Bryn Mawr;1338357 wrote: The difference is in the driver - did theycome together for religious reasons or did they come together for mutual protection / development / because the environment changed / economy of scale etc and the merging of the family groups then drove the development of the religion.
There was no coming together of hunter/gatherer tribes anyway, because they had to move frequently in search of food, and that lifestyle did not support a high enough population density to create the first settlements. The earliest civlizations had to wait for age of agriculture, before small city-states could exist as trading posts, and support specialized occupations -- like craftsmen, artisans, priests and kings. These would have been the first communities in human history where people unrelated by blood-line were living together, and having a local god or gods that everyone worshipped and made sacrifices to, would have been a big help for the king to maintain unity.
RC suggests the one and you assume the other and they are different animals with very different implications - especially when you use the assumption to posit moving to one religion driving a move to world government rather than continuing the theme which would suggest that moving to a world government would bring forth a common religion (not that I believe that it would, it's one thing for a merge of cultures to bring forth a new phenomenon, religion, but that does not suggest that a second merge of cultures would merge pre-existing religious beliefs. More likely the increased tolerance required to move to a world government would promote increased acceptance of religious differences).
The world is so varied and divided, that if a world government was possible, it could not be intrusive, and would have to focus on the few key issues that motivated the drive to form a world government in the first place.
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
recovering conservative;1338364 wrote: There was no coming together of hunter/gatherer tribes anyway, because they had to move frequently in search of food, and that lifestyle did not support a high enough population density to create the first settlements. The earliest civlizations had to wait for age of agriculture, before small city-states could exist as trading posts, and support specialized occupations -- like craftsmen, artisans, priests and kings. These would have been the first communities in human history where people unrelated by blood-line were living together, and having a local god or gods that everyone worshipped and made sacrifices to, would have been a big help for the king to maintain unity.
Even within the hunter / gatherer culture there would have been a coming together of families on a regular basis and even, probably, a priodic "big meet" where all of the families within a territory would get together. A small family unit is pushed to be self sufficient and trade, even then, would have been necessary. Also, no family unit has sufficient gentic diversity and needs to exchange members with many other groups to prevent interbreeding.
recovering conservative;1338364 wrote: The world is so varied and divided, that if a world government was possible, it could not be intrusive, and would have to focus on the few key issues that motivated the drive to form a world government in the first place.
For a start, certainly. That was the concept when the American states formed their union - non-intrusive and handling those few key issues that over-rode state interests. With the passage of time people see themselves as members of the larger unit and are more accepting of centralised management and a common rulebase.
Even within the hunter / gatherer culture there would have been a coming together of families on a regular basis and even, probably, a priodic "big meet" where all of the families within a territory would get together. A small family unit is pushed to be self sufficient and trade, even then, would have been necessary. Also, no family unit has sufficient gentic diversity and needs to exchange members with many other groups to prevent interbreeding.
recovering conservative;1338364 wrote: The world is so varied and divided, that if a world government was possible, it could not be intrusive, and would have to focus on the few key issues that motivated the drive to form a world government in the first place.
For a start, certainly. That was the concept when the American states formed their union - non-intrusive and handling those few key issues that over-rode state interests. With the passage of time people see themselves as members of the larger unit and are more accepting of centralised management and a common rulebase.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
Bryn Mawr;1338372 wrote: Even within the hunter / gatherer culture there would have been a coming together of families on a regular basis and even, probably, a priodic "big meet" where all of the families within a territory would get together. A small family unit is pushed to be self sufficient and trade, even then, would have been necessary. Also, no family unit has sufficient gentic diversity and needs to exchange members with many other groups to prevent interbreeding.
We need to make clear that when we're talking about family groups in this context, we're not talking about the modern conception of nuclear family, but instead a group of related people of up to three generations. The size of the tribes would vary depending on availability of food, and how much, and how often the tribe had to break camp and move to a new location. The upper limit for the size of a tribe was about 200. Usually, tribes that were getting close to this size would have to split off and divide into two or three separate groups just because of the growing logistic problems of keeping a band of 200 men,women and children together.
Relations with nearby tribes who were often related going back a few generations, would vary from friendship and cooperation around trade and ritual gatherings -- to complete open hostility. Hunter/gatherers living on open grasslands like Central Asia, Australia, and the Great Plains, were often in contact with other tribes who were following the same migrations of big game, and used those opportunities for trade and large scale buffalo and mammoth hunting; but tribes in places like the Amazon -- where the environment was extremely hostile and made travel difficult, did little trading and treated every stranger as an enemy.
So, there was a lot of variation in these groups, but most of them likely had more genetic diversity than the farming communities that developed at the start of the Neolithic -- who were fixed in place, generation after generation. And, it wasn't until farming started as a way of life -- and as mentioned previously, that's the point where ritual, mystical and supernatural beliefs are split off from daily life and start becoming what we know of today as Religion. Because a small city state would have so many people who came in to town from different places, rituals and beliefs that had previously been handed down, generation after generation, had to be codified and organized by priests, who had taken over the role of the shaman, and formalized it.
For a start, certainly. That was the concept when the American states formed their union - non-intrusive and handling those few key issues that over-rode state interests. With the passage of time people see themselves as members of the larger unit and are more accepting of centralised management and a common rulebase.
It's a little off topic, but you just reminded me that the complaint of libertarians about the growing power of government ignores the fact that at its founding, many of the state governments in the USA were virtual dictatorships, and much of the growth of federal power was made at the expense of local governments that sanctioned slavery, unequal treatment under the law, state-sanctioned religions etc. The Federal Government had to grow in order to check some obvious abuses like Segregation, which were being protected under the banner of "states rights."
We need to make clear that when we're talking about family groups in this context, we're not talking about the modern conception of nuclear family, but instead a group of related people of up to three generations. The size of the tribes would vary depending on availability of food, and how much, and how often the tribe had to break camp and move to a new location. The upper limit for the size of a tribe was about 200. Usually, tribes that were getting close to this size would have to split off and divide into two or three separate groups just because of the growing logistic problems of keeping a band of 200 men,women and children together.
Relations with nearby tribes who were often related going back a few generations, would vary from friendship and cooperation around trade and ritual gatherings -- to complete open hostility. Hunter/gatherers living on open grasslands like Central Asia, Australia, and the Great Plains, were often in contact with other tribes who were following the same migrations of big game, and used those opportunities for trade and large scale buffalo and mammoth hunting; but tribes in places like the Amazon -- where the environment was extremely hostile and made travel difficult, did little trading and treated every stranger as an enemy.
So, there was a lot of variation in these groups, but most of them likely had more genetic diversity than the farming communities that developed at the start of the Neolithic -- who were fixed in place, generation after generation. And, it wasn't until farming started as a way of life -- and as mentioned previously, that's the point where ritual, mystical and supernatural beliefs are split off from daily life and start becoming what we know of today as Religion. Because a small city state would have so many people who came in to town from different places, rituals and beliefs that had previously been handed down, generation after generation, had to be codified and organized by priests, who had taken over the role of the shaman, and formalized it.
For a start, certainly. That was the concept when the American states formed their union - non-intrusive and handling those few key issues that over-rode state interests. With the passage of time people see themselves as members of the larger unit and are more accepting of centralised management and a common rulebase.
It's a little off topic, but you just reminded me that the complaint of libertarians about the growing power of government ignores the fact that at its founding, many of the state governments in the USA were virtual dictatorships, and much of the growth of federal power was made at the expense of local governments that sanctioned slavery, unequal treatment under the law, state-sanctioned religions etc. The Federal Government had to grow in order to check some obvious abuses like Segregation, which were being protected under the banner of "states rights."
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
In any but the best hunting territories a band of two hundred would be too big to survive, they would decimate the local wildlife too quickly and have to cover too large an area to be viable, but certainly, the progression would have been from extended family to clan to tribe, growing in size and diversity with each step.
I think we're looking at different ends of the timeline, I'm thinking in terms of the early extended families with maybe twenty to thirty members max, pre domestication and with limited weapons which is where I see the first attempts to explain life, the universe and everything. You, I think, are looking at the later hunter gatherers just before the introduction of agriculture?
I think we're looking at different ends of the timeline, I'm thinking in terms of the early extended families with maybe twenty to thirty members max, pre domestication and with limited weapons which is where I see the first attempts to explain life, the universe and everything. You, I think, are looking at the later hunter gatherers just before the introduction of agriculture?
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
Bryn Mawr;1338422 wrote: In any but the best hunting territories a band of two hundred would be too big to survive, they would decimate the local wildlife too quickly and have to cover too large an area to be viable, but certainly, the progression would have been from extended family to clan to tribe, growing in size and diversity with each step.
I think we're looking at different ends of the timeline, I'm thinking in terms of the early extended families with maybe twenty to thirty members max, pre domestication and with limited weapons which is where I see the first attempts to explain life, the universe and everything. You, I think, are looking at the later hunter gatherers just before the introduction of agriculture?
The later tribal culture is about all that was accessible by anthropologists. We don't know anything first hand about the spiritual beliefs of the earliest paleolithic tribes aside from their art work. It's a safe assumption that they believed spirit forces were actively at work in their world. People don't leave gaps in their understanding of things. Before modern science was around to tell us how lighting, wind and rain are caused, there were plenty of mythical explanations to fill in the gaps. To me, that's where I see religion as coming from -- explaining the unknown with mythology.
I think we're looking at different ends of the timeline, I'm thinking in terms of the early extended families with maybe twenty to thirty members max, pre domestication and with limited weapons which is where I see the first attempts to explain life, the universe and everything. You, I think, are looking at the later hunter gatherers just before the introduction of agriculture?
The later tribal culture is about all that was accessible by anthropologists. We don't know anything first hand about the spiritual beliefs of the earliest paleolithic tribes aside from their art work. It's a safe assumption that they believed spirit forces were actively at work in their world. People don't leave gaps in their understanding of things. Before modern science was around to tell us how lighting, wind and rain are caused, there were plenty of mythical explanations to fill in the gaps. To me, that's where I see religion as coming from -- explaining the unknown with mythology.
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
recovering conservative;1338492 wrote: The later tribal culture is about all that was accessible by anthropologists. We don't know anything first hand about the spiritual beliefs of the earliest paleolithic tribes aside from their art work. It's a safe assumption that they believed spirit forces were actively at work in their world. People don't leave gaps in their understanding of things. Before modern science was around to tell us how lighting, wind and rain are caused, there were plenty of mythical explanations to fill in the gaps. To me, that's where I see religion as coming from -- explaining the unknown with mythology.
Then can we assume that over time with an expansion of what is understood scientificly, and a change in what we believe in religiously that Christianity, Islam, Judaism will fall in down in to the category of mythology, as the religions of the ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Norse did
Then can we assume that over time with an expansion of what is understood scientificly, and a change in what we believe in religiously that Christianity, Islam, Judaism will fall in down in to the category of mythology, as the religions of the ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Norse did
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
littleCJelkton;1338541 wrote: Then can we assume that over time with an expansion of what is understood scientificly, and a change in what we believe in religiously that Christianity, Islam, Judaism will fall in down in to the category of mythology, as the religions of the ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Norse didThey already are myths, CJ, some people just don't know it.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
Ahso!;1338543 wrote: They already are myths, CJ, some people just don't know it.
Well then we should allow study of them in school along with the study of Greek, Roman, and Norse Mythology.
Well then we should allow study of them in school along with the study of Greek, Roman, and Norse Mythology.
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
littleCJelkton;1338541 wrote: Then can we assume that over time with an expansion of what is understood scientificly, and a change in what we believe in religiously that Christianity, Islam, Judaism will fall in down in to the category of mythology, as the religions of the ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Norse did
There is a lot of variations in those religions; it depends on how they understand their religion and apply it in their lives.
The reason why there is a conflict between science and religion, is because, a few centuries ago, devoutly religious scientists such as Newton, Kepler, Descartes, and likely a few others, were learning so much about the natural world -- especially the cosmos and laws of nature -- that they decided they could prove the existence of God scientifically, and figured eventually they could scientifically validate whatever kind of Christianity they believed in.
This all led to the practice of looking for the god in the gaps, and every time a gap is filled with a natural theory, it is one less place for God to reside. But, is that why people turn to religion in the first place? It seems to me that people have varying degrees of need for what we call spirituality. Some of us don't really feel much need for it at all, while others are looking for oneness with God, or whatever you want to call it! A strictly naturalist or humanist approach to life is not going to feel satisfying for a lot of people, and they will turn to some sort of spiritual practice, usually bundled up with a set of doctrines and rules, and a community found in modern organized religion.
So, will these religions disappear or become irrelevant? Who knows for sure! But the present trend is that, in North America at least, people are doing a lot of shopping around and changing religions frequently -- but most stay within the umbrella of Christianity rather than go to something totally outside of what they are familiar with. So, I would argue that, as long as religion is offering something that science can't offer, it will still be relevant. If they can't offer good reasons for people to support their churches, then they'll disappear.
And before I forget -- the point about old gods disappearing and becoming mythology is a bit overplayed by both Christians and atheists. They didn't just die out on their own -- they were stamped out when Christendom became more and more powerful in Europe. I was surprised a few years ago to learn on the web that there is a small cult of people in Greece who want to revive the ancient Greek religion, and that even today, worshiping the ancient gods is illegal in Greece....no doubt because of the lingering power of the Orthodox Church. If there was no active movement to stamp out the old gods, western religion may have looked something like Hinduism -- where new gods and goddesses and dogmas were added to an ancient polytheism that started over 5000 years ago.
There is a lot of variations in those religions; it depends on how they understand their religion and apply it in their lives.
The reason why there is a conflict between science and religion, is because, a few centuries ago, devoutly religious scientists such as Newton, Kepler, Descartes, and likely a few others, were learning so much about the natural world -- especially the cosmos and laws of nature -- that they decided they could prove the existence of God scientifically, and figured eventually they could scientifically validate whatever kind of Christianity they believed in.
This all led to the practice of looking for the god in the gaps, and every time a gap is filled with a natural theory, it is one less place for God to reside. But, is that why people turn to religion in the first place? It seems to me that people have varying degrees of need for what we call spirituality. Some of us don't really feel much need for it at all, while others are looking for oneness with God, or whatever you want to call it! A strictly naturalist or humanist approach to life is not going to feel satisfying for a lot of people, and they will turn to some sort of spiritual practice, usually bundled up with a set of doctrines and rules, and a community found in modern organized religion.
So, will these religions disappear or become irrelevant? Who knows for sure! But the present trend is that, in North America at least, people are doing a lot of shopping around and changing religions frequently -- but most stay within the umbrella of Christianity rather than go to something totally outside of what they are familiar with. So, I would argue that, as long as religion is offering something that science can't offer, it will still be relevant. If they can't offer good reasons for people to support their churches, then they'll disappear.
And before I forget -- the point about old gods disappearing and becoming mythology is a bit overplayed by both Christians and atheists. They didn't just die out on their own -- they were stamped out when Christendom became more and more powerful in Europe. I was surprised a few years ago to learn on the web that there is a small cult of people in Greece who want to revive the ancient Greek religion, and that even today, worshiping the ancient gods is illegal in Greece....no doubt because of the lingering power of the Orthodox Church. If there was no active movement to stamp out the old gods, western religion may have looked something like Hinduism -- where new gods and goddesses and dogmas were added to an ancient polytheism that started over 5000 years ago.
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
littleCJelkton;1338545 wrote: Well then we should allow study of them in school along with the study of Greek, Roman, and Norse Mythology.They are aloud, in private schools. Notre Dame comes to mind among the other thousands of catholic schools across the US. I actually went to one. In fact, based off of my experiences I'd recommend it but this is a very grey area as far as I'm concerned but if you'd like to create a thread about public schools vs private schools I'd be more than willing to participate(Schools are not the determining factor in ones knowledge alone but a mixture of the parents together with inadequate funding for public schools if you'd like a basis for an argument).
What's next are religions forcing their views within state facilitated schools ultimately ending in religion being merged with state interests from which The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism. Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anything else would be irrelevant considering the majority owns the power and with such a diversity of religions it's never easy to agree upon the perfect reference material. Texas also comes to mind. Texas school board debates 'pro-Islamic' bias in textbooks Texas debates 'pro-Islamic' bias in textbooks - Education Nation - msnbc.com
What's next are religions forcing their views within state facilitated schools ultimately ending in religion being merged with state interests from which The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism. Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anything else would be irrelevant considering the majority owns the power and with such a diversity of religions it's never easy to agree upon the perfect reference material. Texas also comes to mind. Texas school board debates 'pro-Islamic' bias in textbooks Texas debates 'pro-Islamic' bias in textbooks - Education Nation - msnbc.com
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
K.Snyder;1338611 wrote: (Schools are not the determining factor in ones knowledge alone but a mixture of the parents together with inadequate funding for public schools if you'd like a basis for an argument). If the irony of this wasn't so sad it'd be one of the more humorous observations I can think of
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
recovering conservative;1338157 wrote: I look at this way -- do you want neighbours who share your beliefs, but are selfish and inhospitable...or worse?
Those who are selfish and inhospitable do not have Christian faith. Everyone shares the belief that everyone else should be unselfish and hospitable. It's applying it personally that humanity finds difficult.
Your Christian community keeps shrinking with every post!
It may be that you don't really have any idea what Christianity is, and have much to learn. It may be that you don't have much to learn, and are lying.
But they also consider the sacraments essential for salvation, so they do not qualify as sola fide, any more than Catholics or Orthodox Christians.
That is not true. Any Anglican who believes that sacraments are necessary for any purpose whatever does not know his own written statement of faith. The CoE would not have survived until today had that not been true. Anglicans took their cue from Luther, the one who famously declared justification by faith alone, and if Lutherans don't believe that faith in the perfect sacrifice of Christ does not suffice to justify, they join Catholics and Orthodox in declaring Christ a sinner.
It is quite true that there are many, many people who formally belong to Protestant 'churches', but they are no more Protestants than they are apple pies. But all the mainline denominations outside the Catholic and Orthodox have sola fide 'written in stone' as their fundamental belief, along with sola Scriptura. Those who actually believe in these two things are euphemistically called evangelicals- though evangelicals, whether Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Brethren or Independent, call themselves just Christians. Those who don't believe in them who are members of these bodies must therefore be ignorant, or liars. They should not be where they are, anyway, and need to be described as either ignorant or mendacious, publicly, to their faces.
Are the members of the Catholic Church also condemned because of the scandals of their leaders? If that's so, then there are a lot of evangelicals that will burn for supporting fallen televangelists over the years!
Televangelists are not evangelicals. The word 'evangelist' is not equivalent to 'evangelical', even in the USA. The word 'evangelical' does not mean in the USA the same as it means elsewhere, anyway.
And you lost me here! As far as I am aware, the Catholic Church identifies itself as Christian.
Those who are lost may need to simply read more carefully. The RCC declares, in its official canons, those who believe in sola Scriptura (evangelicals, in practice) to be anathema, i.e. cursed. This fact is ignored, or indulged where it is brought up, but the equivalent response of evangelicals to Roman Catholicism is treated with fear and aggression.
Those who are selfish and inhospitable do not have Christian faith. Everyone shares the belief that everyone else should be unselfish and hospitable. It's applying it personally that humanity finds difficult.
Your Christian community keeps shrinking with every post!
It may be that you don't really have any idea what Christianity is, and have much to learn. It may be that you don't have much to learn, and are lying.
But they also consider the sacraments essential for salvation, so they do not qualify as sola fide, any more than Catholics or Orthodox Christians.
That is not true. Any Anglican who believes that sacraments are necessary for any purpose whatever does not know his own written statement of faith. The CoE would not have survived until today had that not been true. Anglicans took their cue from Luther, the one who famously declared justification by faith alone, and if Lutherans don't believe that faith in the perfect sacrifice of Christ does not suffice to justify, they join Catholics and Orthodox in declaring Christ a sinner.
It is quite true that there are many, many people who formally belong to Protestant 'churches', but they are no more Protestants than they are apple pies. But all the mainline denominations outside the Catholic and Orthodox have sola fide 'written in stone' as their fundamental belief, along with sola Scriptura. Those who actually believe in these two things are euphemistically called evangelicals- though evangelicals, whether Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Brethren or Independent, call themselves just Christians. Those who don't believe in them who are members of these bodies must therefore be ignorant, or liars. They should not be where they are, anyway, and need to be described as either ignorant or mendacious, publicly, to their faces.
Are the members of the Catholic Church also condemned because of the scandals of their leaders? If that's so, then there are a lot of evangelicals that will burn for supporting fallen televangelists over the years!
Televangelists are not evangelicals. The word 'evangelist' is not equivalent to 'evangelical', even in the USA. The word 'evangelical' does not mean in the USA the same as it means elsewhere, anyway.
And you lost me here! As far as I am aware, the Catholic Church identifies itself as Christian.
Those who are lost may need to simply read more carefully. The RCC declares, in its official canons, those who believe in sola Scriptura (evangelicals, in practice) to be anathema, i.e. cursed. This fact is ignored, or indulged where it is brought up, but the equivalent response of evangelicals to Roman Catholicism is treated with fear and aggression.
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
xyz;1338776 wrote: Those who are selfish and inhospitable do not have Christian faith. Everyone shares the belief that everyone else should be unselfish and hospitable. It's applying it personally that humanity finds difficult.You haven't been very hospitable to answering questions and providing clarification when requested. Would you like to repent by gong back and addressing some of the inquiries made?
xyz;1338776 wrote: It may be that you don't really have any idea what Christianity is, and have much to learn. It may be that you don't have much to learn, and are lying.Out of curiosity, are there mirrors where you live?
xyz;1338776 wrote: It may be that you don't really have any idea what Christianity is, and have much to learn. It may be that you don't have much to learn, and are lying.Out of curiosity, are there mirrors where you live?
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
xyz;1338776 wrote: Those who are selfish and inhospitable do not have Christian faith. Everyone shares the belief that everyone else should be unselfish and hospitable. It's applying it personally that humanity finds difficult.
But I phrased my question as a choice between people who share your beliefs vs. those who don't share what you believe, but have the same moral principles, since they do not always go hand in hand. This is why some of the Church leaders of the middle ages, such as Thomas Aquinas, felt the need to develop a theory of Natural Law. Aquinas observed that he had met may heathens who seemed to show more Christian virtue than many of his fellow churchmen.
And everyone does not share these beliefs in unselfishness and hospitality -- if you check around the political discussions here, you're going to find a few libertarians who believe that everyone acting in their own self-interests will somehow lead to a harmonious society! The fascinating aspect of politics is the old truism -- how it makes for strange bedfellows -- since there are hardcore Ayn Rand Objectivists who share the stage with right wing Christians....who don't seem to express much of that hospitality you're talking about!
It may be that you don't really have any idea what Christianity is, and have much to learn. It may be that you don't have much to learn, and are lying.
Or, it may be that I have learned so many different types of Christianity that I recognize that you only know one particular brand of Christian religion!
That is not true. Any Anglican who believes that sacraments are necessary for any purpose whatever does not know his own written statement of faith. The CoE would not have survived until today had that not been true. Anglicans took their cue from Luther, the one who famously declared justification by faith alone, and if Lutherans don't believe that faith in the perfect sacrifice of Christ does not suffice to justify, they join Catholics and Orthodox in declaring Christ a sinner.
It is quite true that there are many, many people who formally belong to Protestant 'churches', but they are no more Protestants than they are apple pies. But all the mainline denominations outside the Catholic and Orthodox have sola fide 'written in stone' as their fundamental belief, along with sola Scriptura. Those who actually believe in these two things are euphemistically called evangelicals- though evangelicals, whether Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Brethren or Independent, call themselves just Christians. Those who don't believe in them who are members of these bodies must therefore be ignorant, or liars. They should not be where they are, anyway, and need to be described as either ignorant or mendacious, publicly, to their faces.
It's probably not worth going into much detail on since it doesn't matter much to me what Anglicans believe gives them salvation, but I was referring to a process that started in the early 60's from a theology paper from a Lutheran called New Perspectives on Paul which started a process joined by Anglican and Catholic theologians to try to bridge the gap on Justification. In brief the Catholics were trying to move as much as they could towards Sola fide, and the Protestants were trying to find a middle ground from their faith-alone tradition. Part of the reason was not just to be ecumenical -- some mainline Protestant leaders have noted over the years that their congregations don't take the Sacraments seriously, as devout Catholics do.....but maybe some Catholics take it a little too seriously since many of them look like they're going somewhere they really don't want to be at, when they go to the Catholic church across the street from me on Sunday mornings.
Comparison of traditions subheading of the wikipedia entry on Justification provides a simple chart of the differing views on salvation of the main churches. And that was my main point! I don't really care what they believe because I believe that the mind is a creation of a physical brain, and that there is nothing of our conscious perceptions that exists after we die, to worry about saving anyway!
All Christians don't share the same theory about how to be saved. And it's worth mentioning that the Christian Bible itself is the source of the confusion, since some books can be used to support Sola fide, while others say you need works too, and the Epistle of James even goes so far as to contend that it's all about works. The wikipedia entry on Sola fide has a list of the main scriptural verses that are used to support and to argue against the doctrine of Sola fide -- so it all boils down to which verses you choose to support your argument with. And the Catholic Church gets their argument that the Sacraments are an obligation for salvation from the Church tradition. The problem with saying that the Catholic Church has no right to add to what is written in scripture, is that they were the ones who collected the various scrolls, and decided which ones were inspired, and which ones weren't, and decided most of the important Christian doctrines -- so it's ironic that the Christians who castigate the Catholic Church (some even calling it a tool of satan) nevertheless depend on that same Church for the scripture that they claim is perfect and inspired by God!
Televangelists are not evangelicals. The word 'evangelist' is not equivalent to 'evangelical', even in the USA. The word 'evangelical' does not mean in the USA the same as it means elsewhere, anyway.
Off the top, I can't think of a single televangelist who is not an evangelical of some sort!
Those who are lost may need to simply read more carefully. The RCC declares, in its official canons, those who believe in sola Scriptura (evangelicals, in practice) to be anathema, i.e. cursed. This fact is ignored, or indulged where it is brought up, but the equivalent response of evangelicals to Roman Catholicism is treated with fear and aggression.
Most Catholics don't take a whole lot of what the Pope or their priests say anyway! According to a poll from the Pew Forum that I put up on another thread, most American Christians of all types believe in some form of universal salvation.....so a lot of Christians are troubled about the notion of believing that people they like, who belong to different religions (or no religion) are damned to some sort of hell.
But I phrased my question as a choice between people who share your beliefs vs. those who don't share what you believe, but have the same moral principles, since they do not always go hand in hand. This is why some of the Church leaders of the middle ages, such as Thomas Aquinas, felt the need to develop a theory of Natural Law. Aquinas observed that he had met may heathens who seemed to show more Christian virtue than many of his fellow churchmen.
And everyone does not share these beliefs in unselfishness and hospitality -- if you check around the political discussions here, you're going to find a few libertarians who believe that everyone acting in their own self-interests will somehow lead to a harmonious society! The fascinating aspect of politics is the old truism -- how it makes for strange bedfellows -- since there are hardcore Ayn Rand Objectivists who share the stage with right wing Christians....who don't seem to express much of that hospitality you're talking about!
It may be that you don't really have any idea what Christianity is, and have much to learn. It may be that you don't have much to learn, and are lying.
Or, it may be that I have learned so many different types of Christianity that I recognize that you only know one particular brand of Christian religion!
That is not true. Any Anglican who believes that sacraments are necessary for any purpose whatever does not know his own written statement of faith. The CoE would not have survived until today had that not been true. Anglicans took their cue from Luther, the one who famously declared justification by faith alone, and if Lutherans don't believe that faith in the perfect sacrifice of Christ does not suffice to justify, they join Catholics and Orthodox in declaring Christ a sinner.
It is quite true that there are many, many people who formally belong to Protestant 'churches', but they are no more Protestants than they are apple pies. But all the mainline denominations outside the Catholic and Orthodox have sola fide 'written in stone' as their fundamental belief, along with sola Scriptura. Those who actually believe in these two things are euphemistically called evangelicals- though evangelicals, whether Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Brethren or Independent, call themselves just Christians. Those who don't believe in them who are members of these bodies must therefore be ignorant, or liars. They should not be where they are, anyway, and need to be described as either ignorant or mendacious, publicly, to their faces.
It's probably not worth going into much detail on since it doesn't matter much to me what Anglicans believe gives them salvation, but I was referring to a process that started in the early 60's from a theology paper from a Lutheran called New Perspectives on Paul which started a process joined by Anglican and Catholic theologians to try to bridge the gap on Justification. In brief the Catholics were trying to move as much as they could towards Sola fide, and the Protestants were trying to find a middle ground from their faith-alone tradition. Part of the reason was not just to be ecumenical -- some mainline Protestant leaders have noted over the years that their congregations don't take the Sacraments seriously, as devout Catholics do.....but maybe some Catholics take it a little too seriously since many of them look like they're going somewhere they really don't want to be at, when they go to the Catholic church across the street from me on Sunday mornings.
Comparison of traditions subheading of the wikipedia entry on Justification provides a simple chart of the differing views on salvation of the main churches. And that was my main point! I don't really care what they believe because I believe that the mind is a creation of a physical brain, and that there is nothing of our conscious perceptions that exists after we die, to worry about saving anyway!
All Christians don't share the same theory about how to be saved. And it's worth mentioning that the Christian Bible itself is the source of the confusion, since some books can be used to support Sola fide, while others say you need works too, and the Epistle of James even goes so far as to contend that it's all about works. The wikipedia entry on Sola fide has a list of the main scriptural verses that are used to support and to argue against the doctrine of Sola fide -- so it all boils down to which verses you choose to support your argument with. And the Catholic Church gets their argument that the Sacraments are an obligation for salvation from the Church tradition. The problem with saying that the Catholic Church has no right to add to what is written in scripture, is that they were the ones who collected the various scrolls, and decided which ones were inspired, and which ones weren't, and decided most of the important Christian doctrines -- so it's ironic that the Christians who castigate the Catholic Church (some even calling it a tool of satan) nevertheless depend on that same Church for the scripture that they claim is perfect and inspired by God!
Televangelists are not evangelicals. The word 'evangelist' is not equivalent to 'evangelical', even in the USA. The word 'evangelical' does not mean in the USA the same as it means elsewhere, anyway.
Off the top, I can't think of a single televangelist who is not an evangelical of some sort!
Those who are lost may need to simply read more carefully. The RCC declares, in its official canons, those who believe in sola Scriptura (evangelicals, in practice) to be anathema, i.e. cursed. This fact is ignored, or indulged where it is brought up, but the equivalent response of evangelicals to Roman Catholicism is treated with fear and aggression.
Most Catholics don't take a whole lot of what the Pope or their priests say anyway! According to a poll from the Pew Forum that I put up on another thread, most American Christians of all types believe in some form of universal salvation.....so a lot of Christians are troubled about the notion of believing that people they like, who belong to different religions (or no religion) are damned to some sort of hell.
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
recovering conservative;1338924 wrote: But I phrased my question as a choice between people who share your beliefs vs. those who don't share what you believe, but have the same moral principles, since they do not always go hand in hand. This is why some of the Church leaders of the middle ages, such as Thomas Aquinas, felt the need to develop a theory of Natural Law. Aquinas observed that he had met may heathens who seemed to show more Christian virtue than many of his fellow churchmen.
That can be no surprise to any Protestant, because Protestantism arose precisely because it was thought that Catholics were heathens in need of conversion. Religion is not about moral principles. People in their right mind do not think that it is ok for them to be lied to, murdered or robbed. Moral principles are universal. The purpose of religion is to provide a means by which people can live up to those principles and keep a good conscience.
Or, it may be that I have learned so many different types of Christianity that I recognize that you only know one particular brand of Christian religion!
Perhaps. Or it may be that you are a person of criminal intent who wants people to think that people like you can call themselves Christians. What is certain is that those who make personal statements such as the one you made are excluded from civilised debate, let alone a church.
It's probably not worth going into much detail on since it doesn't matter much to me what Anglicans believe gives them salvation,
So the point you made about them considering the sacraments essential for salvation is now withdrawn. Along with Baptists, Methodists, Brethren and many more, Lutherans and Anglicans accept sola fide; which leaves Catholics and Orthodox as outsiders, as far as they are concerned. And no ecumenism in the 20th century has made any difference to that, even though millions of words have been spoken and written in apparent effort to bridge the gap, which remains as enormous as it was at the Reformation, when both sides described each other as cursed. All that has changed is the rhetoric and the diplomacy.
(Wikipedia in religious matters is for fools and the wicked. If people have something to say, they should say it themselves.)
since some books can be used to support Sola fide, while others say you need works too,
What sort of a nincompoop deity is it that gives conflicting views on how to get to him? What sort of person follows that sort of god?
No book of Scripture (66 books) indicates that works are needed to be justified before God, and the RCC has had to include extra books in order to try to make its point. Many times is it written that works are necessary to demonstrate faith, to justify oneself before men and indeed to oneself, as James and Paul both agree.
and the Epistle of James even goes so far as to contend that it's all about works.
It is, as far as human society is concerned. Which brings us back to the point that only those who demonstrate faith by their works are permitted into the church, particularly leadership, which excludes the majority of those calling themselves Christians, particularly in the USA.
Off the top, I can't think of a single televangelist who is not an evangelical of some sort!
I suppose they have to be evangelicals, to make those child abusers look less unacceptable!
That can be no surprise to any Protestant, because Protestantism arose precisely because it was thought that Catholics were heathens in need of conversion. Religion is not about moral principles. People in their right mind do not think that it is ok for them to be lied to, murdered or robbed. Moral principles are universal. The purpose of religion is to provide a means by which people can live up to those principles and keep a good conscience.
Or, it may be that I have learned so many different types of Christianity that I recognize that you only know one particular brand of Christian religion!
Perhaps. Or it may be that you are a person of criminal intent who wants people to think that people like you can call themselves Christians. What is certain is that those who make personal statements such as the one you made are excluded from civilised debate, let alone a church.
It's probably not worth going into much detail on since it doesn't matter much to me what Anglicans believe gives them salvation,
So the point you made about them considering the sacraments essential for salvation is now withdrawn. Along with Baptists, Methodists, Brethren and many more, Lutherans and Anglicans accept sola fide; which leaves Catholics and Orthodox as outsiders, as far as they are concerned. And no ecumenism in the 20th century has made any difference to that, even though millions of words have been spoken and written in apparent effort to bridge the gap, which remains as enormous as it was at the Reformation, when both sides described each other as cursed. All that has changed is the rhetoric and the diplomacy.
(Wikipedia in religious matters is for fools and the wicked. If people have something to say, they should say it themselves.)
since some books can be used to support Sola fide, while others say you need works too,
What sort of a nincompoop deity is it that gives conflicting views on how to get to him? What sort of person follows that sort of god?
No book of Scripture (66 books) indicates that works are needed to be justified before God, and the RCC has had to include extra books in order to try to make its point. Many times is it written that works are necessary to demonstrate faith, to justify oneself before men and indeed to oneself, as James and Paul both agree.
and the Epistle of James even goes so far as to contend that it's all about works.
It is, as far as human society is concerned. Which brings us back to the point that only those who demonstrate faith by their works are permitted into the church, particularly leadership, which excludes the majority of those calling themselves Christians, particularly in the USA.
Off the top, I can't think of a single televangelist who is not an evangelical of some sort!
I suppose they have to be evangelicals, to make those child abusers look less unacceptable!
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
xyz;1338931 wrote: That can be no surprise to any Protestant, because Protestantism arose precisely because it was thought that Catholics were heathens in need of conversion.
Huh! Read some history about the Reformation. Protestantism started as a reform movement of the Church, not to start a bunch of independent Protestant churches. Martin Luther still considered himself to be a Catholic, right to the day he died!
Religion is not about moral principles. People in their right mind do not think that it is ok for them to be lied to, murdered or robbed. Moral principles are universal. The purpose of religion is to provide a means by which people can live up to those principles and keep a good conscience.
And this has nothing to do with dogmas or doctrines then; since a religion could be just about following a set of ethics, without requirements to believe in certain doctrines.....which is how the Unitarian/Universalist Church operates -- so there is at least one religion that is not based on making everyone believe the same things.
Perhaps. Or it may be that you are a person of criminal intent who wants people to think that people like you can call themselves Christians.
Criminal intent? What the hell are you talking about? And I've never claimed to be a Christian -- I left Christianity and all supernatural beliefs years ago, and mentioned it a number of times here.
What is certain is that those who make personal statements such as the one you made are excluded from civilised debate, let alone a church.
So! Studying other religions makes me excluded from civilized debate.....I couldn't give a rat's ass about being excluded from any church, especially whatever church you belong to!
So the point you made about them considering the sacraments essential for salvation is now withdrawn.
No, it's not withdrawn; and I provided examples of the ecumenical work that Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans were doing to bridge the gap on their salvation doctrines.....it's just not an important enough issue to me personally to bother investigating further.
Along with Baptists, Methodists, Brethren and many more, Lutherans and Anglicans accept sola fide; which leaves Catholics and Orthodox as outsiders, as far as they are concerned. And no ecumenism in the 20th century has made any difference to that, even though millions of words have been spoken and written in apparent effort to bridge the gap, which remains as enormous as it was at the Reformation, when both sides described each other as cursed. All that has changed is the rhetoric and the diplomacy.
Maybe, but there is always potential danger when two different religions go past believing that they have the most authentic doctrines, to viewing opponents as damned for their beliefs. Someone who believes that others of a particular religion are cursed -- has no reason to value their lives in the here and now.
(Wikipedia in religious matters is for fools and the wicked. If people have something to say, they should say it themselves.)
Yeah, I get it -- learning something new is wicked.
What sort of a nincompoop deity is it that gives conflicting views on how to get to him? What sort of person follows that sort of god?
The books were written by men. You can choose to believe that they have divine inspiration, and explain away the contradictions in whatever way makes you happy! The point I seem to wasting my time trying to get across is that there are people who used the Bible to arrive at different conclusions than the ones your church decided on. You can believe that your's is the best explanations -- but it's a whole nother ballgame to have nothing but contempt for people who have different beliefs.
No book of Scripture (66 books) indicates that works are needed to be justified before God, and the RCC has had to include extra books in order to try to make its point. Many times is it written that works are necessary to demonstrate faith, to justify oneself before men and indeed to oneself, as James and Paul both agree.
So, how do you explain James 2:24 (King James Version)
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Or the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 comes across as salvation by doing good works:
..........They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
And, as I understand it, the RCC does not call their doctrine - salvation by faith and works. They consider it to be process rather than an event like being "born again." So, just having faith is not enough. Many evangelicals think of this Sola fide doctrine as a 'get out of jail free' card. This really came to mind a year or so ago, when that idiot Governor of South Carolina - Mark Sanford came back home after a visit to his mistress in Argentina. He does a sackcloth&ashes routine for a couple of days, and then proclaims that after being in prayer with his brothers at the C Street house in Washington that God has forgiven him of his sins....and he should be able to go back to work and everything should be business as usual. Well, his now ex-wife didn't buy it, and neither did many others, including people who believe in instant salvation.
Huh! Read some history about the Reformation. Protestantism started as a reform movement of the Church, not to start a bunch of independent Protestant churches. Martin Luther still considered himself to be a Catholic, right to the day he died!
Religion is not about moral principles. People in their right mind do not think that it is ok for them to be lied to, murdered or robbed. Moral principles are universal. The purpose of religion is to provide a means by which people can live up to those principles and keep a good conscience.
And this has nothing to do with dogmas or doctrines then; since a religion could be just about following a set of ethics, without requirements to believe in certain doctrines.....which is how the Unitarian/Universalist Church operates -- so there is at least one religion that is not based on making everyone believe the same things.
Perhaps. Or it may be that you are a person of criminal intent who wants people to think that people like you can call themselves Christians.
Criminal intent? What the hell are you talking about? And I've never claimed to be a Christian -- I left Christianity and all supernatural beliefs years ago, and mentioned it a number of times here.
What is certain is that those who make personal statements such as the one you made are excluded from civilised debate, let alone a church.
So! Studying other religions makes me excluded from civilized debate.....I couldn't give a rat's ass about being excluded from any church, especially whatever church you belong to!
So the point you made about them considering the sacraments essential for salvation is now withdrawn.
No, it's not withdrawn; and I provided examples of the ecumenical work that Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans were doing to bridge the gap on their salvation doctrines.....it's just not an important enough issue to me personally to bother investigating further.
Along with Baptists, Methodists, Brethren and many more, Lutherans and Anglicans accept sola fide; which leaves Catholics and Orthodox as outsiders, as far as they are concerned. And no ecumenism in the 20th century has made any difference to that, even though millions of words have been spoken and written in apparent effort to bridge the gap, which remains as enormous as it was at the Reformation, when both sides described each other as cursed. All that has changed is the rhetoric and the diplomacy.
Maybe, but there is always potential danger when two different religions go past believing that they have the most authentic doctrines, to viewing opponents as damned for their beliefs. Someone who believes that others of a particular religion are cursed -- has no reason to value their lives in the here and now.
(Wikipedia in religious matters is for fools and the wicked. If people have something to say, they should say it themselves.)
Yeah, I get it -- learning something new is wicked.
What sort of a nincompoop deity is it that gives conflicting views on how to get to him? What sort of person follows that sort of god?
The books were written by men. You can choose to believe that they have divine inspiration, and explain away the contradictions in whatever way makes you happy! The point I seem to wasting my time trying to get across is that there are people who used the Bible to arrive at different conclusions than the ones your church decided on. You can believe that your's is the best explanations -- but it's a whole nother ballgame to have nothing but contempt for people who have different beliefs.
No book of Scripture (66 books) indicates that works are needed to be justified before God, and the RCC has had to include extra books in order to try to make its point. Many times is it written that works are necessary to demonstrate faith, to justify oneself before men and indeed to oneself, as James and Paul both agree.
So, how do you explain James 2:24 (King James Version)
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Or the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 comes across as salvation by doing good works:
..........They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
And, as I understand it, the RCC does not call their doctrine - salvation by faith and works. They consider it to be process rather than an event like being "born again." So, just having faith is not enough. Many evangelicals think of this Sola fide doctrine as a 'get out of jail free' card. This really came to mind a year or so ago, when that idiot Governor of South Carolina - Mark Sanford came back home after a visit to his mistress in Argentina. He does a sackcloth&ashes routine for a couple of days, and then proclaims that after being in prayer with his brothers at the C Street house in Washington that God has forgiven him of his sins....and he should be able to go back to work and everything should be business as usual. Well, his now ex-wife didn't buy it, and neither did many others, including people who believe in instant salvation.
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
recovering conservative;1338973 wrote: Huh! Read some history about the Reformation. Protestantism started as a reform movement of the Church
Read some history. Protestantism started as a result of overbearing, avaricious priests, cuckolding friars, oppressive landowning bishops, and popes swinging swords to collect taxes. Why is the RCC not quite like that now? Because Christianity showed it up.
not to start a bunch of independent Protestant churches.
Ah. A Catholic pov.
And this has nothing to do with dogmas or doctrines then;
Another Catholic trait, falsifying the views of others.
Criminal intent?
If you bring up personal matters, you must expect to be scrutinised. Can you prove that you are not of criminal intent? Anyone who proposes that the RCC is Christian is under suspicion of criminal intent.
So! Studying other religions makes me excluded from civilized debate.
More falsification.
No, it's not withdrawn
So find the Anglican Article that shows that Anglicans believe that sacraments are necessary for justification before God. Make up your mind what you are going to say.
So, how do you explain James 2:24 (King James Version)
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
'You see then how that by works a man is justified before men, and not by mere belief.'
Or the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 comes across as salvation by doing good works:
..........They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Many times is it written that works are necessary to demonstrate faith, to justify oneself before men and indeed to oneself, as James and Paul both agree.
And, as I understand it, the RCC does not call their doctrine - salvation by faith and works.
They do. And you did so, in your last post.
Many evangelicals think of this Sola fide doctrine as a 'get out of jail free' card.
Many American evangelicals do so. But then America is not a normal place, and it has its own Mickey Mouse terminology. Elsewhere, evangelicals do not do this. They agree with Jesus, Peter, Paul, James and John that those who have faith show their faith by their works, and are removed from the church if those works fail.
This is in stark contrast with those who emphasise the value of works for justification, whose works are cited by atheists as examples of infamy that justify their unbelief.
Read some history. Protestantism started as a result of overbearing, avaricious priests, cuckolding friars, oppressive landowning bishops, and popes swinging swords to collect taxes. Why is the RCC not quite like that now? Because Christianity showed it up.
not to start a bunch of independent Protestant churches.
Ah. A Catholic pov.
And this has nothing to do with dogmas or doctrines then;
Another Catholic trait, falsifying the views of others.
Criminal intent?
If you bring up personal matters, you must expect to be scrutinised. Can you prove that you are not of criminal intent? Anyone who proposes that the RCC is Christian is under suspicion of criminal intent.
So! Studying other religions makes me excluded from civilized debate.
More falsification.
No, it's not withdrawn
So find the Anglican Article that shows that Anglicans believe that sacraments are necessary for justification before God. Make up your mind what you are going to say.
So, how do you explain James 2:24 (King James Version)
Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
'You see then how that by works a man is justified before men, and not by mere belief.'
Or the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 comes across as salvation by doing good works:
..........They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.' Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Many times is it written that works are necessary to demonstrate faith, to justify oneself before men and indeed to oneself, as James and Paul both agree.
And, as I understand it, the RCC does not call their doctrine - salvation by faith and works.
They do. And you did so, in your last post.
Many evangelicals think of this Sola fide doctrine as a 'get out of jail free' card.
Many American evangelicals do so. But then America is not a normal place, and it has its own Mickey Mouse terminology. Elsewhere, evangelicals do not do this. They agree with Jesus, Peter, Paul, James and John that those who have faith show their faith by their works, and are removed from the church if those works fail.
This is in stark contrast with those who emphasise the value of works for justification, whose works are cited by atheists as examples of infamy that justify their unbelief.
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
xyz;1338976 wrote: If you bring up personal matters, you must expect to be scrutinised. Can you prove that you are not of criminal intent? Anyone who proposes that the RCC is Christian is under suspicion of criminal intent.Standing slightly back from your current discussion, could I ask a question? What do you feel you're offering people by posting in this fashion? Anything? Nothing? The prospect of improvement? Gloating contempt?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
Talk about beating a dead horse. I've heard its not always a good idea to feed trolls, it gets boring after a while.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
Voltaire
I have only one thing to do and that's
Be the wave that I am and then
Sink back into the ocean
Fiona Apple
-
recovering conservative
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 12:28 pm
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
spot;1338978 wrote: Standing slightly back from your current discussion, could I ask a question? What do you feel you're offering people by posting in this fashion? Anything? Nothing? The prospect of improvement? Gloating contempt?
Well, I give up! I'm charged with criminal intent for saying that Catholics are Christians.
Well, I give up! I'm charged with criminal intent for saying that Catholics are Christians.
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
recovering conservative;1339034 wrote: Well, I give up!
As if you have a choice.
As if you have a choice.
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
Could we try again, you two? As any fule can see, the comment was directed at the latter, not the former.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
spot;1339056 wrote: Could we try again, you two? .
I agree if anything to get back to the original question of the post, and the idea it poses as far as having to believe in christianity in one of it many forms in order for the original question of the post to make any sense.
I agree if anything to get back to the original question of the post, and the idea it poses as far as having to believe in christianity in one of it many forms in order for the original question of the post to make any sense.
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
littleCJelkton;1339080 wrote: I agree if anything to get back to the original question of the post, and the idea it poses as far as having to believe in christianity in one of it many forms
That's falsification, isn't it.
In any case, the thread proper was finished after the second post. As ever, the frightened, the cowardly, the vile, then have to have their vile say.
That's falsification, isn't it.
In any case, the thread proper was finished after the second post. As ever, the frightened, the cowardly, the vile, then have to have their vile say.
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
xyz;1339081 wrote: That's falsification, isn't it.
In any case, the thread proper was finished after the second post. As ever, the frightened, the cowardly, the vile, then have to have their vile say.
I didn't know we were trying to not make sense, but O.K if that's the idea of the post now I can play that game too.
I like the cookies on the fried chicken, but the Sudan Governor has banned the use of a hammer on the platypus in the area, but wouldn't you agree the need more hair spray if they expect to make cheese out of that cake?
In any case, the thread proper was finished after the second post. As ever, the frightened, the cowardly, the vile, then have to have their vile say.
I didn't know we were trying to not make sense, but O.K if that's the idea of the post now I can play that game too.
I like the cookies on the fried chicken, but the Sudan Governor has banned the use of a hammer on the platypus in the area, but wouldn't you agree the need more hair spray if they expect to make cheese out of that cake?
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
littleCJelkton;1339083 wrote: I didn't know we were trying to not make sense, but O.K if that's the idea of the post now I can play that game too.
I like the cookies on the fried chicken, but the Sudan Governor has banned the use of a hammer on the platypus in the area, but wouldn't you agree the need more hair spray if they expect to make cheese out of that cake?
As if we needed more evidence that the truth stings.
I like the cookies on the fried chicken, but the Sudan Governor has banned the use of a hammer on the platypus in the area, but wouldn't you agree the need more hair spray if they expect to make cheese out of that cake?
As if we needed more evidence that the truth stings.
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
xyz;1339085 wrote: As if we needed more evidence that the truth stings.
So you believe in the truth Bee too. I have some cordizone cream for that stinger. I dont know if it will work for you though because the in only works on truth that makes logic and sense, but we could try it.
So you believe in the truth Bee too. I have some cordizone cream for that stinger. I dont know if it will work for you though because the in only works on truth that makes logic and sense, but we could try it.
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
xyz;1339085 wrote: As if we needed more evidence that the truth stings.
No, you've provided all the evidence we will ever need - one day you will be able to accept the truth, I'm sure. Just how long that will be is up to you.
No, you've provided all the evidence we will ever need - one day you will be able to accept the truth, I'm sure. Just how long that will be is up to you.
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
littleCJelkton;1339089 wrote: So you believe in the truth Bee too. I have some cordizone cream for that stinger. I dont know if it will work for you though because the in only works on truth that makes logic and sense, but we could try it.
As if we needed more evidence that the truth stings.
As if we needed more evidence that the truth stings.
-
littleCJelkton
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 5:57 pm
Only those who give themselves to Jesus Christ will go to Heaven
xyz;1339093 wrote: As if we needed more evidence that the truth stings.
We are down to repeatition now, maybe we have ran out of unreasonalbeness. Although, if were doing things that sting we could make it a truth scorpion, or wasp, or hornet, could be a mosquito but they dont really sting.
oh and there is sting the wrestler
and sting the singer
We are down to repeatition now, maybe we have ran out of unreasonalbeness. Although, if were doing things that sting we could make it a truth scorpion, or wasp, or hornet, could be a mosquito but they dont really sting.
oh and there is sting the wrestler
and sting the singer