This does not say Jesus could not forgive abusing or sexually abusing a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
Printable View
This does not say Jesus could not forgive abusing or sexually abusing a child.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
I find it weird to say that the rules of the old testament and the new testament contradict themselves, because the new testament is meant to overrule the old testament. Jesus came as a saviour so people would not need to sacrifice lambs anymore to be forgiven their sins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakizashi
The difference between Christians and Jews is that Christians believe in what the new testament and Jesus say and Jews do not.
"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." John 3:36Quote:
Originally Posted by GoreBag
Although I'm under the impression the NT isn't the most consistent scripture either. Jesus: "love thine neighbour" - Paul: "burn the damn homos", or that's in any case how someone sarcastically put it. Wouldn't know myself, I was never able to wade through even the more interesting bits of the OT like the Apocalypse nevermind now the NT...
I always found to more cracked bits like the different interpretations of the Holy Trinity and the Eucharist way more interesting, chiefly because of their very concrete unintented side effects.
Jesus said the only sin that would not be forgiven is attributing works of the Holy Spirit to other sources, particularly Satan:DA, the concept of original sin, as Pindar points out, is common to Christians of the Western Church, only. Those who descend from the Eastern branch have a different outlook on man's need for salvation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew 12:31-32
As for justification by faith alone, this one again is tricky. Not all Protestants agree with it, and no Catholics do. There is scripture to interpret either position, and if you ever want to read a real head twister on how to justify both positions at the same time, read John Wesley's (founder of Methodist Church, though not a Methodist himself) on Prevenient Grace, which states that in fact, God chose you to believe in him (Calvisim) because He knew you would choose Him (Arminism).
Personally, I still hold to my Catholic roots, which is that our sinful natures and actions can indeed keep us from accepting the victory over death that Christ's love and sacrafice offered us. As my offensive line coach, a Dominican that taught my sophomore and junior years of religion used to say: "We cannot earn our way into heaven. Christ alone did that. But we sure as hell can earn our way right back out again".
All sins, save blasphemy against the holy spirit, can be forgiven, but I believe it takes a genuinely pentient heart to be forgiven..... 'oops, I'm sorry I did it again, and I don't want to go to hell' probably doesn't cut it.
Humans being what they are though, that one would be causing some overcrowding in Hell then...
Well I'll be...
Real dialogue can progress once caustic remarks and inflammatory statements are removed.
If every thread could be like this... :2thumbsup:
Good heavens! I am heartily seconding Reenk Roink. :2thumbsup:
At its most basic a Christian is one who holds Jesus as the Christ. This Messiah role typically involves some kind of salvatory model. Whether Jesus is seen as divine or part of a trinity is a separate issue. Any metaphysical ascription about Christ, the nature of man or the cosmos in general are more properly the domain of orthodox vis-a-vis heterodox forms of Christianity. Orthodoxy itself is the established theological tradition as accepted by the major strains of the faith from the early ecumenical councils and the compiling of a canon.
More reading for those interested. linkQuote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
Being "famous" does not mean what he says is correct. There's the first problem. One cannot judge what the Bible says based on a man who is "most famous" or "most respected" or "most articulate" or any other "most". The Bible says what it says and it says so very clearly. That is the only source that has any relevance, period.
I agree with your "personal penchant" comment, which is precisely why your points in this thread are entirely incorrect. If someone is saying something contrary to what the Bible says such as that mankind is not inherently evil - which the Bible makes clear in every book from start to finish as a core tenet - then those comments have no legitimate relation to Christianity or what it represents.
Many apostates try to find some articulate, respected, famous guy to say something they happen to agree with about what Christianity means and believe that for convenience's sake rather than believing what the Bible actually says. If one looks hard enough, one can find someone else in worldly authority to agree with him about pretty much anything in the Universe; but other than the artificial "feel good inside" feelings it may give temporarily, really that is just goading one's selves into living a lie and harboring untruths. As such, they are ultimately believing in nothing other than falsehoods and therefore their fabricated faith is worthless.
As for "no such citation exists", try this on for size:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus Christ
So, basically, you're advocating for a strict literalist interpretation of the bible, Navaros? No allegory, no allusions, no metaphorical language whatsoever. Read it literally, word for word, exactly as it's written?Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
@Pindar
Thank you for your response. I accept your very reasonable proposition that a description of Christianity must not be at variance with those tenets held by the Orthodox churches. However I disagree with your statements about the emotive neutrality of "sectarian" and "penchant". For a UK Catholic, the word sectarian is almost always associated with either Northern Ireland or Glasgow and invariably has negative connotations of friction, intolerance and discrimination. Your use of penchant suggests that Christians outside the Orthodox tradition hold beliefs about the nature of man because they feel like it or have tendencies (proclivities) that way, rather than those beliefs being based, as yours are, on centuries of prayer and reflection. However, as I said, your essential point is reasonable.
You are, however, wrong about Catholic teaching and Limbo. I am not an expert on St Thomas Aquinas, but I believe he taught that Limbo for infants was a natural state of joy, obvious lesser joy than union with God in heaven, but hardly a region of Hell. In any case, Limbo does not feature in modern Catholic teaching at all. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) states:
"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."
Duke,
Actually, Pindar is correct. Limbo is referred to by other names as well, such as 'The Hell of the Just'. In decribing Limbo as a part of hell, it's important to remember that hell is defined as a separation from God, not necessarily a place of eternal torment (specifically, Gehenna). 'Good' people (never hurt anybody, try to serve their fellow man) who never come to know Christ as their personal savior because they never had the opportunity to hear the gospels go to the Hell of the Just as well. Limbo was an official dogma until Vatican II.
Purgatory is not Hell, because in Hell, there is no knowledge of God, nor hope of a reunification with Him. In Purgatory, which supposedly rivals Gehenna in terms of the torments one endures, the only thing that makes it bearable is the knowledge that at the end of the afflictions, you will be reconciled and brought to heaven. It should be noted to those that think confession is some sort of 'free pass', confession only removes the breach between you and God's capacity to forgive. The debt of sin, i.e. time spent in purgatory for forgiven offenses, is not mitigated whatsoever. It's been a very, very long time since I've peeked inside the Baltimore Catechsim, but the penalties for even minor transgressions were pretty severe. Impure thoughts: 1000 years per offense, stuff like that. And that's 1000 years in torment, mind you.
We are currently studying Christianity in our history class. There for i read the 10 commandments. I found something i thought was funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
This it says about the seventh commandment (note: I am not saying that every christian is saying this, this is just what i read): We are also stealing his time, and interfearing with his life (letterlijk Wij grijpen eveneens in in zijn levensgebied) when we are impeding him in going his own way, by forcing him our opinion and to expect of him, that he accepts our opinion.
but they are still converting people to accept their opinion, and saying that those who donot believe in what they believe shall feel god's wrath. Not anymore, but they used to burn people that did not believe in what they believed... is that not forcing someone to accept your opinion...
I dont know if that made sense... maybe a dutch member can explain it better.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
As I said, I am not an expert on Thomas Aquinas so you may well be right. However I can read a Catechism which tells me that Pindar was wrong to contradict my statement that Catholics do not believe that unbaptized babies go to hell.
The Bible has allegory, and allusions and metaphors in them but they are called parables and Jesus always made it clear when he was telling a parable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
The point being that any "allegory, allusion, or metaphor" in the Bible is clearly described as such.
The evil minds of men have saw fit to try to say that all parts of the Bible are those things so that they can gratify the evil desires in their hearts and still feel good about themselves.
That is turning the Word of God into a lie, and that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit - the one unforgivable sin that you've been talking about.
Gentleman. Thank you for your responses thus far. I would like to further clarify my original point. Christianity is diversified by its differences, but united in its similarities. I would like to focus on those common unifying concepts which are to be found in most, if not all, sects of Christianity.
Again, please help me to determine the similarities rather than the differences.
To restate and redirect: I am stripping away the "color" of each existential perspective and focusing on core concepts in simple sentence format. Eloquence can distort, confuse, and exagerate.
Which of the following concepts are generally accepted as foundations in the Christian faith? Please address one at a time, if you would be so kind as to humor me.
(1)Asserts that modern man is born inherently evil (The reasoning behind this is not a topic of this discussion at the moment since it is a concept shared by many faiths.) Further Clarification- asserts that modern man is incapable of perfection. In other words, all men will commit some minimal evil in their lives.
(2) and is doomed to eternal pain and suffering upon death
(3) unless sacrifice is given to a single all-powerful God.
(4) Asserts that a man named Jesus was born on earth 2000 years ago and was the human child of the single all-powerful God.
(5) Further asserts that Jesus self-sacrificed in order to alleviate all mankind from the requirement that they experience eternal pain and suffering.
(6) In order for an individual to be eligible for this exemption from suffering, the individual must simply believe everything written above.
:bow:
I was just curious where you slaughter all your animals. In today's environment, where ritual cleanliness is not practiced, even among the Jews themselves, we all sin against God on a daily basis. As per Leviticus, which I'm pretty sure was meant to be taken literally at the time it was written...Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
I'm sure you've used a public restroom at least once in your life. Ignorance of the ritual uncleanliness of the place is no excuse, as per 5:3, you are unclean and guilty in the eyes of the Lord. If you can afford it, you must bring a sin offering of a perfect female lamb or goat and sacrafice it with a priest in atonement. I'm just curious how you do that on a regular basis with running afoul of your local health department.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leviticus 5
Now if your point is that the words and teachings of Christ should all be taken literally unless He makes it clear that He's speaking metaphorically, I agree with you 100%. I actually do agree with you on the sinful nature of man. I just don't like the argument that you're making, that every book of the bible should be taken literally and they're all equal in meaning in order to support your argument.
On a side note, I do find it interesting that the oath you're required to take to testify in a court of law, under penalty of contempt, is actually forcing you to violate one of the rules listed in the book they use to administer the oath (5:4).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
The "further clarification" part is incorrect, you had stated it more properly the first time around. The Bible makes it clear that all men are evil to the bone not just "a little bit evil". Although I give you credit for not entirely caving to the popular "feel good by saying Christianity says whatever we want it to" mentality.
That is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
That is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
That is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
That is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
That is only partially correct. It is incomplete hence your summary as stated does not paint a full picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
In having had to dig out a Biblical quote I noticed another direct quote from Jesus that underscores what I was saying early that simple belief in the above does not exempt one from suffering. One must believe and not be a worker of iniquity (ie: living a debauched life). For your summary to be accurate & complete, you must add something that states this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesus Christ
NAVAROS:
Regarding Point (1), you wrote:
Is not man capable of both Good and evil? And do we not, regardless of faith, act the will of God, sometimes intentionally and sometimes unintentionally? And therefore, I would interpret Christianity as underscoring the futility of works. In other words, one million good and honest acts will not negate the consequence of one sin, no matter how minimal we perceive that evil to be.Quote:
The "further clarification" part is incorrect, you had stated it more properly the first time around. The Bible makes it clear that all men are evil to the bone not just "a little bit evil". Although I give you credit for not entirely caving to the popular "feel good by saying Christianity says whatever we want it to" mentality.
Does this rectify my discrepency in interpretation for you?
Regarding Point (6), you wrote:
So I am clear, you are essentially stating that faith alone is insufficient and works alone are insufficient. In order to avoid the requirement of seperation from God, an individual must both believe in points (1)-(6) and produce good works.Quote:
That is only partially correct. It is incomplete hence your summary as stated does not paint a full picture.
In having had to dig out a Biblical quote I noticed another direct quote from Jesus that underscores what I was saying early that simple belief in the above does not exempt one from suffering. One must believe and not be a worker of iniquity (ie: living a debauched life). For your summary to be accurate & complete, you must add something that states this.
Do I understand you correctly?
Well, now while I personally agree with you on this issue Navaros, I don't know that you can argue that all Christians believe that. After all, St. Paul saysIn fact, Paul's entire letter to the Galations is dedicated to the notion that the only role a human being can possibly play in their own salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ. I don't happen to agree with that interpretation, and one only need look at the letter of Peter or Christ's admonishments in the Sermon on the Mount to see that St. Paul was wrong on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Romans 3
To be blunt, DA, I think you'll find as many defintions on what it means to be a Christian as there are Christians. A relationship with Christ is a very personal thing, and it requires you to bring your whole heart and whole soul and whole mind to it. Obviously, Christ Himself is the unifying factor. I would say the first 5 statements you made are common to all who call themselves Christians.
There are some people that consider themselves Christians who deny Christ's divinity, but assert that He was a divinely insipired, very good human being.
As C.S. Lewis so eloquently put it, this is not possible. Christ intentionally did not allow us this option. As He asserted His divinity and His role as the one true son of God: He was either mentally ill, He was intentionally deceiving the people of His day, or He was exactly who He said He was. A good man and teacher among teachers cannot fit into that, as a good man and a teacher among teachers would never intentionally mislead people, nor would they be mentally unsound.
Being famous does not mean one is correct sure enough, but that was not the issue. Rather, I cited Bishop Kallistos as a well known example of one who has put forward the basic teachings of the Orthodox Church. The citation was from his work 'The Orthodox Church'. The Orthodox Church (which comprises several hundred million believers) does not hold to the notion man is inherently evil. If you wish to argue Kallistos has misrepresented the Orthodox Church please explain the whys and wherefores, otherwise he serves as a simple counter example to the idea Christianity and the idea man is inherently evil are the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
The Bible is not taken as the sole source of doctrine by the vast bulk of Christianity. Christianity predates the compilation of the Bible. Further, the mere reference to the Bible as authoritative begs the question as there is not a single Bible. The standard Bible of Protestantism is the not same as what is used by Roman Catholics which is not the same as what is used by the Ethiopic Church for example.Quote:
One cannot judge what the Bible says based on a man who is "most famous" or "most respected" or "most articulate" or any other "most". The Bible says what it says and it says so very clearly. That is the only source that has any relevance, period.
Your statement is anachronistic.Quote:
I agree with your "personal penchant" comment, which is precisely why your points in this thread are entirely incorrect. If someone is saying something contrary to what the Bible says such as that mankind is not inherently evil - which the Bible makes clear in every book from start to finish as a core tenet - then those comments have no legitimate relation to Christianity or what it represents.
This does not say man is inherently evil. You may also want to note the word for evil here is poneros. It does not imply an intrinsic state. It is derived from the sense of denoting poverty or need. It has the sense of unhappy or laden with care or pitiable as well as troublesome or bad. A simple example would be Revelations 16:2Quote:
As for "no such citation exists", try this on for size:
Originally Posted by Jesus Christ
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?
And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.
The word grievous above is the same poneros. Text interpretation is tricky business. When one posits an X means Y it is easy to fall into the trap of assuming one's interpretive stance informs the text rather that the other way around. Applying a markedly philosophical and metaphysical positioning to a text that is quite clearly a non-philosophical work is problematic.
My pleasure good sir.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
I was using sect from its basic meaning: c.1300, "distinctive system of beliefs or observances; party or school within a religion," from O.Fr. secte, from L.L. secta "religious group, sect,"Quote:
I accept your very reasonable proposition that a description of Christianity must not be at variance with those tenets held by the Orthodox churches. However I disagree with your statements about the emotive neutrality of "sectarian" and "penchant". For a UK Catholic, the word sectarian is almost always associated with either Northern Ireland or Glasgow and invariably has negative connotations of friction, intolerance and discrimination. Your use of penchant suggests that Christians outside the Orthodox tradition hold beliefs about the nature of man because they feel like it or have tendencies (proclivities) that way, rather than those beliefs being based, as yours are, on centuries of prayer and reflection. However, as I said, your essential point is reasonable.
My use of penchant was described as a proclivity. I did not make comment on the historical context of a beliefs save that it is flawed to assign a view of the part to that of the whole. Man an inherently evil is an example.
As far as Catholic teaching on Limbo and the most recent Catechism. The quote you provide from CCC1261 is interesting:Quote:
You are, however, wrong about Catholic teaching and Limbo. I am not an expert on St Thomas Aquinas, but I believe he taught that Limbo for infants was a natural state of joy, obvious lesser joy than union with God in heaven, but hardly a region of Hell. In any case, Limbo does not feature in modern Catholic teaching at all. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) states:
"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."
"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism."
Of course from the CCC 1257 we also have:
"The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation."
From Xiaho's citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church.
Other comments: Pope Lius X (1905)
"Children who die without baptism go into limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they do not suffer either, because having Original Sin, and only that, they do not deserve paradise, but neither hell or purgatory."
From Baltimore Catechism No. 3:
“Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven” (Q. 632).
From the New Catholic Encyclopedia issue after Vatican II:
“For the time being only limbo as a solution to the problem seems to preserve intact the doctrine and practice of the Church concerning the absolute necessity of Baptism for eternal salvation” (Vol. 8, p. 765).
It may be that Limbo is on its way out of Modern Catholicism. If so, that raises some interesting questions.
This is not a shared view. Eastern Christianity rejects this notion. I have already provide an example (post 24). This includes arguably all the oldest extent sects of Christianity comprising hundreds of millions of adherents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
This is not a universal stance as the references regarding unbaptized infants attests. It does not appear Greek versions of Christianity ever taught unbaptized infants suffer eternal pain and suffering. In Latin Christianity some held this view, others not. There is also the notion of the non-suffering of pre-Advent notables i.e. Moses or virtuous Pagans.Quote:
(2) and is doomed to eternal pain and suffering upon death
Yes mankind is capable of doing both good and evil, but the point is that man is deeply evil by default. An evil nature is hard-wired into every man and woman and will inevitably manifest itself constantly, not just a "little bit". The main objection I have to your wording are the words "some" and "minimal" because the evil nature of mankind is the exact opposite of "some" and "minimal".Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
It is correct that according to the Bible, faith alone is not enough to avoid separation from God. Neither are good works alone enough to avoid separation from God.
The Bible says that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. You are correct that all the good works in the world would not erase a sin on their own. The sinner must come to God and ask for forgiveness via the shed blood of Jesus.
I personally am unsure about the "it is necessary to produce good works" phrasing. I am not sure if it is so necessary to produce good works as it is to not deliberately go out of one's way to produce bad works (ie: purposefully living a life that is flagrantly contrary to God's will.) Deliberately going out of one's way to live a life of iniquity definitely will exclude a believer from God.
I think Paul was mostly wrong and probably shouldn't be in the Bible. I think he was probably the first Christian heretic. That is, of course, if you believe the rest of what is in the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Like any good Gnostic I doubt the validity of the collected works known as the Bible. The sheer paucity of writings from the eleven surviving Disciples is strange enough, then when you consider the manifestly pro-Roman wrings of Paul things become much worse.
Paul was selling Christianity-Lite.
One other thing. Mesiah and Christ mean "anointed one" and would refer to any King of the Jews.
Paul has said in Romans, Corinthians and probably a bunch of other Books too that workers of iniquity will not inherit the Kingdom of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Believing in Jesus and yet still working iniquity will not lead to salvation. Jesus said so. Paul said so.
Explain his assertion in Romans that justification is about faith, from beginning to end. Explain Galatians. I agree that evil deeds will lose you your salvation, but I wouldn't use anything by St. Paul to justify that belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Navaros
The Nicene Creed sums up the core for all Christians. Then their is a lot of seemingly little stuff that adds up.
Nice to see a civil thread about Christianity for a change, there have been too few of these lately.
Good to see you about Pindar, you are just not pawnable on the topic of religion. It is always enjoyable to read your inputs.
I see that most of the posters in here are in fact men of faith and I shall therefore lay low and let the Christians work this out amongst themselves.
I am curious of one thing though and that is a question for Navaros to answer.
Do you belong to a certain denomination? If yes, would you say which one?