chonsigirl wrote: 1. It was not an invitation to promote our denominations or beliefs, but a condemnation of Protestants, insinuating that we do not identify what church we attend.
2. I think the replies in this thread speak otherwise.1. Chon, you are (a) mistaken and (b) too thin-skinned. I am by nature an outspoken person, perhaps too much so at times, and not given to insinuation; if there is any of that here, it is your own.
Also, you are quoting out of context. Here is exactly what I said, this time I have added only the emphasis:Bronwen wrote: One thing I have noticed on religious discussion boards is that Jews, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglicans/Episcopalians are nearly always very open about their affiliations.
In the case of Protestants, however, this does not always seem to be the case. And the more fundamentalistic the Protestant, the less readily s/he seems to be willing to identify denomination or specific church.
I'm not sure why that is, maybe it's just my imagination. In any case, I thought it would be nice to provide an opportunity for everyone who contributes to this board to 'plug' their denomination or specific church.That seems pretty straightforward to me. I then 'started the ball rolling' by providing links to Churches I attend in Germany and the USA. Did you (or for that matter anyone following this thread) find anything on these sites that condemned or made 'insinuations' about Protestants? If so, please let me know.
2. That is exactly why I started the thread. Thanks to everyone who responded, including yourself, and by the way, I hoped I explained the Catholic/Orthodox wedding situation to your satisfaction.
An Open Invitation
An Open Invitation
Far Rider wrote: So when you asked this question to Tele, were you seriously asking or was this a disrespectful slam?I would say it was about as respectful as...tele wrote: It's the Pope, and many of the teachings of RC that we take exception to. We think some of those teachings, which have been embraced by other "protestant" denominations, defame God, mix Paganism with Christianity, and dangerously mix Church and State....which are claims I don't necessarily see as disrespectful if they can be supported, which tele has declined to do.. Maybe you, or some other poster, would care to support them yourself, but if so, please start a new thread.
By the way, tele's reply does not seem to indicate that he considered it a slam or offensive. As I said, I'll respect your beliefs to the extent that you respect mine, BUT when accusations are made, the accuser should be prepared to support them.
I would seriously like to know how Roman Catholicism, the only Christianity that existed in the Western world until the sixteenth century, 'defames God' and 'dangerously mixes Church and state', because in 65 years as a Catholic I have never discerned that. I cannot imagine how the Mystical Body of Christ, the community of believers He founded on Peter following his confession of faith, 'defames God'. And Catholics have always staunchly defended the separation of Church and state, as have Jews and, I think, most Protestants. If you wish to see 'dangerous mixing of Church and state' within Christianity (I won't even get into Islam), I commend to your attention the various fundamentalist Protestants who keep trying to get nonsense like 'creationism' taught in public school science classes. But these things are better discussed on a separate thread, and if no one else starts one, I may do so myself.
Nearly ALL of Christianity contains elements of paganism, as does Judaism, so that is something upon which tele and I can probably agree.
By the way, tele's reply does not seem to indicate that he considered it a slam or offensive. As I said, I'll respect your beliefs to the extent that you respect mine, BUT when accusations are made, the accuser should be prepared to support them.
I would seriously like to know how Roman Catholicism, the only Christianity that existed in the Western world until the sixteenth century, 'defames God' and 'dangerously mixes Church and state', because in 65 years as a Catholic I have never discerned that. I cannot imagine how the Mystical Body of Christ, the community of believers He founded on Peter following his confession of faith, 'defames God'. And Catholics have always staunchly defended the separation of Church and state, as have Jews and, I think, most Protestants. If you wish to see 'dangerous mixing of Church and state' within Christianity (I won't even get into Islam), I commend to your attention the various fundamentalist Protestants who keep trying to get nonsense like 'creationism' taught in public school science classes. But these things are better discussed on a separate thread, and if no one else starts one, I may do so myself.
Nearly ALL of Christianity contains elements of paganism, as does Judaism, so that is something upon which tele and I can probably agree.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: …Roman Catholicism, the only Christianity that existed in the Western world until the sixteenth century…
Christianity originated in the Middle East, and spread first to Asia, which some don’t include in the Western world. Jesus and His apostles were all Jewish. Practically all the first converts resulting from the baptism of the Holy Spirit of the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost were Jews. There wasn’t any significant outreach to Gentiles until after the stoning of Stephen, which probably occurred at least three years after the Cross. The first church called Christian was not in Rome, but in Antioch. A study of the New Testament is sufficient to demonstrate that the teachings and practices of those early Christians had marked differences from those of Roman Catholicism.
Acts 11:19,20
Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. 20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.
Acts 11:26b
… The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
In most of the Western world, the Popes’ curiously unChristlike habit of burning and torturing all dissenters hampered the spread of any kind of Christianity other than Roman Catholicism. This continued long enough to ensure the Papal domination of Europe and Latin America. It was the political power of the Pope over the kings of Europe- the unholy mixture of Church and State that made this happen. I would say that this, all done haughtily in the name of our Lord, and which no historian will dispute, constitutes a severe defamation of God.
Bronwen wrote: Nearly All of Christianity contains elements of paganism, as does Judaism, so that is something upon which tele and I can probably agree.
This is true. Nearly all Christianity does indeed contain some elements of paganism. Most if not all of that was imported into Christianity through Roman Catholicism. This is what accounts for the differences between Roman Catholicism and the original faith delivered to the saints.
The Old Testament records that the Jews over and over again mixed the religion of their pagan neighbors with the worship of God. God found this practice particularly offensive, using the metaphors of prostitution and adultery to describe it, so that prostitution and adultery became a Biblical symbol for the mixture of idolatry into the worship of God.
Leviticus 20:5
I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.
Jeremiah 3:9
Because Israel's immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood.
Ezekiel 16:16,17
You took some of your garments to make gaudy high places, where you carried on your prostitution. Such things should not happen, nor should they ever occur.
17 You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them.
God's prohibition of syncretism is equally strong in the New Testament as in the Old.
Deuteronomy 12:3,4
Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places. 4 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way.
2 Corinthians 6:16,17
What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." 17 "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."
In the New Testament, a corrupt, idolatrous mother church is described as MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Here are a few interesting observations about the entity in question.
Revelation 17:6
I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished.
As I pointed out, the church gained it’s greatest power and ascendancy by killing it’s opponents- those who stood against her unbiblical teachings and sealed their faith in God’s word with their own blood at the hands of the Pope’s inquisitors.
Revelation 17:9
"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.
Coincidentally, Rome is the classical “City of Seven Hills.â€
Revelation 17:2
With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries."
The unholy union of church and state is fittingly described as adultery with the kings of the earth.
I have barely scratched the surface, but this is all I have time to share today.
Christianity originated in the Middle East, and spread first to Asia, which some don’t include in the Western world. Jesus and His apostles were all Jewish. Practically all the first converts resulting from the baptism of the Holy Spirit of the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost were Jews. There wasn’t any significant outreach to Gentiles until after the stoning of Stephen, which probably occurred at least three years after the Cross. The first church called Christian was not in Rome, but in Antioch. A study of the New Testament is sufficient to demonstrate that the teachings and practices of those early Christians had marked differences from those of Roman Catholicism.
Acts 11:19,20
Now those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews. 20 Some of them, however, men from Cyprus and Cyrene, went to Antioch and began to speak to Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus.
Acts 11:26b
… The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
In most of the Western world, the Popes’ curiously unChristlike habit of burning and torturing all dissenters hampered the spread of any kind of Christianity other than Roman Catholicism. This continued long enough to ensure the Papal domination of Europe and Latin America. It was the political power of the Pope over the kings of Europe- the unholy mixture of Church and State that made this happen. I would say that this, all done haughtily in the name of our Lord, and which no historian will dispute, constitutes a severe defamation of God.
Bronwen wrote: Nearly All of Christianity contains elements of paganism, as does Judaism, so that is something upon which tele and I can probably agree.
This is true. Nearly all Christianity does indeed contain some elements of paganism. Most if not all of that was imported into Christianity through Roman Catholicism. This is what accounts for the differences between Roman Catholicism and the original faith delivered to the saints.
The Old Testament records that the Jews over and over again mixed the religion of their pagan neighbors with the worship of God. God found this practice particularly offensive, using the metaphors of prostitution and adultery to describe it, so that prostitution and adultery became a Biblical symbol for the mixture of idolatry into the worship of God.
Leviticus 20:5
I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molech.
Jeremiah 3:9
Because Israel's immorality mattered so little to her, she defiled the land and committed adultery with stone and wood.
Ezekiel 16:16,17
You took some of your garments to make gaudy high places, where you carried on your prostitution. Such things should not happen, nor should they ever occur.
17 You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them.
God's prohibition of syncretism is equally strong in the New Testament as in the Old.
Deuteronomy 12:3,4
Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places. 4 You must not worship the LORD your God in their way.
2 Corinthians 6:16,17
What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." 17 "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you."
In the New Testament, a corrupt, idolatrous mother church is described as MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
Here are a few interesting observations about the entity in question.
Revelation 17:6
I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished.
As I pointed out, the church gained it’s greatest power and ascendancy by killing it’s opponents- those who stood against her unbiblical teachings and sealed their faith in God’s word with their own blood at the hands of the Pope’s inquisitors.
Revelation 17:9
"This calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits.
Coincidentally, Rome is the classical “City of Seven Hills.â€
Revelation 17:2
With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries."
The unholy union of church and state is fittingly described as adultery with the kings of the earth.
I have barely scratched the surface, but this is all I have time to share today.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: 1. Chon, you are (a) mistaken and (b) too thin-skinned. I am by nature an outspoken person, perhaps too much so at times, and not given to insinuation; if there is any of that here, it is your own.
Also, you are quoting out of context. Here is exactly what I said, this time I have added only the emphasis:That seems pretty straightforward to me. I then 'started the ball rolling' by providing links to Churches I attend in Germany and the USA. Did you (or for that matter anyone following this thread) find anything on these sites that condemned or made 'insinuations' about Protestants? If so, please let me know.
2. That is exactly why I started the thread. Thanks to everyone who responded, including yourself, and by the way, I hoped I explained the Catholic/Orthodox wedding situation to your satisfaction.
Brownen, I am not mistaken, or too thin-skinned. Good try on your part, though.
You started the thread for other reasons, it is ok to change it as it goes along. But I went back to your original post, and quoted in context.
And no, you did not explain the Catholic/Orthodox to my satisfaction, because I have had different experiences so I know that between these two churches there are conflicts. Also, you would have to delve deeper into the Orthodox churches, there are more then one. There would also be conflict if it occured between Catholic and Russian Orthodox, unless two priests agreed on the ceremony and participated.
Also, you are quoting out of context. Here is exactly what I said, this time I have added only the emphasis:That seems pretty straightforward to me. I then 'started the ball rolling' by providing links to Churches I attend in Germany and the USA. Did you (or for that matter anyone following this thread) find anything on these sites that condemned or made 'insinuations' about Protestants? If so, please let me know.
2. That is exactly why I started the thread. Thanks to everyone who responded, including yourself, and by the way, I hoped I explained the Catholic/Orthodox wedding situation to your satisfaction.
Brownen, I am not mistaken, or too thin-skinned. Good try on your part, though.
You started the thread for other reasons, it is ok to change it as it goes along. But I went back to your original post, and quoted in context.
And no, you did not explain the Catholic/Orthodox to my satisfaction, because I have had different experiences so I know that between these two churches there are conflicts. Also, you would have to delve deeper into the Orthodox churches, there are more then one. There would also be conflict if it occured between Catholic and Russian Orthodox, unless two priests agreed on the ceremony and participated.
An Open Invitation
When Jesus was alive and walking the earth as a fully human being there were many Judaisms. There was not just one.
So too with Christianity. The churc began to split with differences of opinion shortly after the crucifixion. Crossan "The Birth of Christianity". Thus we had several "denominations" before Constantine ever made it the Religion of State. Having said that the church has developed through the centuries based on the Bible, tradition [which began with the apostles], common sense along with the councils of the church. John 16:12-15 clearly shows that the revelations of God go on past the Bible.
AS far as the Bible God the Jewish folk in ltheir widsom never took it all literally. They wrote the book, they used their usual style of midrash which makes extensive use of metaphor. Are we daring to tell the Jews how to interpret their book. Something does not have to be historically true to be true. OIther styles of writing can also present truths i.e. "Oliver Twist" by Dickens presented lots of truth about his day. Spong "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism".
We have made the error of trying to read it literally and this does not work.
Shalom
Ted:-6
So too with Christianity. The churc began to split with differences of opinion shortly after the crucifixion. Crossan "The Birth of Christianity". Thus we had several "denominations" before Constantine ever made it the Religion of State. Having said that the church has developed through the centuries based on the Bible, tradition [which began with the apostles], common sense along with the councils of the church. John 16:12-15 clearly shows that the revelations of God go on past the Bible.
AS far as the Bible God the Jewish folk in ltheir widsom never took it all literally. They wrote the book, they used their usual style of midrash which makes extensive use of metaphor. Are we daring to tell the Jews how to interpret their book. Something does not have to be historically true to be true. OIther styles of writing can also present truths i.e. "Oliver Twist" by Dickens presented lots of truth about his day. Spong "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism".
We have made the error of trying to read it literally and this does not work.
Shalom
Ted:-6
An Open Invitation
FarRider:-6
I disagree. The Bibe is a powerfully profound book. It is part of the basis of Christianity.
Pick and choose. I suppose if you accept that our loving God who through our Lord gave us the Great Commandment re Love [agape] would permit war crimes as per Num 31 then go for it.
If you accept that the sun stood still for 24-48 hours then go for it.
If you accept the contradiction oh well.
It seems to me this Jesus also said to turn the other cheak.
Shalom
Ted
I disagree. The Bibe is a powerfully profound book. It is part of the basis of Christianity.
Pick and choose. I suppose if you accept that our loving God who through our Lord gave us the Great Commandment re Love [agape] would permit war crimes as per Num 31 then go for it.
If you accept that the sun stood still for 24-48 hours then go for it.
If you accept the contradiction oh well.
It seems to me this Jesus also said to turn the other cheak.
Shalom
Ted
An Open Invitation
I just cannot pass this one up....
Bronwen wrote:
And Catholics have always staunchly defended the separation of Church and state,
Probably because they don't want the government interfering with their priests raping little boys.
Bronwen wrote:
And Catholics have always staunchly defended the separation of Church and state,
Probably because they don't want the government interfering with their priests raping little boys.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
An Open Invitation
Ted wrote: Thus we had several "denominations" before Constantine ever made it the Religion of State. Hi, Ted!
I don't believe it was the genuine article that Constantine made the Religion of State. Christianity by virtue of Jesus' teachings becomes Anti-Christianity when an attempt is made to make it a state religion. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." If it is a kingdom of this world in a political sense, it is not Christ's kingdom.
Constantine was an astute politician. He realized that the more the empire persecuted Christians, the more people could see that Christianity was real- not the man made religion of Roman paganism. Christianity was spreading throughout the empire, and the pagans were concerned that this could undermine their culture. Constantine's government feared loss of power and authority. Remember how, when the Romans conquered the Greek empire, they took the Greek pantheon and re-named the gods new Roman names?They created a hybrid of Hellenism and Roman paganism. They did this to merge the Greek people into a new political entity. Constantine, by the ingenious "vision" he claimed to have, that he related to his historian, Eusebius, of seeing the cross superimposed in the sun, created a new religion that was a hybrid of Roman sun worship and Christianity to incorporate the emerging Christianity into the existing system of Roman paganism. (Of course, by virtue of the abomination of the mixture of paganism and God's true religion, this hybrid was in no way an acceptable form of Christianity). Constantine was the first to codify officially the worship day of Christians as, what he called "The Venerable Day of the Sun." Constantine was a worshipper of Sol Invictus, the "unconquered sun." It was a stroke of political genius. The religion Constantine created effectively preserved and perpetuated the Roman empire, even after it's secular government collapsed.
I don't believe it was the genuine article that Constantine made the Religion of State. Christianity by virtue of Jesus' teachings becomes Anti-Christianity when an attempt is made to make it a state religion. Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." If it is a kingdom of this world in a political sense, it is not Christ's kingdom.
Constantine was an astute politician. He realized that the more the empire persecuted Christians, the more people could see that Christianity was real- not the man made religion of Roman paganism. Christianity was spreading throughout the empire, and the pagans were concerned that this could undermine their culture. Constantine's government feared loss of power and authority. Remember how, when the Romans conquered the Greek empire, they took the Greek pantheon and re-named the gods new Roman names?They created a hybrid of Hellenism and Roman paganism. They did this to merge the Greek people into a new political entity. Constantine, by the ingenious "vision" he claimed to have, that he related to his historian, Eusebius, of seeing the cross superimposed in the sun, created a new religion that was a hybrid of Roman sun worship and Christianity to incorporate the emerging Christianity into the existing system of Roman paganism. (Of course, by virtue of the abomination of the mixture of paganism and God's true religion, this hybrid was in no way an acceptable form of Christianity). Constantine was the first to codify officially the worship day of Christians as, what he called "The Venerable Day of the Sun." Constantine was a worshipper of Sol Invictus, the "unconquered sun." It was a stroke of political genius. The religion Constantine created effectively preserved and perpetuated the Roman empire, even after it's secular government collapsed.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
An Open Invitation
Ted wrote:
If you accept that the sun stood still for 24-48 hours then go for it.
Ted, you do not believe in the miracle of sun standing still for Joshua?
If you accept that the sun stood still for 24-48 hours then go for it.
Ted, you do not believe in the miracle of sun standing still for Joshua?
An Open Invitation
telaquapacky wrote: 1. Christianity originated in the Middle East, and spread first to Asia, which some don’t include in the Western world. Jesus and His apostles were all Jewish. Practically all the first converts resulting from the baptism of the Holy Spirit of the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost were Jews. There wasn’t any significant outreach to Gentiles until after the stoning of Stephen, which probably occurred at least three years after the Cross. The first church called Christian was not in Rome, but in Antioch.
2. A study of the New Testament is sufficient to demonstrate that the teachings and practices of those early Christians had marked differences from those of Roman Catholicism.
3. In the New Testament, a corrupt, idolatrous mother church is described as MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
4. I have barely scratched the surface, but this is all I have time to share today.1. Tel, you are correct, and this is why I would like to engage you in further dialogue on a separate thread, as you seem very well informed, which most fundamentalists are not. I was not disputing the origins of Christianity by any means, I only noted that there were no significant divisions in the Western world before the so-called Protestant Reformation because there WERE divisions in the East and I wanted to make that distinction.
2. Here I'm not sure I follow you. Can you provide some NT citations? If you are implying that certain aspects of Christian belief and worship developed after NT times (and I don't know that you are implying that, I'm just guessing), you are absolutely correct. But what is your point?
3. Here is where you go seriously astray. The passages you quote clearly refer to pagan Rome, not to any Church. Here is, for example, an excerpt from the Good News Bible's introduction to Revelation:"The Revelation to John was written at a time when Christians were being persecuted because of their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. The writer's main concern is to give his readers hope and encouragement, and to urge them to remain faithful during times of suffering and persecution.
For the most part the book consists of several series of revelations and visions presented in symbolic language that would have been understood by Christians of that day, but would have remained a mystery to all others. As with the themes of a symphony, the themes of this book are repeated again and again in different ways through the series of visions."VERY well put! Revelation is then, a book of faith, a book of encouragement, a book of LITERATURE, not prophecy, written about the events of John's time for the Christian readers of his time. It is prophetic only to the extent that in the end, the Lord will be victorious and the faithful will be rewarded.
But then most Christians knew that anyway. The outer fringes of Christianity, which includes the SDA, who present the Bible as something it is not in order to advance their own agenda, do a disservice to themselves, to the Bible and to Christianity.
The nitty-gritty is this: If you wish to assert that the Roamn Catholic Church is not the community of believers founded by Christ on Peter, then in order to support such an assertion you have to cite the point at which that ceased to be the case, and this is something that non-Catholic Christianity has never been able to do. Ask ten anti-Catholics, you will get at least ten different answers, each one as inane as the next. But they keep trying.
4. I intend to start a new thread on this topic as soon as time permits, and you will certainly be welcome to contribute, as will everyone else who has viewed this thread in whole or in part.
2. A study of the New Testament is sufficient to demonstrate that the teachings and practices of those early Christians had marked differences from those of Roman Catholicism.
3. In the New Testament, a corrupt, idolatrous mother church is described as MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
4. I have barely scratched the surface, but this is all I have time to share today.1. Tel, you are correct, and this is why I would like to engage you in further dialogue on a separate thread, as you seem very well informed, which most fundamentalists are not. I was not disputing the origins of Christianity by any means, I only noted that there were no significant divisions in the Western world before the so-called Protestant Reformation because there WERE divisions in the East and I wanted to make that distinction.
2. Here I'm not sure I follow you. Can you provide some NT citations? If you are implying that certain aspects of Christian belief and worship developed after NT times (and I don't know that you are implying that, I'm just guessing), you are absolutely correct. But what is your point?
3. Here is where you go seriously astray. The passages you quote clearly refer to pagan Rome, not to any Church. Here is, for example, an excerpt from the Good News Bible's introduction to Revelation:"The Revelation to John was written at a time when Christians were being persecuted because of their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord. The writer's main concern is to give his readers hope and encouragement, and to urge them to remain faithful during times of suffering and persecution.
For the most part the book consists of several series of revelations and visions presented in symbolic language that would have been understood by Christians of that day, but would have remained a mystery to all others. As with the themes of a symphony, the themes of this book are repeated again and again in different ways through the series of visions."VERY well put! Revelation is then, a book of faith, a book of encouragement, a book of LITERATURE, not prophecy, written about the events of John's time for the Christian readers of his time. It is prophetic only to the extent that in the end, the Lord will be victorious and the faithful will be rewarded.
But then most Christians knew that anyway. The outer fringes of Christianity, which includes the SDA, who present the Bible as something it is not in order to advance their own agenda, do a disservice to themselves, to the Bible and to Christianity.
The nitty-gritty is this: If you wish to assert that the Roamn Catholic Church is not the community of believers founded by Christ on Peter, then in order to support such an assertion you have to cite the point at which that ceased to be the case, and this is something that non-Catholic Christianity has never been able to do. Ask ten anti-Catholics, you will get at least ten different answers, each one as inane as the next. But they keep trying.
4. I intend to start a new thread on this topic as soon as time permits, and you will certainly be welcome to contribute, as will everyone else who has viewed this thread in whole or in part.
An Open Invitation
chonsigirl wrote: 1. And no, you did not explain the Catholic/Orthodox to my satisfaction, because I have had different experiences so I know that between these two churches there are conflicts. Also, you would have to delve deeper into the Orthodox churches, there are more then one.
2. There would also be conflict if it occured between Catholic and Russian Orthodox, unless two priests agreed on the ceremony and participated.
1. Chon, no one is disputing that there are conflicts, but those conflicts do not include the validity of Orthodox sacramants and orders; that is something upon which both Churches have always been in agreement.
2. There is no requirement that a Catholic priest participate, only that the Catholic partner notify his/her bishop and receive permission, which, as far as I know, is always granted, assuming the Orthodox Church is authentic and not in some way heretical. I really don't know how to state it more clearly.
2. There would also be conflict if it occured between Catholic and Russian Orthodox, unless two priests agreed on the ceremony and participated.
1. Chon, no one is disputing that there are conflicts, but those conflicts do not include the validity of Orthodox sacramants and orders; that is something upon which both Churches have always been in agreement.
2. There is no requirement that a Catholic priest participate, only that the Catholic partner notify his/her bishop and receive permission, which, as far as I know, is always granted, assuming the Orthodox Church is authentic and not in some way heretical. I really don't know how to state it more clearly.
An Open Invitation
Bronwen:-6
I'm happy that you responded to that one, otherwise I would have. I do disagree with you on Revelation but we can talk about that elsewhere.
Chonsigirl:-6
The sun standing still for 24 hours is absolute myth and nothing else.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I'm happy that you responded to that one, otherwise I would have. I do disagree with you on Revelation but we can talk about that elsewhere.
Chonsigirl:-6
The sun standing still for 24 hours is absolute myth and nothing else.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
An Open Invitation
Ted, how can you be selective about what portion of the Bible to believe or not?
If you disbelieve one miracle, how can you believe in another?
If God created the sun, He can make it stand still for 24 hours.
If you disbelieve one miracle, how can you believe in another?
If God created the sun, He can make it stand still for 24 hours.
-
SweetDarlin
- Posts: 1121
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:53 am
An Open Invitation
Ted wrote: Chonsigirl:-6
The sun standing still for 24 hours is absolute myth and nothing else.
Shalommy, but my...
I have read this entire thread once again... i have but little comments.
First and foremost... Ted, it doesn't matter what you are saying if you present it as fact via your own arrogance. Because of this I find your sunny faces and wishes of peace offensive.
Bronwen, you've said lots of good things in this thread... and some not so good. I'm only submitting MY opinion... that like Ted, you must be careful how you say things. You have some decent arguments, and I wish I thought that they truly were arguments open for discussion. Unfortunately, they come across as a holier-than-thou attitude and smell badly of an agenda.
Just my opinion. If I'm wrong. I apologize in advance. God bless you.
(ohhh, I took so long to post Chonsi, ya beat me to it.)
The sun standing still for 24 hours is absolute myth and nothing else.
Shalommy, but my...
I have read this entire thread once again... i have but little comments.
First and foremost... Ted, it doesn't matter what you are saying if you present it as fact via your own arrogance. Because of this I find your sunny faces and wishes of peace offensive.
Bronwen, you've said lots of good things in this thread... and some not so good. I'm only submitting MY opinion... that like Ted, you must be careful how you say things. You have some decent arguments, and I wish I thought that they truly were arguments open for discussion. Unfortunately, they come across as a holier-than-thou attitude and smell badly of an agenda.
Just my opinion. If I'm wrong. I apologize in advance. God bless you.
(ohhh, I took so long to post Chonsi, ya beat me to it.)
[FONT=Georgia]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
An Open Invitation
posted by telepaquacky
Believe it or not, Pope Benedict said something I really agreed with. He complained how nowadays it is out of fashion to believe in anything. A lot of people are turned off to "organized religion" because they are too mentally or spiritually lazy to commit their loyalty to a distinct set of beliefs, and a fellowship of believers. In some ways I can more identify with a strong sectarian believer with whom I disagree than someone who tries to be non-sectarian in order to agree (or disagree) with everybody. You may not agree with Bronwen, but you can't fault his conscientiousness.
That's the kind of sophistry beloved of the religious when they fail to persuade someone to join in their belief system. It's nothing to do with it being out of fashion or being too lazy it quite simply is that people are no longer as gullible as they once were and less ready to believe everything they are told, the social pressures to conform to "religious belief" no longer have the power they once had, being excommunicated or whatever is no longer the terror it once was. It's now safe to say I don't believe because the church has lost it's temporal power to terrorise people in to submission or to just keeping quiet.
I am not a religious believer and usually keep away from religious forums out of respect. Although I do love a good arguement, but I appreciate that what to me is a dispassionate intellectual debate touches on what some hold very dear indeed-apart from that if you don't believe that the bible is the unchanged word of god handed down through the ages and should be taken literally there is not much point arguing with someone that quotes the bible as proof because they believe it to be the true word of god and can't understand that such a belief may be to some an irrational one because they think not believing what is to them is self evident is irrational as well. live let live,
On the other hand Bronwen's first post intrigued me. I can understand why protestants are reticent about identifying their church-especially the more extreme ones but then I happen to live in an area where sectarianism is a major social problem. I know both staunch protestants and equally staunch catholics who cut off conact with a family member should they dare to marry outside their religon indeed it is something you learn to be very circumspect about in the company of strangers, the discussion isn't about the glory of god but more the glory of the differences and let's fight about it. I suspect many don't post to avoid geting in to verbal battles with catholics. Course I could be totally wrong in that opinion.
I would seriously like to know how Roman Catholicism, the only Christianity that existed in the Western world until the sixteenth century, 'defames God' and 'dangerously mixes Church and state', because in 65 years as a Catholic I have never discerned that. I cannot imagine how the Mystical Body of Christ, the community of believers He founded on Peter following his confession of faith, 'defames God'. And Catholics have always staunchly defended the separation of Church and state, as have Jews and, I think, most Protestants. If you wish to see 'dangerous mixing of Church and state' within Christianity (I won't even get into Islam), I commend to your attention the various fundamentalist Protestants who keep trying to get nonsense like 'creationism' taught in public school science classes. But these things are better discussed on a separate thread, and if no one else starts one, I may do so myself.
I won't comment on defames god but how can you seriously suggest the catholic church didn't mix church and state? Indeed there were many popes whose temporal power arguably mattered more to them than their immortal soul. Even the most casual glance at the history of europe brings home the impact oF warfare caused by mixing politics and religon. Not content with worrying about spiritual wellbeing the catholic church has never been averse to warfare to impose their religious beliefs. The same charge that could be said of the protestants of course. If you live in Britain have you not noticed the state religon isn't Roman catholicism. It was hardly a peaceful transition.
What do you think the inquisition was all about-it was to make sure that everone followed the one true way and any christian beliefs that didn't fit the correct pattern were suppressed so worried were they by the number of different christian sects who didn't accept the authority of the pope.
In Scotland the native catholic church was suppressed in favour of the Roman catholic one favoured by a queen who went on to be Saint Margaret being canonized in 1251 by pope innocent in honour of her bringing christianity to Scotland-she didn't it was already there it just was not the right kind.
All religons try and control the state given half a chance whatever their denomination. Given half a chance they will control the way people think as well. Puritan England under Cromwell was no place for someone who enjoyed a good laugh.
Arguably the one thing you can say all the churches have in common is that all of them had a habit of acting towards those who didn't agree with them with a remarkable lack of christian charity. No doubt many genuinely believed burning heretics was for their own good.
Maybe you can all explain to a devout non believer.
Given that you all share a belief in JC as the saviour why are you arguing about petty differences about how you worship? Does not worshipping in the right way really mean you go to hell?
Believe it or not, Pope Benedict said something I really agreed with. He complained how nowadays it is out of fashion to believe in anything. A lot of people are turned off to "organized religion" because they are too mentally or spiritually lazy to commit their loyalty to a distinct set of beliefs, and a fellowship of believers. In some ways I can more identify with a strong sectarian believer with whom I disagree than someone who tries to be non-sectarian in order to agree (or disagree) with everybody. You may not agree with Bronwen, but you can't fault his conscientiousness.
That's the kind of sophistry beloved of the religious when they fail to persuade someone to join in their belief system. It's nothing to do with it being out of fashion or being too lazy it quite simply is that people are no longer as gullible as they once were and less ready to believe everything they are told, the social pressures to conform to "religious belief" no longer have the power they once had, being excommunicated or whatever is no longer the terror it once was. It's now safe to say I don't believe because the church has lost it's temporal power to terrorise people in to submission or to just keeping quiet.
I am not a religious believer and usually keep away from religious forums out of respect. Although I do love a good arguement, but I appreciate that what to me is a dispassionate intellectual debate touches on what some hold very dear indeed-apart from that if you don't believe that the bible is the unchanged word of god handed down through the ages and should be taken literally there is not much point arguing with someone that quotes the bible as proof because they believe it to be the true word of god and can't understand that such a belief may be to some an irrational one because they think not believing what is to them is self evident is irrational as well. live let live,
On the other hand Bronwen's first post intrigued me. I can understand why protestants are reticent about identifying their church-especially the more extreme ones but then I happen to live in an area where sectarianism is a major social problem. I know both staunch protestants and equally staunch catholics who cut off conact with a family member should they dare to marry outside their religon indeed it is something you learn to be very circumspect about in the company of strangers, the discussion isn't about the glory of god but more the glory of the differences and let's fight about it. I suspect many don't post to avoid geting in to verbal battles with catholics. Course I could be totally wrong in that opinion.
I would seriously like to know how Roman Catholicism, the only Christianity that existed in the Western world until the sixteenth century, 'defames God' and 'dangerously mixes Church and state', because in 65 years as a Catholic I have never discerned that. I cannot imagine how the Mystical Body of Christ, the community of believers He founded on Peter following his confession of faith, 'defames God'. And Catholics have always staunchly defended the separation of Church and state, as have Jews and, I think, most Protestants. If you wish to see 'dangerous mixing of Church and state' within Christianity (I won't even get into Islam), I commend to your attention the various fundamentalist Protestants who keep trying to get nonsense like 'creationism' taught in public school science classes. But these things are better discussed on a separate thread, and if no one else starts one, I may do so myself.
I won't comment on defames god but how can you seriously suggest the catholic church didn't mix church and state? Indeed there were many popes whose temporal power arguably mattered more to them than their immortal soul. Even the most casual glance at the history of europe brings home the impact oF warfare caused by mixing politics and religon. Not content with worrying about spiritual wellbeing the catholic church has never been averse to warfare to impose their religious beliefs. The same charge that could be said of the protestants of course. If you live in Britain have you not noticed the state religon isn't Roman catholicism. It was hardly a peaceful transition.
What do you think the inquisition was all about-it was to make sure that everone followed the one true way and any christian beliefs that didn't fit the correct pattern were suppressed so worried were they by the number of different christian sects who didn't accept the authority of the pope.
In Scotland the native catholic church was suppressed in favour of the Roman catholic one favoured by a queen who went on to be Saint Margaret being canonized in 1251 by pope innocent in honour of her bringing christianity to Scotland-she didn't it was already there it just was not the right kind.
All religons try and control the state given half a chance whatever their denomination. Given half a chance they will control the way people think as well. Puritan England under Cromwell was no place for someone who enjoyed a good laugh.
Arguably the one thing you can say all the churches have in common is that all of them had a habit of acting towards those who didn't agree with them with a remarkable lack of christian charity. No doubt many genuinely believed burning heretics was for their own good.
Maybe you can all explain to a devout non believer.
Given that you all share a belief in JC as the saviour why are you arguing about petty differences about how you worship? Does not worshipping in the right way really mean you go to hell?
An Open Invitation
chonsigirl:-6
It hinges on what you believe about the Bible and God. After about 45 years of study, both formal and informal I have learned a lot about the Bible as that was a major interest on my part. That is also why I studied translation and interpretation along with Biblical history.
The Bible is man's response to his experiences of the Divine. It is made up of myth, legend, folk tale, short story, fiction, poetry and some history thrown in here and there. It was written in a midrashic style which was the style of the ancient writers. It was and is a religous book it is neither a literal history or book on science.
So how can we be sure that our reading is accurate. First of all midrash is important. That is the style in which it was written and should be interpreted. In John 16:12-15 Jesus clears states that we have not yet received all of God's revelations, that there is more to come. As christians we need to pray, meditate, study, discuss, research etc. relying on the Holy Spirit to guide us. So as Christians we rely on not only the Bible as a teacher, but also tradition and common sense. We can also look to the Church Councils whom we firmly believe were guided by the Holy Spirit.
God does not perform magic and make believe. He has no need. This in no way denies the miracles of Jesus. God uses the natural processes to obtain what He wants. He does not interfere in our daily lives because He has given us free will and to do otherwise is to make us automitons and puppets. This is not what God wants.
The authors never intended it to be read literally and the Jews do not take it that way. After all they wrote the book they ought to know how to interpret it.
The problem with many Christians today in this very troubled and dangerous world is that they are looking for some concrete guarantee concerning the future. They hope that they will see in the Bible that concretness in writing. However, God has shown us that the real approach is to be by faith and hope not by sight. To demand that the Bible give us the concretness that we want is to distrust God.
It is about faith and hope and trust in God when we follow this Jesus.
I can say more if you wish. Just ask specif questions so that I don't have to type a book.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It hinges on what you believe about the Bible and God. After about 45 years of study, both formal and informal I have learned a lot about the Bible as that was a major interest on my part. That is also why I studied translation and interpretation along with Biblical history.
The Bible is man's response to his experiences of the Divine. It is made up of myth, legend, folk tale, short story, fiction, poetry and some history thrown in here and there. It was written in a midrashic style which was the style of the ancient writers. It was and is a religous book it is neither a literal history or book on science.
So how can we be sure that our reading is accurate. First of all midrash is important. That is the style in which it was written and should be interpreted. In John 16:12-15 Jesus clears states that we have not yet received all of God's revelations, that there is more to come. As christians we need to pray, meditate, study, discuss, research etc. relying on the Holy Spirit to guide us. So as Christians we rely on not only the Bible as a teacher, but also tradition and common sense. We can also look to the Church Councils whom we firmly believe were guided by the Holy Spirit.
God does not perform magic and make believe. He has no need. This in no way denies the miracles of Jesus. God uses the natural processes to obtain what He wants. He does not interfere in our daily lives because He has given us free will and to do otherwise is to make us automitons and puppets. This is not what God wants.
The authors never intended it to be read literally and the Jews do not take it that way. After all they wrote the book they ought to know how to interpret it.
The problem with many Christians today in this very troubled and dangerous world is that they are looking for some concrete guarantee concerning the future. They hope that they will see in the Bible that concretness in writing. However, God has shown us that the real approach is to be by faith and hope not by sight. To demand that the Bible give us the concretness that we want is to distrust God.
It is about faith and hope and trust in God when we follow this Jesus.
I can say more if you wish. Just ask specif questions so that I don't have to type a book.
Shalom
Ted:-6
An Open Invitation
chonsigirl:-6
Let me add that if one chooses to accept the Bible as a literalist I see no problem in that. However, one will encounter many Christians who think as I do and ought to realize that there are equally valid alternatives to that way of seeing things. We must all learn to accept the variations.
BTW there are some 400 000 variants in the Biblical documents that were used to put the Bible together. B D Erhman "Misquoting Jesus". So we can never be sure that we have accurately reflected what the original writer wrote or intended. We must proceed by faith.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Let me add that if one chooses to accept the Bible as a literalist I see no problem in that. However, one will encounter many Christians who think as I do and ought to realize that there are equally valid alternatives to that way of seeing things. We must all learn to accept the variations.
BTW there are some 400 000 variants in the Biblical documents that were used to put the Bible together. B D Erhman "Misquoting Jesus". So we can never be sure that we have accurately reflected what the original writer wrote or intended. We must proceed by faith.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
SweetDarlin
- Posts: 1121
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:53 am
An Open Invitation
ArnoldLayne wrote: I am especially dumbfounded at Tele's inference that those of us that do not espouse to specific religion are somehow lacking. "Mentally and spiritually lazy".
Your last paragraph says volumes to meAgain, the problem seems to be someone spouting their opinion as fact. As a believer, I also agree with the message in gmc's last paragraph...
Your last paragraph says volumes to meAgain, the problem seems to be someone spouting their opinion as fact. As a believer, I also agree with the message in gmc's last paragraph...
[FONT=Georgia]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: Snoozer, we'll put you down as undecided.
Seriously, if you'd care to re-post that as a new thread, I'll be happy to reply, and I suspect other posters, pro and con, would too.
The purpose of this thread is to give Christians an opportunity to 'plug', so to speak, their own denom and give links to informative - not proselytizing - websites if possible.1. Never hoid of him (Mr. Branham, that is. Of course, I've never heard of your father either, but he must exist because here you are!). Maybe you could give us some idea of what Mr. Branham espouses.
2. If he 'points that out', then permit me to 'point out' that he is one confused dude.spot, with all due respect to both yourself and your 'Christians of good repute', I cannot see how ANY Christian, Catholic, Protestant or otherwise, could find that opinion compatible with their Christianity. Christianity is COMPLETELY about organization, about brother/sisterhood in the community of believers that Christ founded on His original disciples, and which He left here on earth as His Mystical Body after His human body was taken up.
What do you regard as 'mission' apart from Church membership? Maybe I'm missing something here.
I love you ACC and Snooze.... Youve got your heads screwed on right.
Seriously, if you'd care to re-post that as a new thread, I'll be happy to reply, and I suspect other posters, pro and con, would too.
The purpose of this thread is to give Christians an opportunity to 'plug', so to speak, their own denom and give links to informative - not proselytizing - websites if possible.1. Never hoid of him (Mr. Branham, that is. Of course, I've never heard of your father either, but he must exist because here you are!). Maybe you could give us some idea of what Mr. Branham espouses.
2. If he 'points that out', then permit me to 'point out' that he is one confused dude.spot, with all due respect to both yourself and your 'Christians of good repute', I cannot see how ANY Christian, Catholic, Protestant or otherwise, could find that opinion compatible with their Christianity. Christianity is COMPLETELY about organization, about brother/sisterhood in the community of believers that Christ founded on His original disciples, and which He left here on earth as His Mystical Body after His human body was taken up.
What do you regard as 'mission' apart from Church membership? Maybe I'm missing something here.
I love you ACC and Snooze.... Youve got your heads screwed on right.
[FONT=Microsoft Sans Serif][/FONT]
An Open Invitation
I thought this was a discussion group. You can't have any discussion if you don't present something that promotes discussion. It could get rather boring if we all agreed on everything.
Sure there are differences and viva la difference!
Is one way better than another? I think we should leave that up to God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Sure there are differences and viva la difference!
Is one way better than another? I think we should leave that up to God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
An Open Invitation
Ted wrote: chonsigirl:-6
Let me add that if one chooses to accept the Bible as a literalist I see no problem in that. However, one will encounter many Christians who think as I do and ought to realize that there are equally valid alternatives to that way of seeing things. We must all learn to accept the variations.
BTW there are some 400 000 variants in the Biblical documents that were used to put the Bible together. B D Erhman "Misquoting Jesus". So we can never be sure that we have accurately reflected what the original writer wrote or intended. We must proceed by faith.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thank you for this reply, Ted. The key is word is faith.
I accept that others have variations, that is their right. As is their choice of any or no religion.
We can only be sure what the original writers intended by praying and listening to God.
Let me add that if one chooses to accept the Bible as a literalist I see no problem in that. However, one will encounter many Christians who think as I do and ought to realize that there are equally valid alternatives to that way of seeing things. We must all learn to accept the variations.
BTW there are some 400 000 variants in the Biblical documents that were used to put the Bible together. B D Erhman "Misquoting Jesus". So we can never be sure that we have accurately reflected what the original writer wrote or intended. We must proceed by faith.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thank you for this reply, Ted. The key is word is faith.
I accept that others have variations, that is their right. As is their choice of any or no religion.
We can only be sure what the original writers intended by praying and listening to God.
An Open Invitation
I've just gone back quickly through all the pages and here is an appoximate tally so far, arranged by count except for the last category:
Presbyterian and Methodist: 3 each.
Anglican/Episcopalian and Church of Scotland: 2 each.
Roman Catholic, Nazarene, Seventh-Day Adventist: 1 each.
Others, including non-Christians and those who have named denoms but disclaim current membership: 5.
If I missed anyone, my apologies. It's an interesting array. No Baptists, no Assemblies of God, no Church of Christ, no Holy Rollers, indeed only two members of denoms which would reasonably be classified as Fundamentalist Protestant, so I consider my opening thesis to have been proven or at least supported.
Once again, I want to thank everyone who posted. The thread, of course, remains open.
Presbyterian and Methodist: 3 each.
Anglican/Episcopalian and Church of Scotland: 2 each.
Roman Catholic, Nazarene, Seventh-Day Adventist: 1 each.
Others, including non-Christians and those who have named denoms but disclaim current membership: 5.
If I missed anyone, my apologies. It's an interesting array. No Baptists, no Assemblies of God, no Church of Christ, no Holy Rollers, indeed only two members of denoms which would reasonably be classified as Fundamentalist Protestant, so I consider my opening thesis to have been proven or at least supported.
Once again, I want to thank everyone who posted. The thread, of course, remains open.
An Open Invitation
SweetDarlin wrote: Bronwen, you've said lots of good things in this thread... and some not so good. I'm only submitting MY opinion... that like Ted, you must be careful how you say things. You have some decent arguments, and I wish I thought that they truly were arguments open for discussion. Unfortunately, they come across as a holier-than-thou attitude and smell badly of an agenda.
I understand that, SD. I have always been outspoken and in some cases perhaps lacking in tact, but I can assure you that there is no 'agenda' other than was clearly stated in my opening post. Those who hold my posts up to mirrors or upside down in order to uncover some ulterior motive or meaning are wasting their time. Nor do I consider myself holier than anyone, because we are all sinners in need of God's grace and forgiveness.
If you'll look back through the thread you'll find that I became confrontational only in response to the confrontations of others. I have no problem with criticism of my Church, because I am critical of it myself, regularly. It's only IGNORANT or SLANDEROUS (i.e. deceitful) attacks that rile me, and the RCC is hardly alone as the target of such nonsense. I have no doubt that had I, for example, identified myself as Jewish the anti-Semites would have crawled out from under their own rocks.
I understand that, SD. I have always been outspoken and in some cases perhaps lacking in tact, but I can assure you that there is no 'agenda' other than was clearly stated in my opening post. Those who hold my posts up to mirrors or upside down in order to uncover some ulterior motive or meaning are wasting their time. Nor do I consider myself holier than anyone, because we are all sinners in need of God's grace and forgiveness.
If you'll look back through the thread you'll find that I became confrontational only in response to the confrontations of others. I have no problem with criticism of my Church, because I am critical of it myself, regularly. It's only IGNORANT or SLANDEROUS (i.e. deceitful) attacks that rile me, and the RCC is hardly alone as the target of such nonsense. I have no doubt that had I, for example, identified myself as Jewish the anti-Semites would have crawled out from under their own rocks.
An Open Invitation
gmc wrote: I won't comment on defames god but how can you seriously suggest the catholic church didn't mix church and state? 1. Not 'didn't', gmc, 'doesn't'. I was referring to modern times, not ancient history, but we can talk about that too, although it's clearly beyond the scope of this thread.
Not being in the USA you probably have no idea of how Fundamentalist Protestants are attempting to take advantage of the fact that the currect US president is a drooling moron in order to have their outrageous beliefs imposed on the rest of us, in particular on public school children. Thank God, Roman Catholics, Jews, and most 'mainline' Protestants are opposing such nonsense vigorously, and have so far been mostly successful.
The rest of your post is partly accurate and partly less so. The Inquisition and the suppression of heresy in the pre-Reformation era was about far more than the Church. It was much more involved with certain countries where religious differences threatened to upset the public order. But that, too, is a discussion for a separate thread; I would only remind you, as I noted recently on a different thread, that the number of people executed for heresy during the entire Inquisition was fewer than 2000 (this figure from SECULAR sources), all of which executions were carried out by the CIVIL authority (tho' admittedly with the Chruch's cooperation), fewer than died in the single attack by Islamic terrorists in New York City on September 11, 2001. This fact, of course, doesn't deter the Catholic bashers from ranting and raving about how 'millions' were killed by the Church.
Not being in the USA you probably have no idea of how Fundamentalist Protestants are attempting to take advantage of the fact that the currect US president is a drooling moron in order to have their outrageous beliefs imposed on the rest of us, in particular on public school children. Thank God, Roman Catholics, Jews, and most 'mainline' Protestants are opposing such nonsense vigorously, and have so far been mostly successful.
The rest of your post is partly accurate and partly less so. The Inquisition and the suppression of heresy in the pre-Reformation era was about far more than the Church. It was much more involved with certain countries where religious differences threatened to upset the public order. But that, too, is a discussion for a separate thread; I would only remind you, as I noted recently on a different thread, that the number of people executed for heresy during the entire Inquisition was fewer than 2000 (this figure from SECULAR sources), all of which executions were carried out by the CIVIL authority (tho' admittedly with the Chruch's cooperation), fewer than died in the single attack by Islamic terrorists in New York City on September 11, 2001. This fact, of course, doesn't deter the Catholic bashers from ranting and raving about how 'millions' were killed by the Church.
-
SweetDarlin
- Posts: 1121
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:53 am
An Open Invitation
ArnoldLayne wrote: When you do arrive at the pearly gates I hope St Peter slaps you all on the back of the legs and tells you join the queue behind the charitable heathensnow that wasn't very nice at all... :-2
[FONT=Georgia]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: The thread, of course, remains open.
Well now, ain't that nice? That's might big 'o yew!
Well now, ain't that nice? That's might big 'o yew!
An Open Invitation
Accountable wrote: Well now, ain't that nice? That's might big 'o yew!So, howzabout contributing something substantial rather than just making a nuisance of yourself?
-
chonsigirl
- Posts: 33633
- Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:28 am
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: I've just gone back quickly through all the pages and here is an appoximate tally so far, arranged by count except for the last category:
Presbyterian and Methodist: 3 each.
Anglican/Episcopalian and Church of Scotland: 2 each.
Roman Catholic, Nazarene, Seventh-Day Adventist: 1 each.
Others, including non-Christians and those who have named denoms but disclaim current membership: 5.
If I missed anyone, my apologies. It's an interesting array. No Baptists, no Assemblies of God, no Church of Christ, no Holy Rollers, indeed only two members of denoms which would reasonably be classified as Fundamentalist Protestant, so I consider my opening thesis to have been proven or at least supported.
Once again, I want to thank everyone who posted. The thread, of course, remains open.
You have changed your opening post, if I am not mistaken.
Which one of us do you consider to be Fundamentally Protestant?
Presbyterian and Methodist: 3 each.
Anglican/Episcopalian and Church of Scotland: 2 each.
Roman Catholic, Nazarene, Seventh-Day Adventist: 1 each.
Others, including non-Christians and those who have named denoms but disclaim current membership: 5.
If I missed anyone, my apologies. It's an interesting array. No Baptists, no Assemblies of God, no Church of Christ, no Holy Rollers, indeed only two members of denoms which would reasonably be classified as Fundamentalist Protestant, so I consider my opening thesis to have been proven or at least supported.
Once again, I want to thank everyone who posted. The thread, of course, remains open.
You have changed your opening post, if I am not mistaken.
Which one of us do you consider to be Fundamentally Protestant?
An Open Invitation
Given that you all share a belief in JC as the saviour why are you arguing about petty differences about how you worship? Does not worshipping in the right way really mean you go to hell?
posted by ted
It hinges on what you believe about the Bible and God. After about 45 years of study, both formal and informal I have learned a lot about the Bible as that was a major interest on my part. That is also why I studied translation and interpretation along with Biblical history.
The Bible is man's response to his experiences of the Divine. It is made up of myth, legend, folk tale, short story, fiction, poetry and some history thrown in here and there. It was written in a midrashic style which was the style of the ancient writers. It was and is a religous book it is neither a literal history or book on science.
So are you saying that worshipping the wrong way means you go to hell? If it is merely a religious book why do do many insist on taking it literally?
posted by bronwen
The rest of your post is partly accurate and partly less so. The Inquisition and the suppression of heresy in the pre-Reformation era was about far more than the Church. It was much more involved with certain countries where religious differences threatened to upset the public order. But that, too, is a discussion for a separate thread; I would only remind you, as I noted recently on a different thread, that the number of people executed for heresy during the entire Inquisition was fewer than 2000 (this figure from SECULAR sources), all of which executions were carried out by the CIVIL authority (tho' admittedly with the Chruch's cooperation), fewer than died in the single attack by Islamic terrorists in New York City on September 11, 2001. This fact, of course, doesn't deter the Catholic bashers from ranting and raving about how 'millions' were killed by the Church.
The spanish inquisition was just used as one example. It is impossible to look at european history without realising that most of the wars were caused by a mix of religon and economic and political factors. Kings and Popes squabbling about who ruled with the ordinary people caught up in the middle and doing most of the dying. The simple fact is millions did die fighting in religious wars and in large part it was the church in rome that couldn't accept challenges to its power. Instead of doing the christian thing and turning the other cheek preaching peace and understanding the popes mixed it with the best of them. Although all sides commited the most fearful atrocities in the name of their religon with the jews as a useful people for both to kick around. It's a toss up who was worse.
I reckon in part that is why europe seems to be mainly secular compared to the US, a kind of tribal memory from the past no one wants religon getting involved in politics.
http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site ... d=HolyRoma
Hope you don't think I'm a catholic basher since I am not averse to bashing protestants as well. At least your churches have nice decorations and footstools and central heating.
The catholic church is no different from fundamentalist protestants in that given half a chance I reckon both would like more power.
It's a pity that the differences between them are still more important than the shared beliefs.
posted by bronwen
Not being in the USA you probably have no idea of how Fundamentalist Protestants are attempting to take advantage of the fact that the currect US president is a drooling moron in order to have their outrageous beliefs imposed on the rest of us, in particular on public school children. Thank God, Roman Catholics, Jews, and most 'mainline' Protestants are opposing such nonsense vigorously, and have so far been mostly successful.
I have read about it but it's difficult to get a handle on how likely they are to get a grip on power. The best defence against religious fundamentalism is to constantly laugh at them. When you feel you can't take the **** out of religon then we are all on our way to trouble.
God save us from the relogious.
posted by ted
It hinges on what you believe about the Bible and God. After about 45 years of study, both formal and informal I have learned a lot about the Bible as that was a major interest on my part. That is also why I studied translation and interpretation along with Biblical history.
The Bible is man's response to his experiences of the Divine. It is made up of myth, legend, folk tale, short story, fiction, poetry and some history thrown in here and there. It was written in a midrashic style which was the style of the ancient writers. It was and is a religous book it is neither a literal history or book on science.
So are you saying that worshipping the wrong way means you go to hell? If it is merely a religious book why do do many insist on taking it literally?
posted by bronwen
The rest of your post is partly accurate and partly less so. The Inquisition and the suppression of heresy in the pre-Reformation era was about far more than the Church. It was much more involved with certain countries where religious differences threatened to upset the public order. But that, too, is a discussion for a separate thread; I would only remind you, as I noted recently on a different thread, that the number of people executed for heresy during the entire Inquisition was fewer than 2000 (this figure from SECULAR sources), all of which executions were carried out by the CIVIL authority (tho' admittedly with the Chruch's cooperation), fewer than died in the single attack by Islamic terrorists in New York City on September 11, 2001. This fact, of course, doesn't deter the Catholic bashers from ranting and raving about how 'millions' were killed by the Church.
The spanish inquisition was just used as one example. It is impossible to look at european history without realising that most of the wars were caused by a mix of religon and economic and political factors. Kings and Popes squabbling about who ruled with the ordinary people caught up in the middle and doing most of the dying. The simple fact is millions did die fighting in religious wars and in large part it was the church in rome that couldn't accept challenges to its power. Instead of doing the christian thing and turning the other cheek preaching peace and understanding the popes mixed it with the best of them. Although all sides commited the most fearful atrocities in the name of their religon with the jews as a useful people for both to kick around. It's a toss up who was worse.
I reckon in part that is why europe seems to be mainly secular compared to the US, a kind of tribal memory from the past no one wants religon getting involved in politics.
http://www.thehistorychannel.co.uk/site ... d=HolyRoma
Hope you don't think I'm a catholic basher since I am not averse to bashing protestants as well. At least your churches have nice decorations and footstools and central heating.
The catholic church is no different from fundamentalist protestants in that given half a chance I reckon both would like more power.
It's a pity that the differences between them are still more important than the shared beliefs.
posted by bronwen
Not being in the USA you probably have no idea of how Fundamentalist Protestants are attempting to take advantage of the fact that the currect US president is a drooling moron in order to have their outrageous beliefs imposed on the rest of us, in particular on public school children. Thank God, Roman Catholics, Jews, and most 'mainline' Protestants are opposing such nonsense vigorously, and have so far been mostly successful.
I have read about it but it's difficult to get a handle on how likely they are to get a grip on power. The best defence against religious fundamentalism is to constantly laugh at them. When you feel you can't take the **** out of religon then we are all on our way to trouble.
God save us from the relogious.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
An Open Invitation
gmc wrote: It's nothing to do with it being out of fashion or being too lazy it quite simply is that people are no longer as gullible as they once were and less ready to believe everything they are told, the social pressures to conform to "religious belief" no longer have the power they once had, being excommunicated or whatever is no longer the terror it once was. It's now safe to say I don't believe because the church has lost it's temporal power to terrorise people in to submission or to just keeping quiet.I agree with everything you’re saying here. I wasn’t talking about you- I know you are an unbeliever. I was talking about nominal Christians. I should have made that clearer.
I don’t expect you to know much about the Bible or Christianity. Just for your information, there are significant differences between different sects, and to a believer those things matter- if you knew, they would even matter to you. gmc wrote: What do you think the inquisition was all about-it was to make sure that everone followed the one true way and any christian beliefs that didn't fit the correct pattern were suppressed so worried were they by the number of different christian sects who didn't accept the authority of the pope.You are overlooking the theological baggage involved. The conduct of the church in the Middle Ages had to do as much with their concept of the character of God as it did a power trip for the pope. To burn and torture your opponents is consistent with the belief in a god who burns and tortures sinners in eternal fire. Not all Christians believe in that kind of god. But then, if that is the only god you think Christians all believe in, your lumping us all together would be understandable, albeit misinformed.gmc wrote: All religions try and control the state given half a chance whatever their denomination. Given half a chance they will control the way people think as well.Wrong. The only lobbying my church does, and litigation we participate in is to protect the religious freedom of minorities, and even those who believe very differently from us. We sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. We started Americans United for Separation of Church and State. We have sponsored attorneys and expert witnesses to defend Amish, Roman Catholics, and many others- though we are teetotalers and are against illegal drug use, we even defended Native Americans, whose religious practices included the use of Peyote. A lot of people talk about freedom of conscience. We are doing something about it. Our concept of God is that He respects the freedom of conscience of all His creatures, and worship that is forced or bribed is worthless to Him.gmc wrote: I have read about it but it's difficult to get a handle on how likely they are to get a grip on power.I have an interesting article from a few years back, where Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition explained why his group of mainly Protestant evangelicals were being told to stuff it about their theological differences with Roman Catholics. Reed explained that the evangelicals at the time only controlled 25% of the vote. The Catholics controlled another 25%. They were willing to sell out their beliefs in order to join together with Catholics on the things they held in common, in order to buy influence among lawmakers to force their shared moral requirements on all Americans.
gmc wrote: Does not worshipping in the right way really mean you go to hell?The Bible doesn’t say very much about the right way to worship, except to strictly eliminate idolatrous practices. Does this seem picky-picky to you? Would your wife like it if you called her by some other woman’s name when you were making love? Would she be pleased if you tacked indecent pictures of other women on your bedroom wall? God has feelings too, you know.
But in some countries, not worshipping a certain way can mean you will go to jail. You might be surprised to learn that whereas some churches do no worse than sharing their beliefs in God with you in hopes that you will find them attractive and join, some other churches are willing to use whatever force and compulsion is politically possible to bend you to their authority and brainwash your children with their concept of God. To lump these together as the same shows that you are too disinterested to look into it seriously. Because in so many other ways your posts seem well-informed and carefully thought out, and to know you are capable of better, it gives the impression that you’re as dogmatic as you accuse us of being.
I don’t expect you to know much about the Bible or Christianity. Just for your information, there are significant differences between different sects, and to a believer those things matter- if you knew, they would even matter to you. gmc wrote: What do you think the inquisition was all about-it was to make sure that everone followed the one true way and any christian beliefs that didn't fit the correct pattern were suppressed so worried were they by the number of different christian sects who didn't accept the authority of the pope.You are overlooking the theological baggage involved. The conduct of the church in the Middle Ages had to do as much with their concept of the character of God as it did a power trip for the pope. To burn and torture your opponents is consistent with the belief in a god who burns and tortures sinners in eternal fire. Not all Christians believe in that kind of god. But then, if that is the only god you think Christians all believe in, your lumping us all together would be understandable, albeit misinformed.gmc wrote: All religions try and control the state given half a chance whatever their denomination. Given half a chance they will control the way people think as well.Wrong. The only lobbying my church does, and litigation we participate in is to protect the religious freedom of minorities, and even those who believe very differently from us. We sponsored the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. We started Americans United for Separation of Church and State. We have sponsored attorneys and expert witnesses to defend Amish, Roman Catholics, and many others- though we are teetotalers and are against illegal drug use, we even defended Native Americans, whose religious practices included the use of Peyote. A lot of people talk about freedom of conscience. We are doing something about it. Our concept of God is that He respects the freedom of conscience of all His creatures, and worship that is forced or bribed is worthless to Him.gmc wrote: I have read about it but it's difficult to get a handle on how likely they are to get a grip on power.I have an interesting article from a few years back, where Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition explained why his group of mainly Protestant evangelicals were being told to stuff it about their theological differences with Roman Catholics. Reed explained that the evangelicals at the time only controlled 25% of the vote. The Catholics controlled another 25%. They were willing to sell out their beliefs in order to join together with Catholics on the things they held in common, in order to buy influence among lawmakers to force their shared moral requirements on all Americans.
gmc wrote: Does not worshipping in the right way really mean you go to hell?The Bible doesn’t say very much about the right way to worship, except to strictly eliminate idolatrous practices. Does this seem picky-picky to you? Would your wife like it if you called her by some other woman’s name when you were making love? Would she be pleased if you tacked indecent pictures of other women on your bedroom wall? God has feelings too, you know.
But in some countries, not worshipping a certain way can mean you will go to jail. You might be surprised to learn that whereas some churches do no worse than sharing their beliefs in God with you in hopes that you will find them attractive and join, some other churches are willing to use whatever force and compulsion is politically possible to bend you to their authority and brainwash your children with their concept of God. To lump these together as the same shows that you are too disinterested to look into it seriously. Because in so many other ways your posts seem well-informed and carefully thought out, and to know you are capable of better, it gives the impression that you’re as dogmatic as you accuse us of being.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
An Open Invitation
ArnoldLayne wrote: gmc,
Thank you very much for posting precisely how I feel. I'm not lazy in not posting myself, just unable to articulate precisely.
I am especially dumbfounded at Tele's inference that those of us that do not espouse to specific religion are somehow lacking. "Mentally and spiritually lazy". I dont care if it was the esteemed Pope Benedict who said it, it is still very sanctimonious.I don’t hold Pope Benedict in very high esteem. But I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.†That was the spirit of what I wrote there.
Thank you very much for posting precisely how I feel. I'm not lazy in not posting myself, just unable to articulate precisely.
I am especially dumbfounded at Tele's inference that those of us that do not espouse to specific religion are somehow lacking. "Mentally and spiritually lazy". I dont care if it was the esteemed Pope Benedict who said it, it is still very sanctimonious.I don’t hold Pope Benedict in very high esteem. But I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.†That was the spirit of what I wrote there.
Look what the cat dragged in.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
An Open Invitation
Far Rider wrote: By Bronwen
First off, is there a "Holy Rollers Denomination? I dont think so. Another durogatory comment towards a religious group not of your own.
Holy Roller
n. Offensive
Used as a disparaging term for a member of any of various religious denominations in which spiritual fervor is expressed by shouts and violent body movements.
By Bronwen
So heres what ya said way back when I first questioned you on it...
By Bronwen:
Your agenda is showing Bronwen. And so are your pure motives, or lack there of.
Mmmm Hmmmm!
First off, is there a "Holy Rollers Denomination? I dont think so. Another durogatory comment towards a religious group not of your own.
Holy Roller
n. Offensive
Used as a disparaging term for a member of any of various religious denominations in which spiritual fervor is expressed by shouts and violent body movements.
By Bronwen
So heres what ya said way back when I first questioned you on it...
By Bronwen:
Your agenda is showing Bronwen. And so are your pure motives, or lack there of.
Mmmm Hmmmm!
An Open Invitation
posted by telepaquacky
I don’t expect you to know much about the Bible or Christianity. Just for your information, there are significant differences between different sects, and to a believer those things matter- if you knew, they would even matter to you.
Why would you expect me not to know much about the bible and christianity? Is that because I don't share your faith? It's a mistake to assume someone is an unbeliever merely because they don't know much about it and that therefore if they studied they would automatically become a convicted christian like themselves. Or of they do know then they haven'y studied properly so they're still just confused and don't get it.
Same with sectarianism. I am very well aware of the differences between sects and the violence and hatred that can result. I know the differences and they still don't matter to me. I have no time at all for religious zealots of any sect, faith, denomination.
The Bible doesn’t say very much about the right way to worship, except to strictly eliminate idolatrous practices. Does this seem picky-picky to you? Would your wife like it if you called her by some other woman’s name when you were making love? Would she be pleased if you tacked indecent pictures of other women on your bedroom wall? God has feelings too, you know.
Now there in a nutshell you have the origins of the conflict between catholics and protestants. When you visit a catholic church are you offended by all the gilt images of saints and the Virgin Mary or do you think the way they worship doesn't matter because you all worship the same god. When they kneel to pray are they indulging in pagan worship of an image or are they fellow travellers on the road to paradise but just in different car? Now there is a significant difference that I am well aware of and it still doesn't matter to me and most especially I don't think it's worth beating someone up over. But all I have to do is go along to an old firm game, walk in to a pub wearing the wrong colour and I can easily find someone that will pick a fight just because of what they think my religon is.
Praise the lord and kick the **** out of the others with the sword of righteousness and the shield of sanctimony. Be a thug for jesus.
posted by telepaquacky
You are overlooking the theological baggage involved. The conduct of the church in the Middle Ages had to do as much with their concept of the character of God as it did a power trip for the pope. To burn and torture your opponents is consistent with the belief in a god who burns and tortures sinners in eternal fire. Not all Christians believe in that kind of god. But then, if that is the only god you think Christians all believe in, your lumping us all together would be understandable, albeit misinformed.
Now that's an interesting comment. If you believe in one god there is only one god, not different kinds of god unless you are suggesting that he suffers from multiple personality disorder. Christian, muslim, jew, you all believe there is only one god to kill each other because you don't worship the right way is is completely and utterly irrational.
Perhaps the differences in worship do matter but given what you supposedly have in common does it really matter.
posted by telepaquacky
I don’t hold Pope Benedict in very high esteem. But I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.†That was the spirit of what I wrote there.
Too often those who say that also mean if you don't believe as i do you stand for nothing.
Perhaps the problem is that being tolerant of others seems equivalent to inaction, after all if you tolerate someones differences it means you leave them alone unless thay try and force you to join in, then you become a bigot, anti religious, or a religion basher
posted by telepaquacky
To lump these together as the same shows that you are too disinterested to look into it seriously. Because in so many other ways your posts seem well-informed and carefully thought out, and to know you are capable of better, it gives the impression that you’re as dogmatic as you accuse us of being.
I'm not accusing you of being dogmatic, I'm trying to provoke you in toi discussion.
posted by far rider
By Bronwen:
Quote:
FR, I'm not sure what you object to in any of the posts that you quoted, nor do I see how you arrived at such a conclusion. The purpose of the thread was to give an opportunity for Christians of various denoms to do some free advertising of an informational rather than proselytizing nature, and to that extent I think I was mostly successful, and I thank everyone who contributed wholeheartedly.
There were only a few posts that sought to state what they thought was wrong with other people's beliefs rather than, or in addition to, stating their own, and to those posts I responded as best I could while trying to stay within the parameters of the thread.
Your agenda is showing Bronwen. And so are your pure motives, or lack there of.
One of the things i like about this forum is a chance to discourse with people of widely different world views to my own. Like most people I find religon fascinating even if i do look at it differently. I'm not sure if bronwen had an agenda or not but if she did it would be nice if she stuck around to fight with the holy rollers. Maybe if they all spoke to each other they might stop woirrying about the differences.
Actually the term I most often hear is the happy clappies rather than holy rollers.
For instance-"do you fancy a knees up at the happy clappie church" translates as, " would you care to attend a service at the pentecostal church"
recommended reading
http://www.blackandwhitepublishing.com/ ... jolly.html
Rikki Fultons The Reverend I. M. Jolly:
How I Found God, And Why He Was Hiding From Me
Course if you are offended at religious humour don't look.
I don’t expect you to know much about the Bible or Christianity. Just for your information, there are significant differences between different sects, and to a believer those things matter- if you knew, they would even matter to you.
Why would you expect me not to know much about the bible and christianity? Is that because I don't share your faith? It's a mistake to assume someone is an unbeliever merely because they don't know much about it and that therefore if they studied they would automatically become a convicted christian like themselves. Or of they do know then they haven'y studied properly so they're still just confused and don't get it.
Same with sectarianism. I am very well aware of the differences between sects and the violence and hatred that can result. I know the differences and they still don't matter to me. I have no time at all for religious zealots of any sect, faith, denomination.
The Bible doesn’t say very much about the right way to worship, except to strictly eliminate idolatrous practices. Does this seem picky-picky to you? Would your wife like it if you called her by some other woman’s name when you were making love? Would she be pleased if you tacked indecent pictures of other women on your bedroom wall? God has feelings too, you know.
Now there in a nutshell you have the origins of the conflict between catholics and protestants. When you visit a catholic church are you offended by all the gilt images of saints and the Virgin Mary or do you think the way they worship doesn't matter because you all worship the same god. When they kneel to pray are they indulging in pagan worship of an image or are they fellow travellers on the road to paradise but just in different car? Now there is a significant difference that I am well aware of and it still doesn't matter to me and most especially I don't think it's worth beating someone up over. But all I have to do is go along to an old firm game, walk in to a pub wearing the wrong colour and I can easily find someone that will pick a fight just because of what they think my religon is.
Praise the lord and kick the **** out of the others with the sword of righteousness and the shield of sanctimony. Be a thug for jesus.
posted by telepaquacky
You are overlooking the theological baggage involved. The conduct of the church in the Middle Ages had to do as much with their concept of the character of God as it did a power trip for the pope. To burn and torture your opponents is consistent with the belief in a god who burns and tortures sinners in eternal fire. Not all Christians believe in that kind of god. But then, if that is the only god you think Christians all believe in, your lumping us all together would be understandable, albeit misinformed.
Now that's an interesting comment. If you believe in one god there is only one god, not different kinds of god unless you are suggesting that he suffers from multiple personality disorder. Christian, muslim, jew, you all believe there is only one god to kill each other because you don't worship the right way is is completely and utterly irrational.
Perhaps the differences in worship do matter but given what you supposedly have in common does it really matter.
posted by telepaquacky
I don’t hold Pope Benedict in very high esteem. But I wholeheartedly agree with you on this, “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything.†That was the spirit of what I wrote there.
Too often those who say that also mean if you don't believe as i do you stand for nothing.
Perhaps the problem is that being tolerant of others seems equivalent to inaction, after all if you tolerate someones differences it means you leave them alone unless thay try and force you to join in, then you become a bigot, anti religious, or a religion basher
posted by telepaquacky
To lump these together as the same shows that you are too disinterested to look into it seriously. Because in so many other ways your posts seem well-informed and carefully thought out, and to know you are capable of better, it gives the impression that you’re as dogmatic as you accuse us of being.
I'm not accusing you of being dogmatic, I'm trying to provoke you in toi discussion.
posted by far rider
By Bronwen:
Quote:
FR, I'm not sure what you object to in any of the posts that you quoted, nor do I see how you arrived at such a conclusion. The purpose of the thread was to give an opportunity for Christians of various denoms to do some free advertising of an informational rather than proselytizing nature, and to that extent I think I was mostly successful, and I thank everyone who contributed wholeheartedly.
There were only a few posts that sought to state what they thought was wrong with other people's beliefs rather than, or in addition to, stating their own, and to those posts I responded as best I could while trying to stay within the parameters of the thread.
Your agenda is showing Bronwen. And so are your pure motives, or lack there of.
One of the things i like about this forum is a chance to discourse with people of widely different world views to my own. Like most people I find religon fascinating even if i do look at it differently. I'm not sure if bronwen had an agenda or not but if she did it would be nice if she stuck around to fight with the holy rollers. Maybe if they all spoke to each other they might stop woirrying about the differences.
Actually the term I most often hear is the happy clappies rather than holy rollers.
For instance-"do you fancy a knees up at the happy clappie church" translates as, " would you care to attend a service at the pentecostal church"
recommended reading
http://www.blackandwhitepublishing.com/ ... jolly.html
Rikki Fultons The Reverend I. M. Jolly:
How I Found God, And Why He Was Hiding From Me
Course if you are offended at religious humour don't look.
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
An Open Invitation
gmc wrote: Why would you expect me not to know much about the bible and christianity? Is that because I don't share your faith? It's a mistake to assume someone is an unbeliever merely because they don't know much about it and that therefore if they studied they would automatically become a convicted christian like themselves. Or of they do know then they haven'y studied properly so they're still just confused and don't get it.God reveals Himself in other ways besides the Bible. How do I know that God has not revealed Himself to you, and that is why you are so fed up with religion? A prophetic writer for whom Seventh-day Adventists have a great deal of respect once wrote that there are people out there who espouse atheism because they see the falseness and failings of Christians (including ourselves), and the spirit of God in them is offended- so that their very rejection of religion is in itself an act of faith. Voltaire wrote something about God that I found beautiful and compelling (unfortunately I can't remember what it was- it was something like, "if there were a true God..."), that made me think he may have wished there was a true God- only not one like the one Christians in his day were claiming to represent. I think that there are Hindus, and Muslims and even Atheists who know God and some professed Christians who don't. I can't judge your personal faith even if you tell me you're an atheist. Having said that, though, I think that a personal relationship with God isn't all it can be if the person's life and testimony doesn't contribute toward encouraging others to love God.
I may not want to play on your team, because I like my team better- and I have a right to like what I like and dislike what I dislike, same as you do. I did not choose my church. God led me to it. God leads different people different ways. What I like about my own church is that from my viewpoint it appears to be the best framework from which to help me better understand and know and love God and so encourage others to as well. I don't root for my team merely for the sake of rooting for my team. It's rooting for the team for team's sake that causes all the sectarian tension and it being dangerous to wear a certain color to the pub. That doesn't glorify God.
About understanding the Bible- why I wouldn't expect you to understand it isn't merely because you aren't a member of my club. I read it whenever I can, and I pray about it and think about it constantly, yet there are a lot of things I don't understand. There's a principle in the Bible that says "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned." It is erroneous for someone to think that just by reading it and studying it they are going to unlock all it's secrets by human effort and human intelligence and human scholarship (this is something Brother Ted and I get into). When Jesus came the first time it was the greatest Biblical scholars of the day who demanded that He be crucified. "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned," means that when a person reads the Bible, the only way they can really get the message God is trying to put across is if the Spirit of God opens their mind to it and reveals it to them. I believe that it is a supernatural document that God uses as a medium to supernaturally communicate with us. For it's purpose, the Bible doesn't have to be perfect literature or free of contradictions. If spiritual things were intellectually discerned, then yes, it would have to be perfect literature and free of contradictions.
Nobody has a monopoly on the Spirit of God. I believe He reveals Himself to whom He chooses, and hides from whom He chooses. Why- if He loves everyone and wants us all to be saved? Because some people regard knowledge as power, and if deep spiritual truths were revealed to them merely by their human effort, they might use them for merely human purposes- for their own glory or political agenda. So I think that the Bible is written in a way that it is impenetrable or ridiculous, even misleading to some, and open and understandable to others, based on what they intend to achieve by it. From a humanistic point of view, that sounds like a pretzel-logic fabrication to excuse the Bible's faults. But God's ways are not man's ways. Man is not the measure of all things.
See, gmc, if I think you don't understand parts of the Bible, it isn't because you aren't a smart fellow, or sincere, or honest or a good person- not at all. It's because I get the impression that you are trying to understand a spiritual document from a human point of view.
Call me a clown for believing this stuff. First of all, you don't know just from looking at traditional Christianity what exact stuff I really believe. But you're right. I'm God's own clown! God has already dressed me up in a clown suit to keep me humble so I won't use what he reveals to me to glorify myself rather than Him.
It's a catch-22. Sure I want to sound like I know what I'm talking about when I get on here and talk about religion, or else no one would listen. At the same time, I like to joke around as much as you do and get sick of taking myself too seriously. Unfortunately there is a limit to how vulnerable I can be to you before you think I'm a sap. I probably will continue my discussion with Bronwen comparing Catholicism to Seventh-day Adventism (probably one of the most interesting controversies of all Christendom) as time permits, but I really appreciate what you and others have said about sanctimoniousness, and I am reminded to keep it humble and not mean spirited. I needed to hear what you had to say before going any further.
I may not want to play on your team, because I like my team better- and I have a right to like what I like and dislike what I dislike, same as you do. I did not choose my church. God led me to it. God leads different people different ways. What I like about my own church is that from my viewpoint it appears to be the best framework from which to help me better understand and know and love God and so encourage others to as well. I don't root for my team merely for the sake of rooting for my team. It's rooting for the team for team's sake that causes all the sectarian tension and it being dangerous to wear a certain color to the pub. That doesn't glorify God.
About understanding the Bible- why I wouldn't expect you to understand it isn't merely because you aren't a member of my club. I read it whenever I can, and I pray about it and think about it constantly, yet there are a lot of things I don't understand. There's a principle in the Bible that says "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned." It is erroneous for someone to think that just by reading it and studying it they are going to unlock all it's secrets by human effort and human intelligence and human scholarship (this is something Brother Ted and I get into). When Jesus came the first time it was the greatest Biblical scholars of the day who demanded that He be crucified. "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned," means that when a person reads the Bible, the only way they can really get the message God is trying to put across is if the Spirit of God opens their mind to it and reveals it to them. I believe that it is a supernatural document that God uses as a medium to supernaturally communicate with us. For it's purpose, the Bible doesn't have to be perfect literature or free of contradictions. If spiritual things were intellectually discerned, then yes, it would have to be perfect literature and free of contradictions.
Nobody has a monopoly on the Spirit of God. I believe He reveals Himself to whom He chooses, and hides from whom He chooses. Why- if He loves everyone and wants us all to be saved? Because some people regard knowledge as power, and if deep spiritual truths were revealed to them merely by their human effort, they might use them for merely human purposes- for their own glory or political agenda. So I think that the Bible is written in a way that it is impenetrable or ridiculous, even misleading to some, and open and understandable to others, based on what they intend to achieve by it. From a humanistic point of view, that sounds like a pretzel-logic fabrication to excuse the Bible's faults. But God's ways are not man's ways. Man is not the measure of all things.
See, gmc, if I think you don't understand parts of the Bible, it isn't because you aren't a smart fellow, or sincere, or honest or a good person- not at all. It's because I get the impression that you are trying to understand a spiritual document from a human point of view.
Call me a clown for believing this stuff. First of all, you don't know just from looking at traditional Christianity what exact stuff I really believe. But you're right. I'm God's own clown! God has already dressed me up in a clown suit to keep me humble so I won't use what he reveals to me to glorify myself rather than Him.
It's a catch-22. Sure I want to sound like I know what I'm talking about when I get on here and talk about religion, or else no one would listen. At the same time, I like to joke around as much as you do and get sick of taking myself too seriously. Unfortunately there is a limit to how vulnerable I can be to you before you think I'm a sap. I probably will continue my discussion with Bronwen comparing Catholicism to Seventh-day Adventism (probably one of the most interesting controversies of all Christendom) as time permits, but I really appreciate what you and others have said about sanctimoniousness, and I am reminded to keep it humble and not mean spirited. I needed to hear what you had to say before going any further.
Look what the cat dragged in.
An Open Invitation
chonsigirl wrote: 1. You have changed your opening post, if I am not mistaken.
2. Which one of us do you consider to be Fundamentally Protestant?1. I don't believe so, chon, nor am I sure exactly what you mean. If you mean that I went back and edited it at some time during the discussion, I don't remember having done that, and the only reason I would ever do that would be to correct a typo. What do you think was changed? Within the first few MINUTES after posting I often go back and make minor changes and corrections.
2. That would be yourself and tel.
Why are you so hostile?
2. Which one of us do you consider to be Fundamentally Protestant?1. I don't believe so, chon, nor am I sure exactly what you mean. If you mean that I went back and edited it at some time during the discussion, I don't remember having done that, and the only reason I would ever do that would be to correct a typo. What do you think was changed? Within the first few MINUTES after posting I often go back and make minor changes and corrections.
2. That would be yourself and tel.
Why are you so hostile?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: 1. I don't believe so, chon, nor am I sure exactly what you mean. If you mean that I went back and edited it at some time during the discussion, I don't remember having done that, and the only reason I would ever do that would be to correct a typo. What do you think was changed? Within the first few MINUTES after posting I often go back and make minor changes and corrections.
2. That would be yourself and tel.
Why are you so hostile?
Chonsi? Hostile?? :yh_rotfl
I have to wonder about how you define hostility.
2. That would be yourself and tel.
Why are you so hostile?
Chonsi? Hostile?? :yh_rotfl
I have to wonder about how you define hostility.
An Open Invitation
gmc wrote: 1. The spanish inquisition was just used as one example.
2. It is impossible to look at european history without realising that most of the wars were caused by a mix of religon and economic and political factors.
3. Kings and Popes squabbling about who ruled with the ordinary people caught up in the middle and doing most of the dying.
4. The simple fact is millions did die fighting in religious wars and in large part it was the church in rome that couldn't accept challenges to its power.
5. I reckon in part that is why europe seems to be mainly secular compared to the US, a kind of tribal memory from the past no one wants religon getting involved in politics.
6. The catholic church is no different from fundamentalist protestants in that given half a chance I reckon both would like more power.
7. It's a pity that the differences between them are still more important than the shared beliefs.
8. Hope you don't think I'm a catholic basher since I am not averse to bashing protestants as well. At least your churches have nice decorations and footstools and central heating.
9. I have read about it but it's difficult to get a handle on how likely they are to get a grip on power. The best defence against religious fundamentalism is to constantly laugh at them. 1. OK. It's a good example.
2. Yup.
3 & 4. Well, this takes us back to the previous exchange. The Church really had very little power that wasn't given it by the various civil governments. To them, the Chruch served an important purpose apart from the spiritual. It was what Marx later referred to as 'the opiate of the [working] people'. These governemnts viewed heresy as a threat to the state as well as to the Church, and there is no doubt whatever that nearly all of the various Protestant and pre-Protestant
'reformers' were heretics.
5. Very likely true. In Germany, nearly everyone is either Catholic or Lutheran and we get along fine.
6. Here I can only speak from 65 years of experience as a Catholic. I do not see any interest in the type of power you mean. The Church is, as you know, strongly opposed to abortion on moral - not political - grounds and favors legislation opposing it, which I personally think is a mistake, but as far as taking over the government, I discern no such ambitions at any level. Certainly in countries like Ireland they may have more civil influence than in places like the USA and Germany which are more diverse. By contrast, though, certain Fundamentalist Protestants (mainly in the USA), known as 'Christian Reconstructionists' have political control as their central goal, and they seem to be quite serious about it.
7. In Germany that is not the case.
8. No, I don't think that at all; on the contrary, I've enjoyed all of my exchanges with you, and I hope that they will continue on future threads.
My quarrel is only with those who attempt to slander Catholicism (or for that matter Judaism, Mormonism or any other religion) by making claims that they know are lies. That is 'bearing false witness' and a direct violation of a commandment, and in many cases, the claims are so outrageous that only absolute morons would believe such things, which gives an indication of the segment of society these groups target.
The attack on the sciences, particularly biology and cosmology, while not specifically anti-Catholic, is just another indication of this phenomenon. All of the authors, all of the publishers of so-called 'creationist' and 'young earth' material are fully aware that every page of it is absolute garbage. They are interested only in controlling not-too-bright minds, and separating the owners of those minds from as much of their money as possible, and at that level they have been fairly successful.
9. That is what I try to do, but it's not always easy.
2. It is impossible to look at european history without realising that most of the wars were caused by a mix of religon and economic and political factors.
3. Kings and Popes squabbling about who ruled with the ordinary people caught up in the middle and doing most of the dying.
4. The simple fact is millions did die fighting in religious wars and in large part it was the church in rome that couldn't accept challenges to its power.
5. I reckon in part that is why europe seems to be mainly secular compared to the US, a kind of tribal memory from the past no one wants religon getting involved in politics.
6. The catholic church is no different from fundamentalist protestants in that given half a chance I reckon both would like more power.
7. It's a pity that the differences between them are still more important than the shared beliefs.
8. Hope you don't think I'm a catholic basher since I am not averse to bashing protestants as well. At least your churches have nice decorations and footstools and central heating.
9. I have read about it but it's difficult to get a handle on how likely they are to get a grip on power. The best defence against religious fundamentalism is to constantly laugh at them. 1. OK. It's a good example.
2. Yup.
3 & 4. Well, this takes us back to the previous exchange. The Church really had very little power that wasn't given it by the various civil governments. To them, the Chruch served an important purpose apart from the spiritual. It was what Marx later referred to as 'the opiate of the [working] people'. These governemnts viewed heresy as a threat to the state as well as to the Church, and there is no doubt whatever that nearly all of the various Protestant and pre-Protestant
'reformers' were heretics.
5. Very likely true. In Germany, nearly everyone is either Catholic or Lutheran and we get along fine.
6. Here I can only speak from 65 years of experience as a Catholic. I do not see any interest in the type of power you mean. The Church is, as you know, strongly opposed to abortion on moral - not political - grounds and favors legislation opposing it, which I personally think is a mistake, but as far as taking over the government, I discern no such ambitions at any level. Certainly in countries like Ireland they may have more civil influence than in places like the USA and Germany which are more diverse. By contrast, though, certain Fundamentalist Protestants (mainly in the USA), known as 'Christian Reconstructionists' have political control as their central goal, and they seem to be quite serious about it.
7. In Germany that is not the case.
8. No, I don't think that at all; on the contrary, I've enjoyed all of my exchanges with you, and I hope that they will continue on future threads.
My quarrel is only with those who attempt to slander Catholicism (or for that matter Judaism, Mormonism or any other religion) by making claims that they know are lies. That is 'bearing false witness' and a direct violation of a commandment, and in many cases, the claims are so outrageous that only absolute morons would believe such things, which gives an indication of the segment of society these groups target.
The attack on the sciences, particularly biology and cosmology, while not specifically anti-Catholic, is just another indication of this phenomenon. All of the authors, all of the publishers of so-called 'creationist' and 'young earth' material are fully aware that every page of it is absolute garbage. They are interested only in controlling not-too-bright minds, and separating the owners of those minds from as much of their money as possible, and at that level they have been fairly successful.
9. That is what I try to do, but it's not always easy.
An Open Invitation
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/ ... i/38/11490
"The Ayatollah of Holy Rollers"
Tuesday 31 May 2005
Death by stoning for atheists, adulterers, and practicing male homosexuals.
Stoning - or possibly burning at the stake - for atheists, heretics, religious apostates, followers of other religions who proselytize, unmarried females who are unchaste, incorrigible juvenile delinquents, and children who curse or strike their parents.
And, oh yes, death to witches, Satanists, and those who commit blasphemy.
Does this sound like a radical Islamist nightmare, a replay of Afghanistan under the Taliban?
Welcome to the United States of America as Christian Reconstructionists hope to run it. Not as a democracy, which they see as secular heresy. But as a reconstructed Christian nation, complete with biblically sanctioned flogging and slavery.I have started a new thread on this subject, and would ask anyone wishing to comment to do so there.
"The Ayatollah of Holy Rollers"
Tuesday 31 May 2005
Death by stoning for atheists, adulterers, and practicing male homosexuals.
Stoning - or possibly burning at the stake - for atheists, heretics, religious apostates, followers of other religions who proselytize, unmarried females who are unchaste, incorrigible juvenile delinquents, and children who curse or strike their parents.
And, oh yes, death to witches, Satanists, and those who commit blasphemy.
Does this sound like a radical Islamist nightmare, a replay of Afghanistan under the Taliban?
Welcome to the United States of America as Christian Reconstructionists hope to run it. Not as a democracy, which they see as secular heresy. But as a reconstructed Christian nation, complete with biblically sanctioned flogging and slavery.I have started a new thread on this subject, and would ask anyone wishing to comment to do so there.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: My quarrel is only with those who attempt to slander Catholicism (or for that matter Judaism, Mormonism or any other religion) by making claims that they know are lies.
I take it you see that as happening here, possibly in this thread? If so, where?
I take it you see that as happening here, possibly in this thread? If so, where?
-
telaquapacky
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:00 pm
An Open Invitation
gmc wrote: Now there in a nutshell you have the origins of the conflict between catholics and protestants. When you visit a catholic church are you offended by all the gilt images of saints and the Virgin Mary or do you think the way they worship doesn't matter because you all worship the same god.The statues and Mary thing is not the origin of the differences between Catholics and Protestants, nor is it even of very great importance. The more important issues involve God's character and what kind of Person He really is, God's law, His grace, His authority and His government in general. The statues and beads thing is trivial. If that were all there was, shame on us! Bronwen and I and others may get around to discussing the real nitty gritty things. Stay tuned!
Look what the cat dragged in.
An Open Invitation
Accountable wrote: I take it you see that as happening here, possibly in this thread? If so, where?Well, as I keep stating, I would prefer to do that on a separate thread, but here is one to get you started:Accountable wrote: William Branham....points out how the Catholic Church practices blasphemy on a daily basis (praying to statues of saints, for instance).That is NOTHING compared to some of the absolutely OUTRAGEOUS slander on the Branham website. And I would find it just as outrageous if it concerned some other denomination; it's not the object of the slander that is important but rather the fact that it's FALSE WITNESS in the name of Christianity. Shame!
An Open Invitation
telaquapacky wrote: The more important issues involve God's character and what kind of Person He really is, God's law, His grace, His authority and His government in general. tel, can you be more specific? What do you view as the differences between Catholic and Protestant (not necessarily SDA) thought on these issues?
Personally I think most of the differences lie elsewhere.
Personally I think most of the differences lie elsewhere.
An Open Invitation
Far Rider wrote: First off, is there a "Holy Rollers" Denomination? I dont think so. .Well, you are wrong. There is indeed a denom which INFORMALLY refers to itself by that name, and in fact, they do exactly that (roll up and down the aisles). One of their churches was just a few blocks south of us on Race St. in Connellsville, PA, when I lived there many years ago, and as far as I know, they do not consider the appellation derogatory. I tried to remember the denom's formal name but was unable to do so, nor did a web search help. Maybe some other poster knows. If I remember I'll post it.
FR, I would ask you the same question I asked Acc. Why not make a meaningful contribution to the thread rather than just trying to attack me personally?
FR, I would ask you the same question I asked Acc. Why not make a meaningful contribution to the thread rather than just trying to attack me personally?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
An Open Invitation
Bronwen wrote: Well, as I keep stating, I would prefer to do that on a separate thread, but here is one to get you started:That is NOTHING compared to some of the absolutely OUTRAGEOUS slander on the Branham website. And I would find it just as outrageous if it concerned some other denomination; it's not the object of the slander that is important but rather the fact that it's FALSE WITNESS in the name of Christianity. Shame!
Let's keep the quotes in context, a concept I see you're ambiguous about.
Accountable wrote: My father joined a non-denomination church that follows the teachings of William Branham. He is adamantly non-Protestant, and points out how the Catholic Church practices blasphemy on a daily basis (praying to statues of saints, for instance).
It's Branham you have a problem with, not me. I merely pointed out what the man my father followed espouses.
I do think it's amusing that you know whether he knows his claim to be a lie or not, though. I'm mildly curious now, not being catholic. How do you justify praying to statues that represent intermediaries, when it's clearly prohibited in the Bible?
Let's keep the quotes in context, a concept I see you're ambiguous about.
Accountable wrote: My father joined a non-denomination church that follows the teachings of William Branham. He is adamantly non-Protestant, and points out how the Catholic Church practices blasphemy on a daily basis (praying to statues of saints, for instance).
It's Branham you have a problem with, not me. I merely pointed out what the man my father followed espouses.
I do think it's amusing that you know whether he knows his claim to be a lie or not, though. I'm mildly curious now, not being catholic. How do you justify praying to statues that represent intermediaries, when it's clearly prohibited in the Bible?