back again. Seen and talked to all manner of folks of different religions.

I guess it's not religion as such that's any problem for me so much as people's interpretations of Bible or Koran or whatever.

I was raised Presbyterian. New Testament stuff. I don't think it really took.

I did the usual guard duty thing while in the Army. That's a lot of time to think about The Meaning Of It All.

I've always been a night owl, and have always loved meddling around outdoors at night. Varmint hunting or just watching/listening. Or, just sitting on the porch, looking at stars. More of that thinking. :)

So I sorta figure that what people do insofar as naming a God, or interpreting the notions of alleged Wise Men is just what people do. "If God did not exist, man would invent Him in his own image."

I figure that there's something more than just Homo Sap running the show. I don't worry about it a lot. "Big Hodad in the Sky" will do.

Religious rules? Those which facilitate people getting along in peace and harmony--insofar as any contentious predators can--strike me as good rules. The Golden Rule. "Thou shalt not covet..." What's wrong with that? Who cares about the source?

I guess any religion is a way to get outside of yourself and look at the bigger picture of life itsownself. Problems arise when people abuse and misuse religion for their own personal ends...

'Rat

iBlue

Mar 26, 2007, 06:09 AM

My family is primarily Catholic. They just seem to unquestioningly follow the beliefs of their parents and generation by generation it just passes down.

I, of course, had to be the black sheep. I can't wrap my mind around any religion, let alone all the "I'm right and you're wrong" bits. None of it makes sense to me and I can't blindly follow. Just me and I've paid the price of alienation for it.

Suppose I appreciate the question so even though I can't answer as a person of faith, thought I could add on behalf of my family (weird though I find them to be) :p

bartelby

Mar 26, 2007, 06:26 AM

My grandmother is Catholic, my mum attended a Catholic school.

They let me develope on my own in terms of belief. I do not believe in any religion. I see that over the centuries they have caused more problems than they claim to solve, and at the same time preach forgiveness and tolerance.

Christianity, in all it's forms, seems to be the most hypocritical and easiest to distort into whatever you want.

I believe that the existence of life on this planet is more of an accident than anything else but lifeforms evolved rather than being created by a god.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 06:54 AM

I think people are misunderstanding this thread. I'm not asking for people's individual beliefs, however interesting that may be. I was interesting in a discussion within Christianity. I'm more interested in the choice of the sect of Christianity than the choice between Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, atheism, etc.

DeSnousa

Mar 26, 2007, 07:00 AM

To tell you the truth, my parents and well my family for generations are Catholics. So that is what I have grown up into :o

Another interesting idea is that it might be in part to cultures, for instance I'm Portuguese and in Portugal 97% are Catholics.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 07:02 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation

Yeah, I know all that stuff. I know quite a bit more than that, too...

What I don't understand is how a new church can be the right one if it was created 1,500 years after its principle figure. Originally it was a move to reform the Catholic Church, its hierarchy, and its abuses, but ended up creating tons of new churches with different, new doctrines, not just reformed clergy. My question is how does a protestant justify his belief that the True Church didn't exist until over 1,500 after Christ. I'm very interested in learning this since I've never been in a situation where asking such a question was appropriate before.

atszyman

Mar 26, 2007, 07:20 AM

Yeah, I know all that stuff. I know quite a bit more than that, too...

What I don't understand is how a new church can be the right one if it was created 1,500 years after its principle figure. Originally it was a move to reform the Catholic Church, its hierarchy, and its abuses, but ended up creating tons of new churches with different, new doctrines, not just reformed clergy. My question is how does a protestant justify his belief that the True Church didn't exist until over 1,500 after Christ. I'm very interested in learning this since I've never been in a situation where asking such a question was appropriate before.

It's not quite as simple as the "true" church vs. "false" churches.

It took 1500 years for the level of corruption in the original Catholic church to reach a level where people saw that the church was not adhering to the teachings of Christ. Until that point the Catholic Church was the "true" church. Once some reached the conclusion that the Church had strayed from the path they decided to strike out and try to find the right path. People's opinions differed at this point and thus the Protestant churches were created.

Massive organizations (governments) are not corrupted overnight, and usually when they are overthrown there are periods of uncertainty and multiple possibilities on the structure to fill the void. The difference with religion is that having a single religion in a geographic region is not as important as having a unified state government. This allowed for all of the parallel Protestant sects to strike off on their own perceived path without turning into a massive battle to find the one "true" path.

To be honest almost all of the Protestant religions have some good ideas, as does Catholicism. If you get down to it, if there is just one "true" path then it's probably to be found somewhere in the middle of all of the Christian religions not in a single particular sect.

One offshoot that had/has me interested at the moment is the Liberal Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Catholic_Church). I used to hear commercials for it on the local Air America affiliate (yes I listened to them, but I needed some balance living in TX) and the commercials seemed to show them addressing some of the issues I currently have with standard Roman Catholocism.

Sdashiki

Mar 26, 2007, 07:34 AM

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 07:46 AM

It's not quite as simple as the "true" church vs. "false" churches.

It took 1500 years for the level of corruption in the original Catholic church to reach a level where people saw that the church was not adhering to the teachings of Christ. Until that point the Catholic Church was the "true" church. Once some reached the conclusion that the Church had strayed from the path they decided to strike out and try to find the right path. People's opinions differed at this point and thus the Protestant churches were created.

Massive organizations (governments) are not corrupted overnight, and usually when they are overthrown there are periods of uncertainty and multiple possibilities on the structure to fill the void. The difference with religion is that having a single religion in a geographic region is not as important as having a unified state government. This allowed for all of the parallel Protestant sects to strike off on their own perceived path without turning into a massive battle to find the one "true" path.

To be honest almost all of the Protestant religions have some good ideas, as does Catholicism. If you get down to it, if there is just one "true" path then it's probably to be found somewhere in the middle of all of the Christian religions not in a single particular sect.

One offshoot that had/has me interested at the moment is the Liberal Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Catholic_Church). I used to hear commercials for it on the local Air America affiliate (yes I listened to them, but I needed some balance living in TX) and the commercials seemed to show them addressing some of the issues I currently have with standard Roman Catholocism.

See, there's a difference between corruption and corruption of doctrine. Just because the people running a church becomes corrupt doesn't mean that the doctrines of the church become corrupted, too. If you look at the Reformation, you won't find any "corruptions" or changes in doctrine, just abuses of power.

Churches are not like governments that fail overtime and need to be replaced by new ones. That doesn't make any sense. A government is there to perform a function, and when it can no longer fulfill that function, it must be changed. Religion is supposed to tell you about God, who does not change. A religion should not change it's doctrines (but can change it's practices according to the society in which it finds itself) unless some new prophet is involved.

It seems to me that most Christians believe in Absolute Truth (i.e. Fundies claiming that evolution is false and do not tolerate other interpretations of Creation), yet I rarely see anyone legitimize their beliefs.

And if you are a Christian and you don't believe in Absolute Truth, I'm curious as to why. To me that makes little sense. How can one thing be true for me but not for you? To me that's like saying something along the lines of, "Gravity exists for me, but not for you." I'm not saying it's necessarily possible to know the Absolute Truth, I'm just saying that I don't see how Christianity can work without it.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 07:51 AM

I believe you are talking about the movement away from the "corrupt" church to a more pure one.

People saw the rampant politics going on within Christianity and said, "well, religion was built on keeping those in power, in power, lets just make another religion and we will call that one right".

a little cynical version, but basically, thats what happened.

instead of realizing religion is basically smoke and mirrors, they made their own sideshow, oh well.

That's basically how I see it, apart from the fact that I do believe that there is a True Religion. I'm trying to understand how someone justifies saying, "Well, religion was built on keeping those in power in power; let's just make another religion and we will call that one right." If you can shrug off one version as being wrong, how can you think that your own version would be any better. Catholics at least have the claim (whether it's true or not) of being around since Jesus and founded by Jesus Himself. To me it seems like Protestants just came up with their own version and claimed succession to the Truth, despite a complete lack of continuous succession.

I guess what I'm asking is from where do Protestants claim to derive their authority to decide what is right an what is wrong?

Sdashiki

Mar 26, 2007, 07:57 AM

With that argument, Jews were right all along.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 07:59 AM

One offshoot that had/has me interested at the moment is the Liberal Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Catholic_Church). I used to hear commercials for it on the local Air America affiliate (yes I listened to them, but I needed some balance living in TX) and the commercials seemed to show them addressing some of the issues I currently have with standard Roman Catholocism.

To me, churches like that one make absolutely no sense. They claim to have complete, apostolic succession derived from a church that still exists. They just reject the things that they disagree with, yet claim authority from the same church they reject. How can you say, "The Catholic Church had apostolic succession until I disagreed with them"? If apostolic succession can be claimed just as a whim, why does it matter at all? How is their claim to apostolic succession any more valid than the Catholic Churches?

To me, Churches like that are for weak people. They want to think that what they believe is the Absolute Truth, yet create a religion that fulfills their own personal desires. There are so many contradiction in thought and doctrine in that Church, yet they still hold onto some semblance of "legitimacy."

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 08:04 AM

With that argument, Jews were right all along.

How? Religion's allowed to change if the Son of God comes down and says so...

My problem with Protestant churches is that they claim to be right without also claiming any divine inspiration. Judaism was added to over time with prophets as they await/awaited the coming of the Messiah. Jesus claimed that there would be no prophets after him. In that way, people like Martin Luther can't claim to be prophets, yet some how claim authority to change doctrine. I want to hear from Protestants as to how they legitimize their beliefs.

pdham

Mar 26, 2007, 08:21 AM

My problem with Protestant churches is that they claim to be right without also claiming any divine inspiration. Judaism was added to over time with prophets as they await/awaited the coming of the Messiah. Jesus claimed that there would be no prophets after him. In that way, people like Martin Luther can't claim to be prophets, yet some how claim authority to change doctrine. I want to hear from Protestants as to how they legitimize their beliefs.

That is actually a really good question/point. I am currently a member of the Christian Reformed Church (http://www.crcna.org/pages/index.cfm), although I certainly don't think that is the one true form of Christianity.

I think how Protestants liegitimize their beliefs is quite simple. The arguement is that the traditional Catholic Church had added too many extraneous, and political (sound familiar), things to the Gospe; so people like Martin Luther, Calvin, etc attemped to strip those elements and return to a faith based more completely on the Word of God. Therefore I would say they legitimize their beleif because they feel it is what the Bible teaches...

I think it is also important to note that most falvors of Christianity, including Catholic/Orthodox and Protestants, really don't disagree over any of the "essential" teachings of Christianity. It is unfortunate they squabble over the details.

By the way, I am not trying to criticize the Catholic or Orthodox church. I may not be Catholc but I think some of their ceremonies that are based in thousands of years of tradition are quite beautiful and powerful.

pdham

Mar 26, 2007, 08:35 AM

"Well, religion was built on keeping those in power in power; let's just make another religion and we will call that one right." If you can shrug off one version as being wrong, how can you think that your own version would be any better.

Sorry, I just saw this.
I think you may be mistaking that the Protestant church REALLY thinks they are the ONLY right religion. I certainly do not know any Protestant ministers, seminary students, or people who really know thier faith that would say only protestants and no Catholics are going to heaven. They may think they are more right then Catholics, but in the end those educated in their faith (protestant of Catholic) seem to accept that ar the core, both are Christians.
Maybe I am being naive, but I know my Church would never say that Catholics are wrong, and they are going to Hell; and I would never a attend a Church that did.

I know there are churches out their that do say only evangelical Churches are right, I have hear it, but those are the same Churches that are in Jesus Camp... not representary of main stream Protestantism.

atszyman

Mar 26, 2007, 08:37 AM

See, there's a difference between corruption and corruption of doctrine. Just because the people running a church becomes corrupt doesn't mean that the doctrines of the church become corrupted, too. If you look at the Reformation, you won't find any "corruptions" or changes in doctrine, just abuses of power.

Well there are at least some of the Protestant churches who had a major issue with the idea that the Pope was supposedly infallible, and they believed that the Bible should be the higher authority. This leaves the options of overthrowing the Pope or to deny the Pope's authority. It's awfully hard to deny the Pope's authority and remain Catholic, and to overthrowing the Pope would be a bit tough. So they decided to strike off on their own to get out from under the Pope. It's not like they radically changed their views. When you get down to it most Christian religions are almost completely identical. The major differences, as I've seen them, are the structure of the church, views on the sacraments (some believe in an actual miraculous transformation of the wine/water and bread into Jesus' body and blood some see it as a more symbolic gesture), and whether or not saints exist and hold higher positions in the afterlife. The basic underlying teachings are the same, they all differ slightly on how man has decided to interpret those teachings.

Churches are not like governments that fail overtime and need to be replaced by new ones. That doesn't make any sense. A government is there to perform a function, and when it can no longer fulfill that function, it must be changed. Religion is supposed to tell you about God, who does not change. A religion should not change it's doctrines (but can change it's practices according to the society in which it finds itself) unless some new prophet is involved.

I guess my meaning didn't quite come off as clearly as I intended on this point. A central government over a geographic region is somewhat essential in this day and age to cover basic defense and welfare needs of the people living there. When a government is overthrown there will always be those around that are still loyal to the old government, but 2 governments cannot easily cover the same geographic regions. Since the church is a more global organization and does not provide for the defense and welfare of it's members, a church that separates from the main body can leave the old believers as they are and only take those open to their ideas with them. You don't have the same problem with 2 religions co-existing in the same place as you do with 2 governments.

And how do you know that God does not change? If you read the Bible God changes quite a bit. From the old testament fire and brimstone God who destroyed the planet and turned people into pillars of salt to the new testament loving/forgiving/merciful God. People change every day, why can't God change? God may be perfect but His attitudes towards His peoples may very well adapt as mankind advances and changes.

It seems to me that most Christians believe in Absolute Truth (i.e. Fundies claiming that evolution is false and do not tolerate other interpretations of Creation), yet I rarely see anyone legitimize their beliefs.

And if you are a Christian and you don't believe in Absolute Truth, I'm curious as to why. To me that makes little sense. How can one thing be true for me but not for you? To me that's like saying something along the lines of, "Gravity exists for me, but not for you." I'm not saying it's necessarily possible to know the Absolute Truth, I'm just saying that I don't see how Christianity can work without it.

Religion is concerned with Absolute Truths, but very few religion's claim to have actually found the Truth. Religion is about the search for the truth and some throughout the past have decided that they might not be on the right track so they have opted to find another path to the truth. If one Absolute Truth does exist will there not be countless paths to this truth? Can't people find their own path to it seems silly to shut down possible paths to the truth just because you think that there should be a consensus on how to find it across all Bible based reiligons.

Unfortunately like anything, food, drugs, alcohal, video games, TV, etc... there will be many people who take religion to the extreme and convince themselves that there is only one path, and this is where the militant fundamentalists show up, and like any other addiction/obsession logic does not win arguments with them.

To me, churches like that one make absolutely no sense. They claim to have complete, apostolic succession derived from a church that still exists. They just reject the things that they disagree with, yet claim authority from the same church they reject. How can you say, "The Catholic Church had apostolic succession until I disagreed with them"? If apostolic succession can be claimed just as a whim, why does it matter at all? How is their claim to apostolic succession any more valid than the Catholic Churches?

To me, Churches like that are for weak people. They want to think that what they believe is the Absolute Truth, yet create a religion that fulfills their own personal desires. There are so many contradiction in thought and doctrine in that Church, yet they still hold onto some semblance of "legitimacy."

Guess I should have read my own link a bit better. I only know a bit about the church from it's commercials but they seemed to address my biggest issue with the Roman Catholic Church in claiming they were all about the love and not the guilt. The first prayer said in most Roman Catholic masses is:

"I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God."

Never was all that comfortable with any service that started out with "I've been bad, please forgive me."

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 08:37 AM

That is actually a really good question/point. I am currently a member of the Christian Reformed Church (http://www.crcna.org/pages/index.cfm), although I certainly don't think that is the one true form of Christianity.

I think how Protestants liegitimize their beliefs is quite simple. The arguement is that the traditional Catholic Church had added too many extraneous, and political (sound familiar), things to the Gospe; so people like Martin Luther, Calvin, etc attemped to strip those elements and return to a faith based more completely on the Word of God. Therefore I would say they legitimize their beleif because they feel it is what the Bible teaches...

I think it is also important to note that most falvors of Christianity, including Catholic/Orthodox and Protestants, really don't disagree over any of the "essential" teachings of Christianity. It is unfortunate they squabble over the details.

By the way, I am not trying to criticize the Catholic or Orthodox church. I may not be Catholc but I think some of their ceremonies that are based in thousands of years of tradition are quite beautiful and powerful.

I find it interesting to me to hear your point of view. I disagree with your assessments of Luther and Calvin, though, especially Calvin. He got quite violent and equated crimes like theft and murder with blasphemy, killing and expelling people he thought as heretics from Geneva.

I'm curious to hear, though, why you don't believe there is a "True" from of Christianity and how you base your faith on just the books about Jesus in the Bible, since they were chosen by people (who were Catholic/Orthodox) and not specifically revealed by God, like the Koran is thought of in the Islamic tradition.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 08:55 AM

To atszyman:

That was a very interesting read. I think we have different definitions of "Absolute Truth" though. Let's take something like the Eucharist. For Catholics, it is essential that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ (in the form of bread and wine) and partaking in that Eucharist in order to be a part of the Body of the Church. To me, that's something that is subject to Absolute Truth. Either it's necessary or it isn't. To me, that's not taking the same path to the same truth. To me, if you don't partake of the Catholic/Orthodox Eucharist, you aren't in communion with the Church or Christ. The Catholic Church doesn't claim to know everything about the Absolute Truth, but that they are know part of it and are the one entrusted to interpret what we can here on earth. They don't claim to know who is saved and who isn't (although they do proclaim with certainty that some people are saved: saints), but they claim to be privy to certain things that are Absolutely True, i.e. Mary has always been and will always be virgin.

As for God changing, I don't think He changes, but rather man. And here's where that Catholic Church gains even more importance. Before Jesus, there were prophets sent by God to keep the Jews on track. But there will be no more prophets after Jesus (something that all Christians believe), so He left an institution on earth to guide His people. So the Church is supposed to keep the doctrines "pure" as times change and help people apply them to their changing lives.

And for you being put off by the Act of Contrition, I don't think you quite understand what is meant by it. The whole Christian worldview is that man is tainted by Original Sin and predisposed to sin, requiring Jesus to come to Earth and atone for that sin. Just because we can now be saved by the Grace of God, that doesn't mean that our tendency to sin went away. Catholics begin Mass with an Act of Contrition for two main reasons.

1) To recognize that we still have the tendency to sin and need to always work to be good people; 2) And more importantly to purify themselves before receiving the Eucharist, the actually Body and Blood of Christ. In that way, you gain true communion with the Church with Christ.

And I think starting out with "I've been bad, please forgive me" adds a bit of much needed humility that prevents people from going around thinking that they are definitely saved and acting like certain terrible evangelicals.

pdham

Mar 26, 2007, 08:58 AM

I find it interesting to me to hear your point of view. I disagree with your assessments of Luther and Calvin, though, especially Calvin. He got quite violent and equated crimes like theft and murder with blasphemy, killing and expelling people he thought as heretics from Geneva.

I'm curious to hear, though, why you don't believe there is a "True" from of Christianity and how you base your faith on just the books about Jesus in the Bible, since they were chosen by people (who were Catholic/Orthodox) and not specifically revealed by God, like the Koran

Both good points....

I guess I do think there is one "True" form of Christianity, but that form would be the one that Christ Himself lived out, or would want us to live out. I do not think that any iteration of Christianity on this earth would satisfy all Christ would want from us. Therefore, as we have it, I don't see one True form of Christianity. Instead, if there are multiple sects with differing details, but the same essential message of salvation, I see no need to qualify one as right and the others wrong. Because like I said, none of them are living up to the perfect example of Christ's Church. If there were a sect that claims a different salvation message, apart from the Gospel, then I would question their legitimacy.

This leads into the answer of how I justify my faith on a book that was picked by orthodox/Catholics. (by the way when I said "they were adding things to the Gospel" in the previous post I didn’tmean I only base my faith on the Gospel, I should have used the word Bible) Like I said, I do not think Catholics are wrong, and I feel that the leaders of the Catholic Church are incredibly holy men and truly seek after God's heart. Therefore, I must trust the work of the Holy Spirit, through those men in the canonization process. Plus, with all of the extraneous books available on the Internet, if I have a question I can just read about it. (I don't really want to get into a debate with anyone about book dating or validity because I know how they end up.)

Lastly, to your point about Luther and Calvin, you are right. But, these are just men and ultimately their actions do not affect the message. If their message were obviously contrary to the Word then I wouldn't follow it. I cannot put faith in men, no matter how influential or holy... look at us.

This is really hard to explain in written word, so I apologize if I am unclear.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 09:09 AM

Sorry, I just saw this.
I think you may be mistaking that the Protestant church REALLY thinks they are the ONLY right religion. I certainly do not know any Protestant ministers, seminary students, or people who really know thier faith that would say only protestants and no Catholics are going to heaven. They may think they are more right then Catholics, but in the end those educated in their faith (protestant of Catholic) seem to accept that ar the core, both are Christians.
Maybe I am being naive, but I know my Church would never say that Catholics are wrong, and they are going to Hell; and I would never a attend a Church that did.

I know there are churches out their that do say only evangelical Churches are right, I have hear it, but those are the same Churches that are in Jesus Camp... not representary of main stream Protestantism.

It may not be the case now, but when people like Luther and Calvin were preaching, they thought theirs was the True Church. People were forced to convert to Lutheranism or be killed, and Calvin sealed off Geneva and threw out all those who disagreed with him. Even today, you find splits between Protestant sects. If they all believed that there were many different paths to the Absolute Truth, why do they have disagreements and falling outs with each other within the same structure?

And if they do believe that there are many paths to the same thing, I still don't quite understand that reasoning. See my other posts on Absolute Truth if you want to see my confusion.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 09:17 AM

Both good points....

I guess I do think there is one "True" form of Christianity, but that form would be the one that Christ Himself lived out, or would want us to live out. I do not think that any iteration of Christianity on this earth would satisfy all Christ would want from us. Therefore, as we have it, I don't see one True form of Christianity. Instead, if there are multiple sects with differing details, but the same essential message of salvation, I see no need to qualify one as right and the others wrong. Because like I said, none of them are living up to the perfect example of Christ's Church. If there were a sect that claims a different salvation message, apart from the Gospel, then I would question their legitimacy.

This leads into the answer of how I justify my faith on a book that was picked by orthodox/Catholics. (by the way when I said "they were adding things to the Gospel" in the previous post I didn’tmean I only base my faith on the Gospel, I should have used the word Bible) Like I said, I do not think Catholics are wrong, and I feel that the leaders of the Catholic Church are incredibly holy men and truly seek after God's heart. Therefore, I must trust the work of the Holy Spirit, through those men in the canonization process. Plus, with all of the extraneous books available on the Internet, if I have a question I can just read about it. (I don't really want to get into a debate with anyone about book dating or validity because I know how they end up.)

Lastly, to your point about Luther and Calvin, you are right. But, these are just men and ultimately their actions do not affect the message. If their message were obviously contrary to the Word then I wouldn't follow it. I cannot put faith in men, no matter how influential or holy... look at us.

This is really hard to explain in written word, so I apologize if I am unclear.

No, that's very clear and very interesting. You've got me thinking now. :)

I think my thinking differs from you in one main way. The reason I believe that there is a True Church is that as time goes marching on, new issues come up that aren't dealt with by the Bible at all. Abortion and stem cells come to mind pretty quickly. I don't think that the Catholic Church is perfect in that I don't think the people who make it up satisfy all that Jesus wanted of us, but I do think that it is the True Church and guided to this day by the Holy Sprit to continually interpret the message of Jesus and apply it to our own times. I think we can all agree that being Christian means being a kind, loving person, but it gets fuzzy when you start talking about things like abortion and just wars or killing in self defense. Now I don't believe they get every little thing right all the time, but when they have councils and such and speak specifically from their authority as Jesus' Church on Earth, I think they have been.

atszyman

Mar 26, 2007, 09:17 AM

To atszyman:And for you being put off by the Act of Contrition, I don't think you quite understand what is meant by it. The whole Christian worldview is that man is tainted by Original Sin and predisposed to sin, requiring Jesus to come to Earth and atone for that sin. Just because we can now be saved by the Grace of God, that doesn't mean that our tendency to sin went away. Catholics begin Mass with an Act of Contrition for two main reasons.

1) To recognize that we still have the tendency to sin and need to always work to be good people; 2) And more importantly to purify themselves before receiving the Eucharist, the actually Body and Blood of Christ. In that way, you gain true communion with the Church with Christ.

And I think starting out with "I've been bad, please forgive me" adds a bit of much needed humility that prevents people from going around thinking that they are definitely saved and acting like certain terrible evangelicals.

I completely understand the Act of Contrition and why it is there. However, for a religion concerned about declining membership and a massive decline in the number of priests I don't see the Act of Contrition as one of the first prayers at a mass being good for attracting new members. There is plenty of time to ask for forgiveness of sins between the beginning of Mass and Communion, to do it immediately out of the gates will only hinder any effort to entice new members. I have been to many Masses (typically those in bigger cities) where the Act of Contrition has been skipped. A minor change but it makes a big difference in how I approach the mass in general, I was raised Catholic and went to a Catholic grade school. For 8 years of my life I went to mass 3 times a week so it's not like I have not been to a good number of masses.

I guess I look in and see Jesus as being extremely forgiving. I don't recall many people in the Bible having to beg for forgiveness for half an hour before being accepted by Him, which is what a Catholic mass sometimes feels like to me. I've seen small changes starting to show up, mostly in the larger cities, and they seem to be moving in the right direction, but I'm fairly open minded and easily adapt as new information becomes available, so for me the Catholic Church doesn't adapt to changes fast enough, although I do understand that a massive overhaul would alienate the older traditionalists. It's a fine line to walk and I don't envy their situation in trying to preserve their existence while adapting to a world where ideas and information can grow and die in the span of a week.

Don't even get me started on the Prayer for Vocation that some services tack onto the end of mass.

As I see it, if there is a single Absolute Truth then all paths to find it should eventually get there. What sacraments and miracles are required may not change but if the Protestant religions don't think they are necessary then they don't need them to be that way until their path shows them otherwise. The big problem with claiming to know any of the Absolute Truth requires knowing something of the mind of God which is something I believe to be impossible for a human's mind to comprehend. The journey and how you treat your fellow man along that journey is greater than the destination.

pdham

Mar 26, 2007, 09:26 AM

It may not be the case now, but when people like Luther and Calvin were preaching, they thought theirs was the True Church. People were forced to convert to Lutheranism or be killed, and Calvin sealed off Geneva and threw out all those who disagreed with him.
The Church's history certainly is disappointing

Even today, you find splits between Protestant sects. If they all believed that there were many different paths to the Absolute Truth, why do they have disagreements and falling outs with each other within the same structure?
I think the answer is human nature.... people always want to be more right than someone else. Maybe nowhere else do we see that played out more intensly than in the Church.

And if they do believe that there are many paths to the same thing, I still don't quite understand that reasoning. See my other posts on Absolute Truth if you want to see my confusion.

Lets take the Eucharist example. You beleive that the bread and wine must become Christ's body and blood. You believe that ingesting Christ will lead to have an intimate (maybe the most intimate in this world) encounter with Christ. I believe that the eating the wine and bread is a physical act, coupled with my beleif that will result in an intimate encounter with Christ through the most perfect invitation of the Holy Supper.
My point is that our beliefs are in fact not that different. I don't think we have concrete evidence in the Bible that the bread and wine does or does not become Christ. But, we have alot of evidence that we should partake in the Holy Supper / Eucharist. That is why I say neither is absolutely true, but both are ceremonies intended to achieve the Absolute Truth.

Kalns

Mar 26, 2007, 09:30 AM

I'm completely nondenominational. That is to say I don't subscribe to a particular brand. The manner in which my beliefs have developed has been a long time coming. I'm 24 right now, but I spent the majority of my life as an atheist. When I did become a Christian however, it took me about two years to really get any solid footing and to really start to understand who God is. It was around that time that I enrolled in school to pursue a degree in religion. Up to that point I had been pursuing a degree in Communication.

However the real development for me has been the books I read. Primarily ones which have stood the test of time (Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Thomas a Kempis, Pope John Paul II, etc.). I've also been quite impacted by the much more recent writing of John Eldredge. In reading these things, I've realized several things. First, the Christian church is in great need of another ecceunumical council. The reason for the vast vast splintering into so many denominations in the modern era is a lack of education. People take insult when you say that, but it's only pride getting in the way. I can't recall who said it, but one of the great Christian leaders from the past 50 years said that we are the most intellectually lazy generation in the history of the church. We take for granted the depths of God and fail to examine what's told to us in light of scripture. And that in turn leaves us impotent to answer the questions of the world leaving them to conclude that God cannot be known.

I do consider myself a fundamentalist, but again, be careful how you take that. The term is often abuse to mean something it's not. Even within fundamental theology there are at least 3 different interpretations on evolution only one of which says it doesn't occur at all. An that one is considered to have the weakest argument. I personally believe in limited evolution as directed by God.

And yes I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible as well. I didn't used to. I would rush into conversations with nonbelievers an they would stump me. But, that again was due to my lack of education. While I'm nowhere near the level of knowledge I want to be at, I know enough now that I can answer those same questions easily. Just because a first grader can't answer a certain question doesn't mean the answer isn't out there. The vast majority of counter theology is on a first grade level. "Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened to you." Wise words.

C.S. Lewis said, "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered."

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 09:30 AM

The big problem with claiming to know any of the Absolute Truth requires knowing something of the mind of God which is something I believe to be impossible for a human's mind to comprehend. The journey and how you treat your fellow man along that journey is greater than the destination.

I completely agree with you here. The Catholic Church is an odd mix between Absolute Truth and complete, and utter doubt. To me it makes sense that Jesus would leave an institution to carry on his message after he left, especially after reading certain Bible passages, and that's what I mean by Absolute Truth here. I think there is a True Church, not necessarily that it can know the mind the God and know the Absolute Truth of everything.

I guess I just get confused most by fundamentalists who go around claiming they're right without any discussion of legitimacy and forget that all important part about treating your fellow man well.

pdham

Mar 26, 2007, 09:37 AM

No, that's very clear and very interesting. You've got me thinking now. :)

I think my thinking differs from you in one main way. The reason I believe that there is a True Church is that as time goes marching on, new issues come up that aren't dealt with by the Bible at all. Abortion and stem cells come to mind pretty quickly. I don't think that the Catholic Church is perfect in that I don't think the people who make it up satisfy all that Jesus wanted of us, but I do think that it is the True Church and guided to this day by the Holy Sprit to continually interpret the message of Jesus and apply it to our own times. I think we can all agree that being Christian means being a kind, loving person, but it gets fuzzy when you start talking about things like abortion and just wars or killing in self defense. Now I don't believe they get every little thing right all the time, but when they have councils and such and speak specifically from their authority as Jesus' Church on Earth, I think they have been.

You are absolutely right about the need for guided council and interpretation when modern issues such as abortion and stem cells are entered into the debate. And I think, although not educated enough on all sects to say definitively, that you are right in implying that the Catholic Curch has done an admirable job, maybe more so than many Protestant Churches, in dealing with those issues. All I would add to your post is that the Holy Spirit is also available to us. Therefore, we can seek after answers ourselves and if they differ from leadership address those as necessary.

When I formulate my stance on an issue I do consider the leadership of my Church as well as others, such as Catholic leaders. I also pray about it and consider what I have learned about God's Word. I guess I am realizing through this discussion that i have a hard time saying I trust any leadership comprised of men (I am not implying that you blindly accept Catholic leadership). I do trust people, often too much, but I think the Holy Spirit was left to us for precisely the type of situation we see today in the Church; as a mechanism to sort through all the stuff that is out there.

P.S. I am off to class so I may not respond for a while

Kalns

Mar 26, 2007, 09:39 AM

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 09:41 AM

Lets take the Eucharist example. You beleive that the bread and wine must become Christ's body and blood. You believe that ingesting Christ will lead to have an intimate (maybe the most intimate in this world) encounter with Christ. I believe that the eating the wine and bread is a physical act, coupled with my beleif that will result in an intimate encounter with Christ through the most perfect invitation of the Holy Supper.
My point is that our beliefs are in fact not that different. I don't think we have concrete evidence in the Bible that the bread and wine does or does not become Christ. But, we have alot of evidence that we should partake in the Holy Supper / Eucharist. That is why I say neither is absolutely true, but both are ceremonies intended to achieve the Absolute Truth.

I think this is an excellent example to show how we disagree. You say that our beliefs are not that different and they both are trying to perform the same thing. But the fact of the matter is this: they aren't the same thing. I do not think that you are in Communion with me, with the Church, or with Christ. I believe that you have failed in your attempt to gain an intimate communion with God.

And no, there is no "concrete" evidence in the Bible that the Eucharist must become the actual Body and Blood of Christ (as much as the Bible can provide concrete evidence), but I believe it to be absolutely essential to the Church. That's why I believe it is of the utmost importance to have two sources of belief: the Scriptures and Tradition. Neither are completely without the other. Not everything was written down in the Bible, but most of it was discussed from the very beginning and the Catholic Church has maintained that stewardship of Tradition.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 09:46 AM

You can know something of the mind of God. It's simply bad theology to say otherwise. Moses spoke directly with God, David was a man after God's own heart. Jesus spoke directly to Paul on the Damascus road. Make no mistake my friends, this idea that you can know nothing of God is modern day universalism. This isn't a part of Christian theology. The whole point of Christianity is RELATIONSHIP with Christ after all.

I think it's a little of both. You can form a relationship with God, but you do not have the capabilities to comprehend all of God, and thinking you can is of the utmost arrogance. You can know God, but you can't comprehend in entirety his Divine plan. We cannot know everything of God's plan (i.e. who is saved and who isn't), and it's foolish to think that we can. Reducing God to a completely knowable mind is bad Theology.

Kalns

Mar 26, 2007, 09:46 AM

I think this is an excellent example to show how we disagree. You say that our beliefs are not that different and they both are trying to perform the same thing. But the fact of the matter is this: they aren't the same thing. I do not think that you are in Communion with me, with the Church, or with Christ. I believe that you have failed in your attempt to gain an intimate communion with God.

And no, there is no "concrete" evidence in the Bible that the Eucharist must become the actual Body and Blood of Christ (as much as the Bible can provide concrete evidence), but I believe it to be absolutely essential to the Church. That's why I believe it is of the utmost importance to have two sources of belief: the Scriptures and Tradition. Neither are completely without the other. Not everything was written down in the Bible, but most of it was discussed from the very beginning and the Catholic Church has maintained that stewardship of Tradition.

I'm very interested in these aspects of tradition you talk about. Could you elaborate a bit more on the significance that plays in your faith?

Kalns

Mar 26, 2007, 09:47 AM

I think it's a little of both. You can form a relationship with God, but you do not have the capabilities to comprehend all of God, and thinking you can is of the utmost arrogance. You can know God, but you can't comprehend in entirety his Divine plan. We cannot know everything of God's plan (i.e. who is saved and who isn't), and it's foolish to think that we can. Reducing God to a completely knowable mind is bad Theology.

Now I agree with you there. It says as much in scriptures after all.

pdham

Mar 26, 2007, 09:48 AM

I think this is an excellent example to show how we disagree. You say that our beliefs are not that different and they both are trying to perform the same thing. But the fact of the matter is this: they aren't the same thing. I do not think that you are in Communion with me, with the Church, or with Christ. I believe that you have failed in your attempt to gain an intimate communion with God.

And no, there is no "concrete" evidence in the Bible that the Eucharist must become the actual Body and Blood of Christ (as much as the Bible can provide concrete evidence), but I believe it to be absolutely essential to the Church. That's why I believe it is of the utmost importance to have two sources of belief: the Scriptures and Tradition. Neither are completely without the other. Not everything was written down in the Bible, but most of it was discussed from the very beginning and the Catholic Church has maintained that stewardship of Tradition.

Fair enough. Let me ask you a question. Based on what you have said, does that mean I cannot gain salvation? Feel free to answer in anyway you wish, I take no offense, and I have no agenda.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 09:49 AM

I do consider myself a fundamentalist, but again, be careful how you take that. The term is often abuse to mean something it's not. Even within fundamental theology there are at least 3 different interpretations on evolution only one of which says it doesn't occur at all. An that one is considered to have the weakest argument. I personally believe in limited evolution as directed by God.

And yes I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible as well. I didn't used to. I would rush into conversations with nonbelievers an they would stump me. But, that again was due to my lack of education. While I'm nowhere near the level of knowledge I want to be at, I know enough now that I can answer those same questions easily. Just because a first grader can't answer a certain question doesn't mean the answer isn't out there. The vast majority of counter theology is on a first grade level. "Seek and you will find. Knock and the door will be opened to you." Wise words.

C.S. Lewis said, "Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered."

I think it's extremely dangerous to view the Bible as completely inerrant and completely knowable. As you pointed out, there are different fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, yet all three claim to be true since they are directly from the Bible and rely on no other source of legitimacy.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 09:52 AM

Fair enough. Let me ask you a question. Based on what you have said, does that mean I cannot gain salvation? Feel free to answer in anyway you wish, I take no offense, and I have no agenda.

I do not know who is saved and who isn't. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if everyone was saved, even non-Christians. I think you could quite possibly saved even if I don't think your interpretation of the Eucharist is correct of that you are in Communion with the Church or God. I even do/believe in all the rituals I think are necessary, and I don't pretend to think that I'll be saved.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 10:00 AM

I'm very interested in these aspects of tradition you talk about. Could you elaborate a bit more on the significance that plays in your faith?

Certainly. The gist of it is that the Bible doesn't tell you everything and needs to be interpreted. So if you ask, "Is there such thing as transubstantiation?" the Bible doesn't answer explicitly. That's where tradition comes in. According to tradition leading back through the history of the Church, back to the Church Fathers, and the original apostles, there is such thing as transubstantiation, even though it's not mentioned explicitly in the Bible.

Similarly, there are the doctrines of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and her Assumption. The Bible doesn't even come close to talking about these things, but they've been held in tradition since the very beginning of the Church. I could go on about a million things, the Communion of Saints, the authority of the Church on earth, Confession and Reconciliation, Purgatory, etc.

atszyman

Mar 26, 2007, 10:01 AM

I completely agree with you here. The Catholic Church is an odd mix between Absolute Truth and complete, and utter doubt. To me it makes sense that Jesus would leave an institution to carry on his message after he left, especially after reading certain Bible passages, and that's what I mean by Absolute Truth here. I think there is a True Church, not necessarily that it can know the mind the God and know the Absolute Truth of everything.

I guess I just get confused most by fundamentalists who go around claiming they're right without any discussion of legitimacy and forget that all important part about treating your fellow man well.

I pretty much subscribe to the notion that knowing the "One True" religion also requires knowing the "Absolute Truth" and that neither can be achieved without the other. At any given time thousands, if not millions of people smarter than me have chosen a different path to find the truth and to me it seems extremely arrogant to just dismiss them as being "wrong." However I can think that I am on the right path, I just cannot dismiss that there may be more than one path and that there might be something hidden in the other religions and that the real path exists somewhere as an amalgam of all religions, so I keep my mind open to the new ideas.

The confusion comes in when trying to apply logic to the fundamentalists. Much like TV, Video Games, Alcohol, Smoking, or anything that can be used to fill a void in your life logic does not necessarily apply when something is found to fill the void. Just look at the Console War thread here. People are getting really worked up about Video Games of all things. There's no reason why any of them should have any passion about how well their particular console does, yet there are people going right to the edge of forum rules and I half expect to see some bannings from that thread.

pdham

Mar 26, 2007, 10:10 AM

Kalns

Mar 26, 2007, 10:12 AM

I think it's extremely dangerous to view the Bible as completely inerrant and completely knowable. As you pointed out, there are different fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible, yet all three claim to be true since they are directly from the Bible and rely on no other source of legitimacy.

The Bible itself is inerrant. Not the people who attempt to interpret it.

Kalns

Mar 26, 2007, 10:15 AM

I do not know who is saved and who isn't. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if everyone was saved, even non-Christians. I think you could quite possibly saved even if I don't think your interpretation of the Eucharist is correct of that you are in Communion with the Church or God. I even do/believe in all the rituals I think are necessary, and I don't pretend to think that I'll be saved.

Please please please, be very careful saying those sorts of things. Christ died for a reason. He said broad is the road that leads to destruction but narrow is the path that leads to eternal life. When asked how one might attain salvation He answered directly. I agree that it's difficult to say who among those claiming to be Christians will be saved because we can't know another persons heart and if their faith is authentic, but I assure you, universal salvation is not what Jesus taught.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 10:19 AM

I pretty much subscribe to the notion that knowing the "One True" religion also requires knowing the "Absolute Truth" and that neither can be achieved without the other. At any given time thousands, if not millions of people smarter than me have chosen a different path to find the truth and to me it seems extremely arrogant to just dismiss them as being "wrong." However I can think that I am on the right path, I just cannot dismiss that there may be more than one path and that there might be something hidden in the other religions and that the real path exists somewhere as an amalgam of all religions, so I keep my mind open to the new ideas.

Interesting view. I subscribe to the fact that there is an Absolute Truth, and therefore a True Church, and I just do my best to choose the one I think has to greatest authority to claim such a thing. I find that I should subscribe to one Church because I can't imagine that my interpretations would be the correct ones out of all the opinions in the world, and, somewhat similarly to you, I find it extremely arrogant to not subscribe to a system of beliefs, but just follow what feels right to you. Because even if you were wrong in your choice, you weren't arrogant enough to think that your unique interpretation was right.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 10:24 AM

The Bible itself is inerrant. Not the people who attempt to interpret it.

What's the point on an inerrant Bible if there isn't an inerrant way to interpret it? :confused:

Please please please, be very careful saying those sorts of things. Christ died for a reason. He said broad is the road that leads to destruction but narrow is the path that leads to eternal life. When asked how one might attain salvation He answered directly. I agree that it's difficult to say who among those claiming to be Christians will be saved because we can't know another persons heart and if their faith is authentic, but I assure you, universal salvation is not what Jesus taught.

Would you point out this passage that apparently is as clear as day? It's a wonder that for hundreds of years people debated how to receive salvation since apparently it's so obvious.

And please, please, please don't tell me what to believe or what to be careful saying. Don't preach to me. I don't preach to you. No one is preaching in this thread except you. We're just discussing different viewpoints. Don't display your beliefs as the absolutely correct interpretation when it's obvious that there are differences of opinion within this thread.

skinnylegs

Mar 26, 2007, 10:29 AM

I wanted to address something before answering the original question.....

there are at least some of the Protestant churches who had a major issue with the idea that the Pope was supposedly infallible The Catholic church does not teach that the Holy Father is infallible. There are certain times when their *teachings* are infallible but this is *only* when they speak Ex Cathedra or "from the chair of Peter" and this hasn't really happened that often in the last 2000 years. I could go into more detail about Ex Cathedra but it might be easier for you to Google it if you're interested in learning more. Furthermore, it is important to make the distinction between church doctrine and church dogma. Church doctrine can and does change. One need look no further than which direction the priest faces during Mass, the inclusion of female altar servers and/or extraordianry ministers of Eucharist to see changes in doctrine. Church dogma, on the other hand, are things which can never change because they are recognized as absolute truths. But I digress......

Why do you subscribe to your particular flavor of Christianity?I am Roman Catholic. I was not raised Roman Catholic; rather, I came to the church as a young adult after years of searching. I won't bore you with all of the details but I studied with Jehova Witnesses, Mormons and many flavors of the Protestant and ND churches before settling into Catholicism. I guess the first thing that impressed me about the Catholic church was the community. It seemed like there was something going on each and every day....it was more than a single day (Sunday) event. Furthermore, the *people* seemed just like me.....essentially honest, hard-working and trying to do the right thing. This is what brought me to the Catholic church.

So.....I signed up for RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) and spent some time learning about the Catholic church. The more I studied, the more it all made sense.....Eucharist, sacramental nature of the church, communion of saints, nature of preisthood etc. Maybe I was just lucky but the leaders of the RCIA I attended were very helpful and open to just about any question I had even if it might be a bit offensive. For instance, I didn't really understand what all the hoopla was about Eucharist and, more specifically, the idea that bread becomes the Body of Christ and wine becomes the Blood of Christ. So we dug into scripture and learned together. It was a wonderful experience that has <obviously> changed my life. This is what has kept me in the Catholic church.

I guess if I had to sum it all up, it comes down to this.....

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Kalns

Mar 26, 2007, 10:43 AM

What's the point on an inerrant Bible if there isn't an inerrant way to interpret it? :confused:

Would you point out this passage that apparently is as clear as day? It's a wonder that for hundreds of years people debated how to receive salvation since apparently it's so obvious.

And please, please, please don't tell me what to believe or what to be careful saying. Don't preach to me. I don't preach to you. No one is preaching in this thread except you. We're just discussing different viewpoints. Don't display your beliefs as the absolutely correct interpretation when it's obvious that there are differences of opinion within this thread.

Don't let pride get in the way of learning brother.

12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,

For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.

and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

Kalns

Mar 26, 2007, 10:52 AM

Lord Blackadder

Mar 26, 2007, 10:57 AM

Restricting discussion to the diversity of Christian sects for a moment, the Protestant reformation is only one of the Schisms that Christianity has undergone as a religion - a religion that itself began as a heretical form of Judaism.

The first Ecumenical councils in the 4th century demonstrate that the a universal (or "Catholic", the original menaing of the word) Chrisitian church had already been heavily challenged by heretical (used in the historical descriptive rather than subjective judgemental sense) sects with different rites and interpretations just a few hundred years after the death of Jesus. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the division began with the Twelve and there was never even one "true" interpretation of the meaning of the New Testamant among its authors.

By the time of the Protestant Reformation, Ecumenical councils had pronounced anathema against numerous herersies and there was already a schism between Catholic and Orthodox rites that extended back generations.

One of the interesting points concerning the Protestant Reformation is that today, at a time when the reasons for the reformation have long since become moot due to subsequent reforms, the divide is stronger than ever.

In my personal opinion, the sectarian aspect of Christianity today is highly hypocritical and I do not view one sect as being more "true" than others. If you choose to be technical, you'll notice that Christianity today (in terms of rite and interpretation) is barely recognizable from what an early Christian might have heard in the first century A.D.

The Orthodox rites are much closer to that conjectural early Christian rite than the more "Westernized" Catholic and Protestant rites, but even they represent the results of the debates over the nature of Christ and other discussions that fundamentally defined the faith centuries after the people who founded it died.

Kalns

Mar 26, 2007, 11:02 AM

calculus

Mar 26, 2007, 11:02 AM

This thread reminds me of this joke (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1580452,00.html)

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 11:03 AM

Don't let pride get in the way of learning brother.

Funny, I could say the same thing about you. I also have to point out that there was no arguing in this thread until you showed up preaching your (dare I say it?) incorrect views of the Bible.

12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

13"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,

For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

how shall we escape if we ignore such a great salvation? This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.

and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him

so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

You know, it would help if you actually posted the verse numbers so that I can look it up for myself.

And second, you want to tell me where in that mess Jesus says what we need to do to be saved? I'm not sure you've even quoted any of the Gospels. They all look like letters and psalms to me. And it looks to me like the passages need some interpretting. Good thing the Bible's inerrant. Oh wait, the interpretation isn't inerrant. Oh well. I guess I'll never know what Jesus was trying to say.

Kalns

Mar 26, 2007, 11:06 AM

Funny, I could say the same thing about you. I also have to point out that there was no arguing in this thread until you showed up preaching your (dare I say it?) incorrect views of the Bible.

You know, it would help if you actually posted the verse numbers so that I can look it up for myself.

And second, you want to tell me where in that mess Jesus says what we need to do to be saved? I'm not sure you've even quoted any of the Gospels. They all look like letters and psalms to me. And it looks to me like the passages need some interpretting. Good thing the Bible's inerrant. Oh wait, the interpretation isn't inerrant. Oh well. I guess I'll never know what Jesus was trying to say.

The fact that you don't recognize these verses says volumes.

bartelby

Mar 26, 2007, 11:10 AM

This thread reminds me of this joke (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1580452,00.html)

Wow!

I used to love Emo Phiillips!!!

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 11:14 AM

Here's another:

25On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

26"What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"

27He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"

28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."

and another:

4Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.[e]

and the one everyone knows:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

And a few more:

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.

Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

Ahh, see here it becomes more muddled. You say I have to believe in Jesus and I'll be saved. Well then I'm saved. Okay, now we've got a few problems. First, I think that's a very arrogant thing to say to claim that you have received from God the gift of salvation that is His to give and withhold however He wants. Second, how do I know that I believe it enough? Will believing make me do good deeds? How many good deeds? How will I know I'm saved? Third, what about people who try really hard to believe in the depths of their hearts to become good people, but just don't manage? People are weak. They all can't be pure of heart. Can they do good works and hope for salvation? If they can't, why should they bother trying to be good at all? Can someone please interpret all these complex questions for me because they aren't anywhere in the Bible. I don't have a Bible on me right now since I'm studying abroad, but I'm positive that at least one Gospel puts emphasis on good works and at least one on purity of heart. Which is the road to salvation?

calculus

Mar 26, 2007, 11:14 AM

Wow!

I used to love Emo Phiillips!!!

He was great wasn't he. I saw him tell that joke on a TV show many years ago.

Kalns

Mar 26, 2007, 11:17 AM

Ahh, see here it becomes more muddled. You say I have to believe in Jesus and I'll be saved. Well then I'm saved. Okay, now we've got a few problems. First, I think that's a very arrogant thing to say to claim that you have received from God the gift of salvation that is His to give and withhold however He wants. Second, how do I know that I believe it enough? Will believing make me do good deeds? How many good deeds? How will I know I'm saved? Third, what about people who try really hard to believe in the depths of their hearts to become good people, but just don't manage? People are weak. They all can't be pure of heart. Can they do good works and hope for salvation? If they can't, why should they bother trying to be good at all? Can someone please interpret all these complex questions for me because they aren't anywhere in the Bible. I don't have a Bible on me right now since I'm studying abroad, but I'm positive that at least one Gospel puts emphasis on good works and at least one on purity of heart. Which is the road to salvation?

Salvation is in Christ alone. Good work is evidence of salvation. There it is. Pretty straightforward.Just curious, why didn't you bring your bible with you when you went to study abroad?

Lord Blackadder

Mar 26, 2007, 11:17 AM

Ritual has nothing to do with it. That's man made religious artifice constructed around the foundational truth that Christ died for our sins and He is the one way to salvation. No Christian church disagrees on that.

On the contrary, ritual is the primary manifestation of doctrine, the primary means by which religion is taught, and is the primary source of sectarian division.

All Christians seek salvation, but they can never agree on how to express the ways in which it is attained. Some denominations, for example, encourage or even require a deep personal recollection of scripture, while others do not.

Quoting scripture does not provide us with clear "answers" or proof of the legitimacy of one rite over another; the prose is too vague for that. Whether you like it or not, the Bible means nothing unless the words are interpreted, and your interpretation (or your sect's) isn't the only one out there.

I will not gainsay a person's individual right to interpretation (it is at the core of all religion), and I do not like the fact that we are so focused on establishing "correct" belief that we give short shrift to the celebration of the common threads of belief between sects, and using them as a basis for moving towards unity.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 11:20 AM

The fact that you don't recognize these verses says volumes.

And yet all you can write is one, condescending sentence.

I'll fill the void. It means that I realize that there is more to theology than just the Bible. I realize that the Bible cannot be taken literally and has to be interpreted because there are differences between Gospels and other books not just in historical matters, but in emphasis of theology and the way in which Jesus saves. I realize that it's not as easy as studying hard enough, and you should know as a religion major that there are many, many different eschatological interpretations of the Bible. I also realize that I don't need to memorize the Bible to gain salvation, that it makes more sense to believe in an inerrant interpretation of the Bible than an inerrant, literal Bible that cannot be interpreted inerrantly. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that you think the Bible is inerrant, but it cannot be inerrantly interpreted, yet you believe that you have interpreted it correctly.

Salvation is in Christ alone. Good work is evidence of salvation. There it is. Pretty straightforward.Just curious, why didn't you bring your bible with you when you went to study abroad?

Okay, let me know when you find the verse that says that explicitly. That interpretation of salvation is only about 500 years old and came from Luther. Did everyone have it wrong until then? And the fact that you don't acknowledge Divine Obscurity (or whatever it's called in English; I can only remember the Italian word for it), which has been recognized for centuries, even by Protestants, speaks volumes.

And I didn't bring my Bible because why would I need it? I go to Mass, hear the readings and a Homily, and receive Communion. Why does a Bible do for me? I've already understood the Catholic interpretation.

Blue Velvet

Mar 26, 2007, 11:27 AM

The Bible itself is inerrant. Not the people who attempt to interpret it.

Judge not, that ye be not judged (Matt.7:l), yet others must be judged? (1Cor. 6:2-4).

;)

Anyway, where are the Orthodox Christians? They interest me, both Greek and Russian.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 11:30 AM

I will not gainsay a person's individual right to interpretation (it is at the core of all religion), but I do not like the fact that we are so focused on establishing "correct" belief that we give short shrift to the celebration of the common threads of belief between sects, and using them as a basis for moving towards unity.

I didn't start this thread as a competition for establishing the correct belief, as it says in my first post, but unfortunately Kalns brought that into it when he started preaching. I wanted to hear about people believing their interpretation was the correct one or believing that there wasn't a correct one because I thought it'd be interesting. Kalns, however, turned this into some sort of theological debate with his arrogant preaching of what he considers to be so obviously true.

Anyway, where are the Orthodox Christians? They interest me, both Greek and Russian.

Me, too. I don't think I've ever had a chance to discuss religion with an Orthodox Christian. I'd find it terribly interesting. Although you know there are more than two different kinds of Orthodox Christians? I find the Armenian Orthodox Church terribly interesting, especially after some theological dispute between them and the Catholic Church was laid to rest by John Paul II a few years ago.

Lord Blackadder

Mar 26, 2007, 11:32 AM

Anyway, where are the Orthodox Christians? They interest me, both Greek and Russian.

I went to a co-worker's wedding a few years back; he was Coptic Orthodox. It was a great experience, particularly because it took place while I was taking several history classes as an undergrad that dealt with the history of Christianity in the context of Rome, Byzantium, medieval Europe and the Levant.

I didn't start this thread as a competition for establishing the correct belief, as it says in my first post, but unfortunately Kalns brought that into it when he started preaching. I wanted to hear about people believing their interpretation was the correct one or believing that there wasn't a correct one because I thought it'd be interesting. Kalns, however, turned this into some sort of theological debate with his arrogant preaching of what he considers to be so obviously true.

That statement wasn't directed at anyone here, it is more of a general observation concerning my reaction to the history of the Christian religion. Time and time again, consensus proves to be impossible and compromise or flexibility even more so, leading to further division.

We are always so focused on who is "right" and who is "wrong".

yg17

Mar 26, 2007, 11:35 AM

The Bible itself is inerrant. Not the people who attempt to interpret it.

Really? I've got a nice simple example to prove otherwise.

Somewhere in the bible, I don't know what verse, because frankly, I couldn't care less, they calculate Pi to be 3. I know this, because there was (I believe the article was satire) an article about how Alabama or something wanted schools to teach Pi as being 3 rather than 3.14159. But it's definitely there.

Today, everyone agrees with Pi being 3.14 followed by hundreds of thousands of more digits and never ending. You can't argue that, the math proves it.

3 ≠ 3.14159, therefore, there's an error in the bible. That's just one error, there are hundreds more.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com I recommend you check it out

Blue Velvet

Mar 26, 2007, 11:38 AM

Although you know there are more than two different kinds of Orthodox Christians?

No, I'm only curious because I know so little. The architecture and the art interest me. I do know they're not overly fond of Rome.

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 11:39 AM

That statement wasn't directed at anyone here, it is more of a general observation concerning my reaction to the history of the Christian religion. Time and time again, consensus proves to be impossible and compromise or flexibility even more so, leading to further division.

We are always so focused on who is "right" and who is "wrong".

Sorry, I took it as a critique of this thread. My mistake.

Queso

Mar 26, 2007, 11:40 AM

Somewhere in the bible, I don't know what verse....
Kings 7:23 (http://bible.cc/1_kings/7-23.htm)

Lord Blackadder

Mar 26, 2007, 11:43 AM

No, I'm only curious because I know so little. The architecture and the art interest me. I do know they're not overly fond of Rome.

One thing that interests me (but I've never taken the time to read about) is the survival of Orthodoxy (as well as Judaism) in Russia through the Soviet period. Russia is dotted with thousands of churches and monestaries, many of which are quite ancient. The Soviets vacillated between ignoring and actively persecuting religion; it would be interesting to explore that topic I think.

Somewhere in the bible, I don't know what verse, because frankly, I couldn't care less, they calculate Pi to be 3. I know this, because there was (I believe the article was satire) an article about how Alabama or something wanted schools to teach Pi as being 3 rather than 3.14159. But it's definitely there.

Of course the biblical author could be rounding (the Bible is hardly a treatise on mathematics in intent), something I try to do at every opportunity.

If people would like to let religion dictate mathematical constants that is their business. I'll try to avoid buying anything round that comes from Alabama. :D

(I'm pretty sure that was a hoax BTW, I remember having that story forwarded to me via email and checking it out a few years ago).

Macaddicttt

Mar 26, 2007, 11:48 AM

No, I'm only curious because I know so little. The architecture and the art interest me. I do know they're not overly fond of Rome.

I find the interplay between Latin, Greek, and Islamic art and architecture, especially during the Crusades, to be extremely interesting. It's all extremely connected to each other.

yg17

Mar 26, 2007, 11:55 AM

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8100/4.2.1 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

No, I'm only curious because I know so little. The architecture and the art interest me. I do know they're not overly fond of Rome.

One thing that interests me (but I've never taken the time to read about) is the survival of Orthodoxy (as well as Judaism) in Russia through the Soviet period. Russia is dotted with thousands of churches and monestaries, many of which are quite ancient. The Soviets vacillated between ignoring and actively persecuting religion; it would be interesting to explore that topic I think.

Somewhere in the bible, I don't know what verse, because frankly, I couldn't care less, they calculate Pi to be 3. I know this, because there was (I believe the article was satire) an article about how Alabama or something wanted schools to teach Pi as being 3 rather than 3.14159. But it's definitely there.

Of course the biblical author could be rounding (the Bible is hardly a treatise on mathematics in intent), something I try to do at every opportunity.

If people would like to let religion dictate mathematical constants that is their business. I'll try to avoid buying anything round that comes from Alabama. :D

(I'm pretty sure that was a hoax BTW, I remember having that story forwarded to me via email and checking it out a few years ago).

Maybe they were rounding, and given the lack of technology and mathematical knowledge back then, 3 is a damn good guess, but nonetheless, its an error and he can't say that the bible is inerrant.

And if I wasn't in the backseat of a car right now on my BlackBerry, I'd find a lot more errors snd completely insane things in the bible

skinnylegs

Mar 26, 2007, 11:56 AM

Another reason that I subscribe to my "flavor of Christianity".....

Many of the churches I studied with were very exclusive in terms of their view of salvation and this just didn't seem to sit well with me considering that God is so very loving. I mean.....the Jehova Witnesses even have it down to a specific number!

The Catholic church teaches that the fullness of salvation can be found through the Catholic church because of it's sacramental nature but salvation is in no way exclusive to the Catholic church.

xsedrinam

Mar 26, 2007, 12:03 PM

Looks like there are some interesting and civil (for the most part) topics being introduced for discussion. Is Orthodoxy "surviving", "thriving", "reviving" or "waning"? would, perhaps, be a broader question.

One representative voice of the post-liberal theology camp (known as the Yale School) is Christian ethicist H. Richard Niebuhr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._Richard_Niebuhr) who has written several works, some which are used as text books in such disciplines as Christian Ethics and Culture. He takes the middle ground between that of Tillich and Barth. Niebuhr's "The Social Sources of Denominationalism" is considered a classic as well as his "Christ and Culture" and "The Responsible Self".

*The Social Sources of Denominationalism (1929)
The Purpose of the Church and Its Ministry (1956)
The Kingdom of God in America (1937)
The Meaning of Revelation (1941)
*Christ and Culture (1951)
Radical Monotheism and Western Culture (1960)
*The Responsible Self (1962)
Faith on Earth: An Inquiry into the Structure of Human Faith (1989)..

skinnylegs

Mar 26, 2007, 12:09 PM

Faith extends beyond scripture. One must take into account oral traditions. Remember.....Jesus didn't write a bible. Rather, he lived and taught among the people then empowered them to carry on in his saving work.

Lord Blackadder

Mar 26, 2007, 12:17 PM

[books]

Thanks for that, it sounds like some very interesting reading.

MacNut

Mar 26, 2007, 12:37 PM

obeygiant

Mar 26, 2007, 12:51 PM

3 ? 3.14159, therefore, there's an error in the bible. That's just one error, there are hundreds more.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com I recommend you check it out

I'm sure you would recommend that website before even reading the bible itself. However the bible isnt a science book and the ancient hebrews didn't have the fine measuring tools we have today.

First, the variation in the volume of the bath is so large that only two figure accuracy is justified, and the uncertainty is only accentuated our uncertainty as to the exact value of the cubit. Second, if the whole point of the discussion is to demonstrate the literal inerrancy of the Bible, 3.14 is just as much an approximation as 3 is. The decimal expansion of pi never ends and never repeats to infinity. (This would have been a great place to put such a statement, which would have been utterly beyond the capabilities of the ancient Hebrews, or even the translators of the King James Bible, to have known. What a stunningly convincing proof of supernatural authorship it would have been!) Finally, given a ten-cubit (about fifteen feet) diameter vessel with a circumference of fifty feet or so, anybody should be able to get at least three-figure accuracy in determining the value of pi. At the very least, anyone measuring the cauldron with even the crudest device should find a circumference of thirty-one cubits.

There are reams of documents and websites on the internet on this subject.

solvs

Mar 27, 2007, 01:49 AM

The fact that you don't recognize these verses says volumes.
And people wonder why I left the Church. A true Christian would never act like this. As Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians".

I think the teachings of the church are a guide
That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

wonga1127

Mar 31, 2007, 02:10 AM

If the Bible was inerrant, then it would be okay to beat your wives and slaves, as long as after a day or two, they're okay.

Sometimes its easier to be an atheist.

I'm sure you would recommend that website before even reading the bible itself. However the bible isnt a science book and the ancient hebrews didn't have the fine measuring tools we have today.

There are reams of documents and websites on the internet on this subject.

True, they didnt have calculators and computers, but they had eyes, but they still didn't seem to get (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/color.html) what Jesus was wearing

solvs

Mar 31, 2007, 04:55 AM

Sometimes its easier to be an atheist.
Atheism is a lot harder than people seem to think. Though, most who claim to be atheists are actually more agnostic or existentialist. Taoism is quite lovely though if you're lazy and don't want to waste time believing in stuff. ;)

fotografica

Mar 31, 2007, 05:13 AM

Im Catholic and I believe in the faith for personal reasons, but I don't let the Bible run my life like some do. Religion is in my life but only when I need it. I think the teachings of the church are a guide to happiness but that you have to make your own decisions for how you use that. I don't like how a lot of people let the Bible run their lives and then use that to make everyone else appear as sinners.

I'm Catholic as well. Alot of the so called "rules" of the church are man made,ie not eating meat on Friday.And are not even from or in the bible. I was really hoping that we would have had a more moderate Pope elected.Someone from South/Latin America for example.I'm not a holy roller or a member of the God squad by any means.As I tell some of my hardcore friends/relatives.."There's more to being a good person than going to church every Sunday". I know people that do,and would no sooner flip somebody off driving out of the church parking lot..

solvs

Mar 31, 2007, 05:15 AM

"There's more to being a good person than going to church every Sunday"
It saddens me that some people still don't get that.

Queso

Mar 31, 2007, 05:39 AM

Atheism is a lot harder than people seem to think.
I would disagree on this. Atheism is basically coming to terms with your future non-existence. If you can do that, everything else falls into place. You realise that we are all facing the same future non-existence, therefore all of us should respect each other for the time we are here. You also start to question your actions in terms of how it effects others rather than being motivated by the fear of what may come after. It's quite a happy state of affairs once you get past the realisation that whatever you do, you will one day be completely forgotten.

skinnylegs

Mar 31, 2007, 10:35 AM

If the Bible was inerrant, then it would be okay to beat your wives and slaves, as long as after a day or two, they're okay.

Sometimes its easier to be an atheist.The fact that the bible is inerrant does not mean that it is to be taken literally. Also, remember that you are referring to scripture that is very old and reflected a very different social structure and mindset. It has been said a million times before but I guess it is worthy of saying one more time.....you cannot pull a scripture or two out of the bible and live your life based on those scriptures.....the bible must be considered in entirety.

skinnylegs

Mar 31, 2007, 10:40 AM

There's more to being a good person than going to church every SundayI don't think there is a Christian in the world who would disagree with your statement. However, their are graces available through communal worship which can *only* be received through communal worship that help us to become a good person or, dare I say, Christ-like. Let me be more specific. You mention that you are Catholic. I too am Catholic and I find that I experince God in a very tangible way through the sacraments.....specifically Eucharist. If I don't take the time to attend Mass it is impossible for me to receive this grace. It doesn't make me a bad person but I honestly feel that by not attending Mass and receiving these graces I am denying myself the ability to become a *better* person.

I have found that most people who make the statement "I don't think I have to go to church in order to be a Christian" don't *really* feel that way. On the contrary, it is usually a matter of not wanting to get up on Sunday morning (as opposed to sleeping in) or giving up time that they would rather spend doing something else.

66217

Mar 31, 2007, 12:41 PM

I have found that most people who make the statement "I don't think I have to go to church in order to be a Christian" don't *really* feel that way. On the contrary, it is usually a matter of not wanting to get up on Sunday morning (as opposed to sleeping in) or giving up time that they would rather spend doing something else.

Very true. A lot of people, in the very inside of them, know that they have to go to church but they always get an excuse for not going.

What I really think is the worst you can do, is to say you are Catholic (or any other religion) just because where you live everyone is Catholic. I mean, if you say to be Catholic, live and act like one.

It is as easy as being or not being Catholic. There is not a point in the middle, because there is no reason on being on the middle. If that's what you want is better to seek some other religion that suites you.

For example, you cannot say you are Catholic if you believe you don't need/have to confess your sins with the priest.

66217

Mar 31, 2007, 12:51 PM

Ahh, see here it becomes more muddled. You say I have to believe in Jesus and I'll be saved. Well then I'm saved. Okay, now we've got a few problems. First, I think that's a very arrogant thing to say to claim that you have received from God the gift of salvation that is His to give and withhold however He wants. Second, how do I know that I believe it enough? Will believing make me do good deeds? How many good deeds? How will I know I'm saved? Third, what about people who try really hard to believe in the depths of their hearts to become good people, but just don't manage? People are weak. They all can't be pure of heart. Can they do good works and hope for salvation? If they can't, why should they bother trying to be good at all? Can someone please interpret all these complex questions for me because they aren't anywhere in the Bible. I don't have a Bible on me right now since I'm studying abroad, but I'm positive that at least one Gospel puts emphasis on good works and at least one on purity of heart. Which is the road to salvation?

We, Catholics, believe that God would never ask you more than what you can take.

If you believe in God, it means you believe in his teachings. The one big commandment is "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind and you shall love your neighbour as yourself’.

God gives us the opportunity to go to heaven, but it is up to us to decide if we want or not.

solvs

Apr 1, 2007, 03:21 AM

Atheism is basically coming to terms with your future non-existence. If you can do that, everything else falls into place. You realise that we are all facing the same future non-existence, therefore all of us should respect each other for the time we are here. You also start to question your actions in terms of how it effects others rather than being motivated by the fear of what may come after. It's quite a happy state of affairs once you get past the realisation that whatever you do, you will one day be completely forgotten.

Exactly. And most people could not do that. Even some who call themselves Atheists don't go that far, more like Agnostic. Some, merely believers who've lost their faith. There are some who will go so far as to be true Atheists, and label themselves as such, stigma and dogma and all. My Grandmother is one. I prefer to stay open to either. I don't know what's out there, and shouldn't pretend to. I only have my beliefs based on what makes sense to me. I feel you should be welcome to yours as well, even if I disagree on the absolutes, just as I do with the other side and their absolutes.

Which is my problem with the fundies who want to force their beliefs on the rest of us, because besides feeling they're right and everyone else is wrong, for some reason they seem to think I want to be preached to about how right they are and how wrong I am.

fotografica

Apr 1, 2007, 05:47 AM

I don't think there is a Christian in the world who would disagree with your statement. However, their are graces available through communal worship which can *only* be received through communal worship that help us to become a good person or, dare I say, Christ-like. Let me be more specific. You mention that you are Catholic. I too am Catholic and I find that I experince God in a very tangible way through the sacraments.....specifically Eucharist. If I don't take the time to attend Mass it is impossible for me to receive this grace. It doesn't make me a bad person but I honestly feel that by not attending Mass and receiving these graces I am denying myself the ability to become a *better* person.

I have found that most people who make the statement "I don't think I have to go to church in order to be a Christian" don't *really* feel that way. On the contrary, it is usually a matter of not wanting to get up on Sunday morning (as opposed to sleeping in) or giving up time that they would rather spend doing something else.

I hear what you're saying..But my comment was directed more toward the pious,self righteous individuals who believe that going to church every Sunday gives them absolution for being an unscrupulous SOB the rest of the week..