Religion Part I: Christianity

The political debating has been nuts around here lately. Some people are shooting off at the mouth with liberal conspiracy theories, while others are equaiting the Republican Party with the devil. I for one need a breather from the ring before we start this exciting campaign season.

Let's talk about some religious concepts. I'd like to start with Christianity and then move on to other religions. I know this is something we have done to a certain degree, but if you want to join me on this, I'm open minded enough.


Christianity: Asserts that modern man is born inherently evil and is doomed to eternal pain and suffering upon death unless sacrifice is given to a single all-powerful God. Asserts that a man named Jesus was born on earth 2000 years ago and was the human child of the single all-powerful God. Further asserts that Jesus self-sacrificed in order to alleviate all mankind from the requirement that they experience eternal pain and suffering. Finally, in order for an individual to be eligible for this exemption from suffering, the individual must simply believe everything written above.


Is this basically correct? Does anybody want to clarify or dispute that this is what Christianity asserts?

There are a lot of folks who believe that the essence of modern Christianity is summed up by the Nicene Creed. To wit:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty
Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible:

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds;
God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God;
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father,
by Whom all things were made:
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man:
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried:
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures:
And ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father:
And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead:
Whose Kingdom will have no end:

And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life,
Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,
Who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,
I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
And I look for the Resurrection of the Dead:
And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

This leaves only a few Christian groups out of the fold, notably Unitarians, Christian Scientists and Gnostics. But it's certainly a good jumping-off point.

Interesting thread. I'm taking a course right now entitled "Early Medieval History". It discusses how Christianity spread and the different early forms off. I've read quite a few texts translated from Latin or Greek to English dealing with early Christian behavior. We early doing Islam and the Arabs next, so it would be fairly interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

The political debating has been nuts around here lately. Some people are shooting off at the mouth with liberal conspiracy theories, while others are equaiting the Republican Party with the devil. I for one need a breather from the ring before we start this exciting campaign season.

---

:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Christianity: Asserts that modern man is born inherently evil and is doomed to eternal pain and suffering upon death unless sacrifice is given to a single all-powerful God. Asserts that a man named Jesus was born on earth 2000 years ago and was the human child of the single all-powerful God. Further asserts that Jesus self-sacrificed in order to alleviate all mankind from the requirement that they experience eternal pain and suffering. Finally, in order for an individual to be eligible for this exemption from suffering, the individual must simply believe everything written above.

---

Considering the complexity involved with the theology of Christianity, and the variety between its many, many sects, I doubt a general assertion in one paragraph of what it is will be able to provide much, if any, insight towards the religion.

However, the "Nicene Creed" is indeed the most prevalent of all the branches. It is the foundation of Catholicism, and, by extension, most Protestanism as well--the latter being a breakaway of the former.

Of course, a few surviving Arians would call the entire Council at Nicaea something of a heretic council...

Perhaps this would be the appropriate thread for me to voice my various grievances with Christianity.

Quote:

---

Finally, in order for an individual to be eligible for this exemption from suffering, the individual must simply believe everything written above.

---

Justification by faith alone is, I think, esentially a Protestant notion, not accepted by all Christians. Whilst some of the writings of St Paul support this notion, in other places scripture suggests that more is required, for example James 2:14-26 (compares faith and good works) and Matthew 25:31-46 (no mention of faith at all).

Quote:

---

Asserts that modern man is born inherently evil and is doomed to eternal pain and suffering upon death unless sacrifice is given to a single all-powerful God.

---

Inherently evil, yes, but not entirely evil - inherently good too.

Great start to the post! Sorry those damn liberals have been ruining the board. And I know it get worse - they've even broken the Holy Creed which states Republicans are in fact God's chosen disciple... :dizzy2:

The summary you've managed is testimony to how the Catholics destroyed all branches of the church they didn't like. Many early Christians even didn't follow the Canonical bible.

Some ascertain that early Christianity was in two camps, those that believed Jesus was a modern day prophet, and those that believed he was divine. Later Jesus and Christos got merged together to fit both doctrines.

~:smoking:

-Mithrandir[/censor].



i

Let's stick to the style of the first post.

No religion bashing.

Indeed, I believe the point -- as clearly established in the first post -- is to establish what Christianity is, not what we wish it were, nor to air our grievances with it. Perhaps we can save the Christianity-bashing for another thread?

I note that DA's first post placed a heavy emphasis on original sin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

[M]an is born inherently evil and is doomed to eternal pain and suffering upon death unless sacrifice is given to a single all-powerful God.

---

While this isn't strictly wrong, it puts a heavier emphasis on Original Sin than is customary; sounds almost Calvinist. As a Jesuit once told the lemur, "I believe in hell, but I don't believe there's anyone in it."

It would be very interesting to get into the various conceptions of free will ...

[edit]

I know that Unitarians, Christian Scientists and Gnostics might not fit within the Nicene Creed. What about Mormons? Anybody familiar with LDS theology who can take a stab at an answer?

IMO the term "christian" has to be so vague to encompass the massive differences between the different sects as to render it rather pointless.

Christianity is what people wish it to be. Like the Christians who blithely say "to be a Christian all you need to know is God is love..." either they are brain dead or willfully being overly simplistic.

Some believe in a hell. Some believe the Material universe is hell, and heaven is waiting for them.
Some believe in the Bible. Some believe in bits of the Bible. Some believe in the Bible and other bits. Oh, and then there's the different versions of the Bible...
Some believe in original sin. Some don't. Some believe in the Pope. Others don't.
Some believe that Jesus will return. Some don't. Some believe that was due to show up, but didn't. Others say that he did turn up, but only to their bosses to give them the green light to be the bosses.
Some believe that icons are extremely religious. Others seem to have read the Bible and view this as Idolatory.

Any other schisms I've forgotten?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Christianity: Asserts that modern man is born inherently evil and is doomed to eternal pain and suffering upon death unless sacrifice is given to a single all-powerful God.

---

Essentially this is a correct assertion, but I shall refine it a little. Mankind (not just modern man, but mankind throughout the ages) is born inherently evil (because of the sins of Adam) and is doomed to suffer eternally unless he accepts the sacrifice of his only son, Jesus (Joshua Ben David), also known as the Christ or Messiah, and believes that he is the son of God.

Romans 3:23 ...for all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.

Romans 5:12-13 Therefore, as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all have sinned-for before the law was given, sin was in the world.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin are death, but the gift of God is Eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

As to those who think that the coming of Crist completely nullifies the Old Testament, I say that this assertion is incorrect. Jesus himself claimed such.

Matthew 5:17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

To those who may not believe in God, but think that this is just some extremely well thought up story to control the masses, God's word offers this:

Pslams 14:1-3 A fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. The Lord looks down from Heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

This is the reason that the Christ was sent to be a living sacrifice for the sins of the world. Despite our best intentions, there is not a single one of us who can say that he has done no wrong. Believing in the sacrifice of Jesus (who, though tempted in every way as we are, walked blameless) is God's attempt to reach out to man.

Consider these words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The summary you've managed is testimony to how the Catholics destroyed all branches of the church they didn't like.

---

This is a little emotive and inaccurate. In the early church defining and refining doctrine was important. I suppose this is what you mean by "destroying" branches of the church they did not like, although that is a highly judgemental way of putting it. Of course all this happened before any schism between Catholics and Orthodox or Catholics and Protestant, so it is somewhat unfair to let those churches of the hook. As I pointed out before, salvation merely requiring faith, which is what DA put in his summary is a Protestant idea which Catholics would reject so the summary is not particularly Catholic either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Christianity: Asserts that modern man is born inherently evil and is doomed to eternal pain and suffering upon death unless sacrifice is given to a single all-powerful God.

---

This is not correct. The notion of man as inherently evil (as seen in the notion of Original Sin) is a product of the 5th Century ala St. Augustine. Due to Augustine's massive impact on Latin Christianity both Roman Catholicism and its heir Protestantism generally hold to this view. The same cannot be said of the Greek Tradition.

Regarding Nicea: The Nicene Creed has been referred to as the foundational Christian stance. If one accepts this view then the Jesus movement prior to 325 C.E. was void of foundation. This is problematic for a historical faith. The Nicene Creed is vastly important. If for nothing else it marks the beginnings of Imperial Christianity, but one could argue this is still distinct from defining the core of the religion.

Catholics, such as I, believe in The Trinity.
basically God, The Holy Spirit, The Son are one; however Jesus is still the Son of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is not correct. The notion of man as inherently evil (as seen in the notion of Original Sin) is a product of the 5th Century ala St. Augustine. Due to Augustine's massive impact on Latin Christianity both Roman Catholicism and its heir Protestantism generally hold to this view.

---

Actually this is not correct and the original post was. Jesus himself has said that mankind is inherently evil and indeed that is also made very abundantly clear in all books of the Bible, both Old and New Testament.

Original post is a good summary but it is incomplete as it doesn't take into account that simple belief alone does not gain passage into Heaven. Remember Jesus said that not everyone who says to him "Lord, Lord" will enter into the gates. There are also factors of living a moral life and not a debauched one that would prevent a believer from inheriting the Kingdom of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Original post is a good summary but it is incomplete as it doesn't take into account that simple belief alone does not gain passage into Heaven. Remember Jesus said that not everyone who says to him "Lord, Lord" will enter into the gates. There are also factors of living a moral life and not a debauched one that would prevent a believer from inheriting the Kingdom of God.

---

Says one branch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Says one branch.

---

Says the Bible which is the only one branch that matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Says the Bible which is the only one branch that matters.

---

All a mater on how you intpret and what you include.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Says the Bible which is the only one branch that matters.

---

The Bible was written by man. Men have flaws therefore the Bible also has flaws.

Csar/Navaros:

I'd recommend setting that line of argument aside for now.

Believers in the Bible assume that God's divine inspiration has empowered any translation as well as the original composition and that the Bible therefore has not been marred and contains lessons and messages central to Christianity.

If you believe the Bible to be no more than a book, you are probably of the belief that religion is no more than a social convention -- an aspect of culture.

Hashing that one out is not likely to move DA's intended discussion forward.

I'm religious I just think that most people put more emphasis on the bible than they really should. But that's just my opnion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Csar

I'm a religious I just think that most people put more emphasis on the bible than they really should. But that's just my opnion.

---

:juggle2: Yes, I agree fully. Having been a kid, who attended Catholic School, our Bishop and subsequent teachers would continuously pound into our heads that the bible was never meant to be literal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

This is not correct. The notion of man as inherently evil (as seen in the notion of Original Sin) is a product of the 5th Century ala St. Augustine. Due to Augustine's massive impact on Latin Christianity both Roman Catholicism and its heir Protestantism generally hold to this view. The same cannot be said of the Greek Tradition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Actually this is not correct and the original post was.

---

---

Not so. My post was correct both in its doctrinal scope and theological chronology. As a simple illustration of the former: Bishop Kallistos is perhaps the most famous advocate of the Orthodox Church in the English speaking world. He writes in explaining the beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy:

"Orthodox do not say, as Calvin said, that man after the fall was utterly depraved and incapable of good desires. They cannot agree with Augustine, when he writes that man is under ‘a harsh necessity’ of committing sin, and that ‘man’s nature was overcome by the fault into which it fell, and so came to lack freedom’ ...And Orthodox have never held (as Augustine and many others in the west have done) that unbaptized babies, because tainted with original guilt, are consigned by the just God to the everlasting games of Hell. The Orthodox picture of fallen humanity is far less sombre than the Augustinian or Calvinist view."

One shouldn't confuse a personal sectarian penchant for the whole of Christendom.

Quote:

---

Jesus himself has said that mankind is inherently evil...

---

No such citation exists.

As far as I'm concerned, brushing aside theological differences and schools of thought, Christianity is the belief that Christ was the saviour of mankind or the equivalent in a different wording. As a religion, it's an extension of Judaism. Christians are people who adhere to the belief, but are also, by extension, Jews. Christians and 'proper' Jews, despite differences in belief, faith, doctrine and other details, generally maintain a certain sense of morality. Pragmatically speaking, a man who believes in no Christ but acts and thinks the same way as a Christian is a Christian.

Well... by the Old Testament, in Christianity it is believed that man/woman are born inheirantly evil. Yes, we get that. However, Jesus and God are forgiving, and well... most sins are considered forgiveable. The only sin that really sticks out in my mind that Jesus could not forgive was abusing and/or sexually abusing a child.

I once asked our Parish Master (Bishop), what is something that you would have to do to get into hell. He pondered for a bit, and said "Genocidals, Child Abusers, and People that refuse to ask for foregiveness."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Well... by the Old Testament, in Christianity it is believed that man/woman are born inheirantly evil.

---

This is not correct. Read post #24.

Quote:

---

The only sin that really sticks out in my mind that Jesus could not forgive was abusing and/or sexually abusing a child.

---

No such citation exists.

Quote:

---

One shouldn't confuse a personal sectarian penchant for the whole of Christendom.

---

I think, if we are to keep this civil, we need to aviod emotive terms like "sectarian" and "penchant". Christianity is a divided religion, so the beliefs of Orthodox Christians are no more or less "sectarian" than Calvinists or Catholics and since the Protestant and Catholic traditions are so large within Christendom, it is hardly fair to refer to them as "personal" and "penchant".

What would be more interesting would be more detail of the Orthodox view on fallen humanity and exactly what was the nature and meaning of the sacrifice on the cross.

I am not sure why you are presenting Augustine as a western Saint. He was a doctor of the early church, before the schism and his teaching on unbaptized infants going to hell is not accepted by the Catholic church either.

Quote:

---

Jesus himself has said that mankind is inherently evil...

No such citation exists.

---

Lets see if Navros can provide one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

No such citation exists.

---

"Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin." [Luke 17:1-2]

Little ones mean children. In the case of children the seriousness of the sin is compounded because they are humans under development. And it will affect them for the rest of their lives.

I need to find more quotes, but I know for a fact they do exist. I remember him saying something about fire and brimstone in regards to sexual predators.

As far as Inheirantly Evil Quotes Go: Heres one for ya!

"For by one man's (Adam) disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one man's (Christ-God incarnate) many will be made righteous."

Romans 5:19


Edit: on the other hand, the bible does contadict itself earlier on by saying:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Ezekiel 18:20

I personally don't believe in original sin, and I think it was edited into the bible much later on so they could easily convert non-believers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

I think, if we are to keep this civil, we need to aviod emotive terms like "sectarian" and "penchant".

---

Hello,

Sectarian is not an emotive term. It refers to sects and what relates to the same. In this case the sectarian issue is the idea man is inherently evil. This view is not shared by all of Christendom. Of the three main sects that comprise Christianity one of them rejects it. The same can be said for Oriental Christianity (Copts and other Monophysite sects of the East). It is therefore inaccurate to ascribe a sect(s) specific position to the religion as a whole which is the aim of the thread.

Penchant is not necessarily an emotive term either. It refers to a proclivity. In this thread several posts have confused sect specific views for the faith as a whole. The initial post puts forward a basic stance on Christianity and asks for corrections if warranted. For those who answer to confuse a part for the whole is to fail to deal with the intent of the thread.

Quote:

---

I am not sure why you are presenting Augustine as a western Saint.

---

I did not refer to St. Augustine as a Western Saint. I did note his massive impact on Latin Christianity. He had no such influence on the Greek Tradition. There are several reasons for this. One being Augustine knew little to no Greek. His works were all composed in Latin. Another is the questions Augustine was concerned with were not of major interest in the East.

Quote:

---

(U)nbaptized infants going to hell is not accepted by the Catholic church either.

---

This is not correct. Limbo is a degree of hell. It is distinct from Purgatory.


(The consignment of unbaptized infants to Limbo is St. Thomas by the by.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

The only sin that really sticks out in my mind that Jesus could not forgive was abusing and/or sexually abusing a child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

No such citation exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

"Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur. It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin." [Luke 17:1-2]

---

---

---

This does not say Jesus could not forgive abusing or sexually abusing a child.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

As far as Inheirantly Evil Quotes Go: Heres one for ya!

"For by one man's (Adam) disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one man's (Christ-God incarnate) many will be made righteous."

Romans 5:19


Edit: on the other hand, the bible does contadict itself earlier on by saying:

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."
Ezekiel 18:20

---

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.
The difference between Christians and Jews is that Christians believe in what the new testament and Jesus say and Jews do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

As far as I'm concerned, brushing aside theological differences and schools of thought, Christianity is the belief that Christ was the saviour of mankind or the equivalent in a different wording. As a religion, it's an extension of Judaism. Christians are people who adhere to the belief, but are also, by extension, Jews. Christians and 'proper' Jews, despite differences in belief, faith, doctrine and other details, generally maintain a certain sense of morality. Pragmatically speaking, a man who believes in no Christ but acts and thinks the same way as a Christian is a Christian.

---

"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 3:36

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matthew 12:31-32

31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This is not correct. Limbo is a degree of hell. It is distinct from Purgatory.


(The consignment of unbaptized infants to Limbo is St. Thomas by the by.)

---

More reading for those interested. link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Not so. My post was correct both in its doctrinal scope and theological chronology. As a simple illustration of the former: Bishop Kallistos is perhaps the most famous advocate of the Orthodox Church in the English speaking world. He writes in explaining the beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy:

One shouldn't confuse a personal sectarian penchant for the whole of Christendom.

No such citation exists.

---

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

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?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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:

---

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?

@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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

---

We are currently studying Christianity in our history class. There for i read the 10 commandments. I found something i thought was funny.

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: 

Het zevende gebod zegt: »Je zult niet stelen«. Zo staat het in de meeste bijbels. In de bijbel »De blijde boodschap« staat: »Beroof niemand van zijn vrijheid en zijn eigendom«.
Weer zien we, dat wij de bijbel niet letterlijk mogen nemen, maar naar de zin. Als wij de zin leren begrijpen, weten wij ook, welke bijbelteksten overeenkomen met de eeuwige waarheid en welke niet. Wij kunnen het bijbelse woord alleen naar de zin begrijpen, als wij onszelf op God afstemmen, door stap voor stap de Tien Geboden en de Bergrede te vervullen. Al het andere is een mening. En het blijft een mening en is niet de waarheid, zolang wij niet zelf naar de waarheid streven. Met andere woorden: wat wij uit een uitspraak opmaken en eruit concluderen, wat wij denken of spreken, is eerst dan waarheid, als het gevuld is met onze verwezenlijking van de geboden van God.
Welke zin ligt dus in het zevende gebod »Je zult niet stelen«?
Stelen betekent, dat wij onze naaste iets afnemen, iets ontvreemden. Eventueel stelen wij geld van onze naaste of zijn have en goed, maar wij stelen ook de tijd van onze naaste, b.v. door onbelangrijke gesprekken met hem te voeren. Wij grijpen eveneens in in zijn levensgebied, wanneer wij hem hinderen, zijn weg te gaan, door hem onze mening op te dringen en van hem te verwachten, dat hij deze gepresenteerde mening aanneemt.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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?

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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.

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.

---

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 Leviticus 5

1 " 'If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible.

2 " 'Or if a person touches anything ceremonially unclean—whether the carcasses of unclean wild animals or of unclean livestock or of unclean creatures that move along the ground—even though he is unaware of it, he has become unclean and is guilty.

3 " 'Or if he touches human uncleanness—anything that would make him unclean—even though he is unaware of it, when he learns of it he will be guilty.

4 " 'Or if a person thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil—in any matter one might carelessly swear about—even though he is unaware of it, in any case when he learns of it he will be guilty.

5 " 'When anyone is guilty in any of these ways, he must confess in what way he has sinned 6 and, as a penalty for the sin he has committed, he must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.

7 " 'If he cannot afford a lamb, he is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for his sin—one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. 8 He is to bring them to the priest, who shall first offer the one for the sin offering. He is to wring its head from its neck, not severing it completely, 9 and is to sprinkle some of the blood of the sin offering against the side of the altar; the rest of the blood must be drained out at the base of the altar. It is a sin offering. 10 The priest shall then offer the other as a burnt offering in the prescribed way and make atonement for him for the sin he has committed, and he will be forgiven.

11 " 'If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two young pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah [a] of fine flour for a sin offering. He must not put oil or incense on it, because it is a sin offering. 12 He is to bring it to the priest, who shall take a handful of it as a memorial portion and burn it on the altar on top of the offerings made to the LORD by fire. It is a sin offering. 13 In this way the priest will make atonement for him for any of these sins he has committed, and he will be forgiven. The rest of the offering will belong to the priest, as in the case of the grain offering.' "

---

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.

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

(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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

(2) and is doomed to eternal pain and suffering upon death

---

That is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

(3) unless sacrifice is given to a single all-powerful God.

---

That is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

(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.

---

That is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

(5) Further asserts that Jesus self-sacrificed in order to alleviate all mankind from the requirement that they experience eternal pain and suffering.

---

That is correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

(6) In order for an individual to be eligible for this exemption from suffering, the individual must simply believe everything written above.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jesus Christ

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

---

NAVAROS:

Regarding Point (1), you wrote:

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.

---

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.

Does this rectify my discrepency in interpretation for you?


Regarding Point (6), you wrote:

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.

---

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.

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 says

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Romans 3

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

---

In 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

Being "famous" does not mean what he says is correct. There's the first problem.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

Your statement is anachronistic.

Quote:

---

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?

---

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 16:2

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Thank you for your response.

---

My pleasure good sir.

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.

---

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,"

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.

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 far as Catholic teaching on Limbo and the most recent Catechism. The quote you provide from CCC1261 is interesting:

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Again, please help me to determine the similarities rather than the differences.

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.

---

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:

---

(2) and is doomed to eternal pain and suffering upon death

---

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:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

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.

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.

---

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".

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

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 says

In 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.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

In 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.

---

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.

Believing in Jesus and yet still working iniquity will not lead to salvation. Jesus said so. Paul said so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

(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.

---

Define human: The Monophysitists (although I'm not sure how many of them that's left) asserts that Jesus was 100% divine.

Edit: To be more exact, it claims that when the human part and divine part of Jesus met, the human part became obliterated by the dvine, therefore making Jesus' human body essentially different from any other humans bodies.

But the nature of Christ has been one of the most dividing things in the Christianity throughout history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IrishArmenian

The Nicene Creed sums up the core for all Christians. Then their is a lot of seemingly little stuff that adds up.

---

Hello,

See the second paragraph of post 14. The Nicene Creed may be a good stance for determining an Orthodoxy, but that is separate from determining what Christianity entails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

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.

---

Hello Dragon Slayer,

How have you been? I don't think you need restrain yourself from the discussion. Believers in a thing certainly add to the scope of that thing, but in no way have exclusive privilege. Your comments/insights could only add to the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

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.

---

I'm sure it's all explained somewhere, but the Church states that it's possible to get to Heaven without being Catholic if they sincerely seek God in their lives via their own means. (I'm paraphrasing) To me, that idea seems to fly directly in the face of the above quote. Can anyone shed some light on that?

The Catholic Church, like any major company needs to ensure both brand loyalty as well as not bieng portrayed by everone else as dogmatic and intolerant.

That a church tries to be two things to two sets of people to me is hardly surprising.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Define human: The Monophysitists (although I'm not sure how many of them that's left) asserts that Jesus was 100% divine.

---

There are still a fair number of Monophysites (though they refer to themselves as Miaphysites). They are generally called Oriental Orthodox Christians and constitute a schismatic branch of a still young Imperial Christianity that rejected the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon 453 C.E.) as an absurdity. This includes Copts (10% of the population of Egypt) the Armenian and Ethiopic Churches as a few examples.

Quote:

---

Edit: To be more exact, it claims that when the human part and divine part of Jesus met, the human part became obliterated by the dvine, therefore making Jesus' human body essentially different from any other humans bodies.

---

This isn't the standard position. Rather, the view is the incarnate Christ's divine and human elements combine in one nature. They use the term hypostatic union and reject the idea the incarnate Christ did not include a human element as a eutychian heresy.

Quote:

---

But the nature of Christ has been one of the most dividing things in the Christianity throughout history.

---

Quite so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm sure it's all explained somewhere, but the Church states that it's possible to get to Heaven without being Catholic if they sincerely seek God in their lives via their own means. (I'm paraphrasing) To me, that idea seems to fly directly in the face of the above quote. Can anyone shed some light on that?

---

The answer, as I understand things, is: baptism is essential for salvation. Baptism is then qualified. There is baptism of water, blood and desire. The reference to desire makes distinction between those who really belong to the Church (in re) and those who belong by desire (in voto). This applies to those of good will who would join the Church if they really knew it was the true Church of Christ.

Here is a CCC 847 reference:

"Those, who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may attain eternal salvation".

That covers 'good' people who do not come in contact with the bible. For instance living in a remote location or who live within a society that stops the word spreading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I know that Unitarians, Christian Scientists and Gnostics might not fit within the Nicene Creed. What about Mormons? Anybody familiar with LDS theology who can take a stab at an answer?

---

Well, I'm a little late getting to this thread, but I can give you a response on this bit. We do believe in one God as the creator of all, though the nature of that God gets complicated and leads to conflict with other Christian sects. We do believe in Jesus Christ as the only begotten son of God, a divine being, and the only means whereby mankind can attain a reunification with God. We do believe in the Holy Spirit, serving as the day-to-day connection between man and the divine. We do believe in one authoritative Baptism, and in the resurrection of the dead, and in the world to come.

So basically, with the presentation of the Nicene creed you have given, I'd say my doctrine agrees with it on all points, though some of the concepts may be interpreted a little differently (didn't see mention of the nature of the trinity, which I thought was part of the Nicene creed. Basically Mormon doctrine views God, Christ, and Holy Spirit as three separate individuals united perfectly in purpose, and thus one).

There are of course differences, as between all Christian denominations, but essentially I'd say we fit Divinus basic summary pretty well, taking the second stance on his point #1 (2nd Article of Faith: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." The idea is that all people will sin, and thus need the intercession of Christ, but that such sins are individual, and not a universal inherited sin from Eden).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

The Bible says what it says and it says so very clearly.

---

This statement is impossible for me to agree with. To sum up our doctrine on Biblical authority, we believe that God communicates with mankind through prophets. Scripture is a collection of the teachings of prophets. The Bible is a collection of the writings of Hebrew prophets, and those chosen by Christ during his mortal life, but was not compiled until hundreds of years after his death, and was compiled by men who were not prophets. It has also been in the hands of other non-prophets in the many centuries from Nicaea to the present, and has undergone multiple translations. As such it has had ample opportunity for error and misinterpretation to creep in, and I find many instances of seeming internal contradiction, along with ideas that contradict reason or faith in my experience (personally this is also true of other Mormon-specific scripture as well, but that's a personal interpretation rather than a Mormon doctrine). The Bible in Mormonism is the word of God, but subject to the errors of men, and thus needs the clarification or corrective input of modern prophecy.

I know many who wouldn't consider Mormonism a sect of Christianity, and understand their reasons for this view, but considering the church's claim to be the reestablishment of the original Christian church of Christ's time, or for the majority of people on earth who do not believe this its growth from the Protestant evangelical movement of the 2nd Great Awakening in America, and my approval of DA's basic Christian tenets as Mormon theology, I would certainly include it.

Sorry for the long post; hope it was informative and relevant.
Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

The Bible is a collection of the writings of Hebrew prophets, and those chosen by Christ during his mortal life, but was not compiled until hundreds of years after his death, and was compiled by men who were not prophets. It has also been in the hands of other non-prophets in the many centuries from Nicaea to the present, and has undergone multiple translations. As such it has had ample opportunity for error and misinterpretation to creep in

---

That's the way I see it too. However in defense of those who think otherwise, it's mentioned somewhere (OT I believe) that God would act to preserve his word, and that he'd punish those who would alter/add anything to it, but I don't think that's necessarily at odds with the thought that the apostles and to an extent the prophets were divinely inspired, but that they're only human and that scriptures should be read for their inherent lesson and that the text should not be taken to literally.


Also while I'm not technically christian, I've since a long time viewed the endorsement of Pauls writings to be an odd choice. As pointed out previously his writings are often contradictory to those of the other apostles, and his status as an apostle is arguably spurious because he never actually met Jesus- he claims he saw him in a vision. How do you Orgahs view him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

This isn't the standard position. Rather, the view is the incarnate Christ's divine and human elements combine in one nature. They use the term hypostatic union and reject the idea the incarnate Christ did not include a human element as a eutychian heresy.

---

Reading up myself a bit on wiki, the followers of Eutychianism (notice that they don't techically follows Eutyches, but that they hold his view that Jesus was purely divine) is currently formed into the Jacobite Church. They are less common than the Miaphysites.

The terminology in this area seems to have some problems with definitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

That's the way I see it too.

---

You realize that by saying this you have just guaranteed a visit from two bicycle-riding young gentlement in white shirts and dark ties...

Just having fun.

Ajax' thanks for the good summary on LDS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You realize that by saying this you have just guaranteed a visit from two bicycle-riding young gentlement in white shirts and dark ties...

Just having fun.

Ajax' thanks for the good summary on LDS

---

Much as I appreciate the stereotype, and the humor it invites, I'd call myself rather a liberal Mormon. I did serve a mission, but it was very difficult with my personality and outlook. I'm not out to convert the world, though I do think mutual understanding between religions is very beneficial.

(Of course, if anyone is looking for a visit from the 'Jesus Boys,' I'd be happy to oblige :evil:)

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I know that Unitarians, Christian Scientists and Gnostics might not fit within the Nicene Creed. What about Mormons? Anybody familiar with LDS theology who can take a stab at an answer?

---

I didn't see this earlier. To add to what Ajaxfetish posted: The LDS Church rejects the Nicene Creed (as it does all the Ecumenical Councils) as non-authoritative. The basic view is that primitive Christianity did not survive: meaning the authority to speak for Deity and to seal the temporal and the eternal passed from the earth. The rhetorical posture is that the Church is a restoration of that original authority and thus has Apostles as was orignally the case and an open canon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Reading up myself a bit on wiki, the followers of Eutychianism (notice that they don't techically follows Eutyches, but that they hold his view that Jesus was purely divine) is currently formed into the Jacobite Church. They are less common than the Miaphysites.

---

That is correct. Whether one agrees with the claimed distinction is a separate issue.

Quote:

---

The terminology in this area seems to have some problems with definitions.

---

It is a sticky business to be sure, much of which is due to the bugger of trying to avoid a Eutychian or even Docetic posture on the one hand and also avoid a Nestorian position on the other. For anti-Chalcedonians the creed of the Fourth Ecumenical Council is an embrasure of Nestorianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

That's the way I see it too. However in defense of those who think otherwise, it's mentioned somewhere (OT I believe) that God would act to preserve his word, and that he'd punish those who would alter/add anything to it...

---

I think what you are thinking of is this reference:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelations 22:18-19

There is a similar passage found in Deuteronomy:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2

Quote:

---

Also while I'm not technically christian, I've since a long time viewed the endorsement of Pauls writings to be an odd choice. As pointed out previously his writings are often contradictory to those of the other apostles, and his status as an apostle is arguably spurious because he never actually met Jesus- he claims he saw him in a vision. How do you Orgahs view him?

---

There is no statement in the New Testament that an Apostle must actually have met Jesus. Paul's Apostle title was never challenged by other Christians. One can also note Barnabas as an example of a Apostle who never met Jesus.

One could note that the initial compilation of a "New Testament" canon was actually done by Marcion (condemned by proto-orthodoxy as a heretic and would be Gnostic). It could be argued that the drive to create a canon was done in direct response to the Marcionite (and Gnostic) challenge: various groups (including proto-orhtodoxy) trying to assume the high ground of what was canonical as it were. (Maricon included Pauline writings in his compilation).

As far a Paul vis-a-vis another Gospel are concerned: this is a common claim, but I think many who do so are unaware of the subtlety of Paul's writings. I think this is due to the fact the Christian Humanist tradition that is the rhetorical bedrock of Reformation Scholarship is in many ways opposed to and ignorant of the Classical mind and often applies an anachronistic reading to the text(s). The book of Romans comes to mind: I could give you an example if you are interested. Otherwise I'll let this pass as this is an aside from the thrust of the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

"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 3:36

---

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, besides 'Be a Christian or Die'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I think what you are thinking of is this reference:

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelations 22:18-19

There is a similar passage found in Deuteronomy:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2

---

John is of course refering to his book or scroll (NWT) and not the compilation that later will become the Bible we know today. The same goes for Moses with his five books.
The Jews actually were very carful not to make translation errors and it was a death sin to change any part of the torah. that doesn't mean it never happened.

If one should add to the basic tenets in this thread it would be safe to say that Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God with the small addendum; if it has been translated correctly.

Im a devout chistrian. But I could rather care less if jesus was half divine or mortal or w/e.

The general consensus seems to be that my summary of assertions is essentially correct. I would now like to clarify each of these one at a time. I am looking for evidence, documentation, and so forth in order to substantiate these assertions.

Starting with:

(1) Asserts that modern man is born inherently evil Further Clarification- asserts that modern man is incapable of perfection. In other words, all men will commit some minimal evil in their lives.

I understand that the Torah asserts to Adam, essentially, "If you eat of the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, then you will be doomed to die". (Genesis 2:16-2:17). And so this occurs in Genesis 3:1-3:24. This passage is the basis of all Western Religions: Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam which regards the Torah as holy but subordinate to the Qu'ran.

Modern Western Religion is differentiated from Eastern Religions based on the belief that man is born evil. (I plan on discussing the consequences of this in the next portion).

Is the passage of Adam and Eve in Genesis to be taken as literal?

Concurrent to the first question: Genesis refers to other human beings aside from Adam and Eve. In fact, Genesis 4:13 refers to Cain's fear of being killed by others and Gensis 4:17 refers to Cain's wife. How do the actions of Adam and Eve affect those who are not descendant from them?