40 lashes for 75 Year Old Woman

[Rhyfelwyr]

Still just empty words. Specifics. Give me some specifics.

A sample from John Paul II's Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Here he is kissing the Koran:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here's a little background on the plans for a palace of all religions.

[rvg]

A sample from John Paul II's Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

Here he is kissing the Koran:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here's a little background on the plans for a palace of all religions.

And how exactly is that misleading? And who is being misled? JP2 aside from being a saint, was tolerant and non-bigoted. That is a *good* thing.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And how exactly is that misleading? And who is being misled? JP2 aside from being a saint, was tolerant and non-bigoted. That is a *good* thing.

Obviously the words "I am the way, the truth, and the life" didn't mean anything to him. I would rather preach the word and be deemed a bigot, than lead people away from Jesus in the name of toleration.

[rvg]

Obviously the words "I am the way, the truth, and the life" didn't mean anything to him. I would rather preach the word and be deemed a bigot, than lead people away from Jesus in the name of toleration.

The word you're preaching isn't Christianity. It's Calvinism.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

John Paul II Magnus, when he referenced the "plan of salvation" meant only that there was a path to salvation for those mentioned. He did not assert that their path was equally direct or that The Church was not the preferred path.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The word you're preaching isn't Christianity. It's Calvinism.

They're rather inseperable I would say. Believe it or not, when I bring up the subject of Christianity to non-believers, I don't go straight into the TULIP points. First thing I always ask is, "do you think you are fit to enter heaven, and do you therefore acknowledge the need to accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins". Any Christian believes this. Only after someone has accepted this would I ever mention Calvinism, and when I do I the first thing I point out is that Calvinism is only one theory, and its not central to a person's salvation.

John Paul II Magnus, when he referenced the "plan of salvation" meant only that there was a path to salvation for those mentioned. He did not assert that their path was equally direct or that The Church was not the preferred path.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I do not like having to come across as so intolerant, or bigoted, but in all honesty I cannot pretend that what the Catholic Church is beginning to teach is in any way Christian. It is ignoring the most fundamental aspects of the faith. I can try and sugar-coat it but the Book of Revelation doesn't, this mixing with other religions is nothing else than playing the harlot.

[rvg]

I do not like having to come across as so intolerant, or bigoted, but in all honesty I cannot pretend that what the Catholic Church is beginning to teach is in any way Christian. It is ignoring the most fundamental aspects of the faith. I can try and sugar-coat it but the Book of Revelation doesn't, this mixing with other religions is nothing else than playing the harlot.

As A. M. Hills once said: "...Such is Calvinism, the most unreasonable, incongruous, self-contradictory, man-belittling and God-dishonoring scheme of theology that ever appeared in Christian thought. No one can accept its contradictory, mutually exclusive propositions without intellectual self-debasement.... It holds up a self-centered selfish, heartless, remorseless tyrant for God, and bids us worship Him."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Amen.

I do not like having to come across as so intolerant, or bigoted, but in all honesty I cannot pretend that what the Catholic Church is beginning to teach is in any way Christian. It is ignoring the most fundamental aspects of the faith. I can try and sugar-coat it but the Book of Revelation doesn't, this mixing with other religions is nothing else than playing the harlot.

I don't believe JPII was, implicitly or explicitly, advocating a watering down of the truth of Christ being the means of our salvation in God. You are suggesting that ONLY by adopting Christianity as one's personal belief in this life and explicitly can one achieve salvation. All I am suggesting is that I do not know enough of the mind of God to understand the entirety of that plan or the means by which Christ will achieve the salvation of all who would be saved.

By the way, I don't think The Church is really teaching anything "new" here. It has always been the hope of The Church that all in schism -- from whatever cause -- will one day return to share together at the same table.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[quote=Rhyfelwyr;2170119]Not necessarily, look at the nationalised churches under the absolutist monarchs.[quote]

Not necessarily what? The King does not claim to hold the keys to heaven, nor does the Primate. Therefore, neither are equivilant to the Pope.

Well the only Christians I've met who have any knowledge of the scripture (in English) are from the Reformed branch of Christianity, often the smaller sects. For example, I have a friend who is a Reformed Baptist, and a relative in the Plymouth Brethren, both are much more evangelical and theologically learned than any one else I've met in RL. Similarly, on the Christian forums I frequent, usually people will state how they have free will because they think they do, before a Calvinist actually refutes them with scripture,.

Being able to quote lots of scripture does not mean understanding it. Many reformed branches try to derrive doctrine from Old Testemant Law, which is incorrect, because the New Covenant nullifies the Law. If you want a scriptural proof, take a look at the passages on divorce in Mark.

To call them Calvinist is stretching things quite a bit. Generally, they viewed Arminianism as a 'compromise' between Calvinism and Catholicism. It's the organisation of a church that allows it to be oppressive, not the doctrine, otherwise how would the doctrine be enforced?

History is testament to the fact that the Catholic Churhc was quite apt at being oppressive without being deterministic.

The Articles of Religion are a mix of Calvinism and Lutheranism, they are decidedly deterministic in tone, and I would say they can be read to contain your TULIP, though they can also be read the other way, which is the genius of their conception.

Every individual should devote their lives to the church. The church shouldn't be constrained within the four walls of a building, faith must be something evident in a person as they go about their everyday tasks, in every part of their life. Look at how Jesus took the common people as his disciples, to make them fishers of men. Anyone can grow in their understanding of the scriptures by living the Christian life, "the way" as they referred to it when Jesus was around. A system which teaches that only certain people can devote their life to "the way", that only they are capable of forming doctrines, is extremely dangerous.

I agree, but you are the one pushing unconditional election, not me. I merely pointed out that priests and bishops are those who devote their lives to God first and formost, they usually give up comfortable lives and nice jobs in order to do it as well.

At University last term, I studied the Scottish Covenanters, namely those murdered in the wake of the Restoration in 1660. And when I read their letters which they had written when they were sentenced to death, I was really shocked at just how comprehensive their knowledge of the scripture was. These were ordinary people, and yet they were certain in their beliefs, referencing from all over the Bible, you can't say they were just brainwashed with Calvinist propaganda. I have never seen anything like this with, say, the Catholics who were persecuted immediately prior to the restoration.

Have a look at the Wycliffites/Lollards, in any case, understanding od scripture requires understanding od context as well as text. Context is something I often find lacking in Protestants, if Catholics have a fault it is that they focus over-much on corporate worships. Of the two the Catholics are acting in good faith, and following the ordinances of what they believe to be the True Church. On the other hand, Protestants insist on making their own decisions, I sometimes wonder how the two will be judged against each other.

The English version is accurate enough to be considered scripture, you can double check the Greek for those very rare occassions when it is needed to clarify a point of doctrine. If they can't, it's not a big deal, they've still got the bulk of the good book.

"I am the Lord Thy God and thout shall have no other Gods before me."

Deliberately archaic, and therefore ambiguous, when written. The commandment could be interpreted as meaning you are allowed multiple Gods, so long as Yahweh is first.

Ordinary Catholics are mislead by their leaders, sometimes to the point that their salvation is threatened. Should I pretend that this is acceptable in the name of toleration? Maybe I should also kiss the Koran and bow to Mecca, why can't we all just get along?

Tollerance and recognition of comminality are not evil things. Hatred is.

They were the early seeds of change, although Lutheranism kick started the Reformation on a serious scale. You can't really pick a single date and say that it was the beginning of the Reformation, the Culdees could have been living by it all along.

Again, Wyclif, Huss, Luther. Each looked back to the one before, fact.

They're rather inseperable I would say. Believe it or not, when I bring up the subject of Christianity to non-believers, I don't go straight into the TULIP points. First thing I always ask is, "do you think you are fit to enter heaven, and do you therefore acknowledge the need to accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sins". Any Christian believes this. Only after someone has accepted this would I ever mention Calvinism, and when I do I the first thing I point out is that Calvinism is only one theory, and its not central to a person's salvation.

You would say. For all your certainty you haven't ever provided a convincing proof.

Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I do not like having to come across as so intolerant, or bigoted, but in all honesty I cannot pretend that what the Catholic Church is beginning to teach is in any way Christian. It is ignoring the most fundamental aspects of the faith. I can try and sugar-coat it but the Book of Revelation doesn't, this mixing with other religions is nothing else than playing the harlot.

Jesus said he came only to the Jews, yet he consorted with Caananites, Samaritans and Romans.

[LittleGrizzly]

My respect for Catholicism just doubled... I now officailly have one iota of respect for the Catholic church

On a serious note it is good to see such tolerance!

[Rhyfelwyr]

My respect for Catholicism just doubled... I now officailly have one iota of respect for the Catholic church

On a serious note it is good to see such tolerance!

And its totally un-Christian but who cares?