FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Definition of a Christian





nickfyoung
It was suggested on another thread that this should be a new topic because I have some pretty warped idea of what a Christian is.

Christian's are sometimes referred to as "born again" because Jesus said that one must be born of the water (the physical birth) and the Spirit:

This is taken from Jesus in, "John 3:3-7 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

I know many people attend churches of all denominations and because of that they call themselves Christian.
But doesn't the Bible call for a bit more than that. Isn't the idea of becoming a Christian to spend eternity in a somewhat better way than most.

Surely God has some pretty strict requirements for who he is going to let into his heaven. If everybody was allowed in then it will be no better than here now. Wars and murders and all the other lovely things that go with humanity.

Do I have some pretty warped ideas on Christianity ?
ocalhoun
nickfyoung wrote:

Surely God has some pretty strict requirements for who he is going to let into his heaven. If everybody was allowed in then it will be no better than here now. Wars and murders and all the other lovely things that go with humanity.

So is that all the world is? A way to sort out the bad people?
Quote:

Do I have some pretty warped ideas on Christianity ?

Only one slight warp: you assume that the bible is the ultimate authority on who is christian or not... but some other 'christians' may disagree with you on that.
Hello_World
This is the faith forum so I'll be nice I promise.

But I truly cannot see why someone who calls themselves a Christian can be denied that by another human being.

ie: the definition of 'Christian' is someone who calls themselves Christian.
nickfyoung
Hello_World wrote:
This is the faith forum so I'll be nice I promise.

But I truly cannot see why someone who calls themselves a Christian can be denied that by another human being.

ie: the definition of 'Christian' is someone who calls themselves Christian.



I suppose one can call themselves anything they want. But I think maybe we are looking at who God calls a Christian. After all, it is his afterlife we are looking at.
nickfyoung
ocalhoun wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

Surely God has some pretty strict requirements for who he is going to let into his heaven. If everybody was allowed in then it will be no better than here now. Wars and murders and all the other lovely things that go with humanity.

So is that all the world is? A way to sort out the bad people?
Quote:

Do I have some pretty warped ideas on Christianity ?

Only one slight warp: you assume that the bible is the ultimate authority on who is christian or not... but some other 'christians' may disagree with you on that.



I suppose you could put it like that.

I was under the impression that believing the Bible was a condition of being a Christian. Could be wrong.
ocalhoun
nickfyoung wrote:

I was under the impression that believing the Bible was a condition of being a Christian. Could be wrong.

Many, perhaps most, 'christians' pick and choose which passages of the bible to believe and which to reject (or just interpret as metaphor).
nickfyoung
ocalhoun wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

I was under the impression that believing the Bible was a condition of being a Christian. Could be wrong.

Many, perhaps most, 'christians' pick and choose which passages of the bible to believe and which to reject (or just interpret as metaphor).


Can't argue with that. That is why we have a plethora of churches now all different.
Afaceinthematrix
The biggest difference would be that some Christians are creationists while the more rational ones are not. Of course the term creationist are people who take the Adam and Eve story literally and believe that God created everything and that Eve eventually ate the forbidden fruit. Then among creationists, you have young Earth creationists and then the slightly more rational old Earth creationists.

So no, you don't have to believe in the Bible to be a Christian. Most take the vast majority of it as metaphor at best. I think that, for Christianity, it can be argued that a literal interpretation of the Gospels is necessary because a Christian is a follow of the Jesus Christ. But as far as believing the Bible - that's about it.
nickfyoung
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
The biggest difference would be that some Christians are creationists while the more rational ones are not. Of course the term creationist are people who take the Adam and Eve story literally and believe that God created everything and that Eve eventually ate the forbidden fruit. Then among creationists, you have young Earth creationists and then the slightly more rational old Earth creationists.

So no, you don't have to believe in the Bible to be a Christian. Most take the vast majority of it as metaphor at best. I think that, for Christianity, it can be argued that a literal interpretation of the Gospels is necessary because a Christian is a follow of the Jesus Christ. But as far as believing the Bible - that's about it.



Only one problem with that viewpoint. A Christian believes, or should believe, that the Bible is the word of God and it does say that all Scripture is suitable for teaching.

I know some Christians throw some of Genesis out and insert gap theories etc to try to make it fit with the current teaching of science.

Then there are the fundamentalists that just believe it as it is written, word for word. So they believe in creation, a young earth and all the rest of it. The funny thing is, they claim to be the rational ones.

We get back to the same argument, what is a Christian. A genuine Christian, one who has been regenerated spiritually by God, will believe all the Bible but if they have a problem with science they will insert gaps etc so that they can believe in creation, just that God created by evolution. They will accept that the earth is not young and the 7 days of creation were actually very long days.

That is an argument for the failing of the church in modern society. Take out a literal Genesis and you have taken out the foundation of Christianity which weakens the whole. It then becomes very susceptible to attacks from secular society and Atheism etc and finds itself unable to adequately defend it's position which has been weakened.

That can be seen right here in these forums in action. The Christian is beaten down by ridicule and criticism and is unable to adequately defend himself because he is not real sure what he is supposed to believe anymore.
Hello_World
Nickofyoung wrote:
Quote:
Hello_World wrote:
This is the faith forum so I'll be nice I promise.

But I truly cannot see why someone who calls themselves a Christian can be denied that by another human being.

ie: the definition of 'Christian' is someone who calls themselves Christian.




I suppose one can call themselves anything they want. But I think maybe we are looking at who God calls a Christian. After all, it is his afterlife we are looking at.


What is the good of looking from the point of view of God? From a Christian point of view, now you are second-guessing what God thinks. From a usage point of view, Christian is a term to delineate which school of religion or non-religion someone belongs to.

And I disagree heartily that a Christian has to accept the Bible at all. What if that person believes in the Christian God, but accepts that the Bible was actually not written by Jesus but by people 400 years later, so they may have got some of it wrong? They don't go to church because they don't believe that they are obliged by God?

Are you suggesting that these people, who consider themselves Christian, aren't?

As to a literal interpretation of the bible, I just want to know. If you and your daughters are having guests over, and a raping hoard comes to your house, will you sacrifice your daughters to protect your guests?

If you were trapped on an island with your daughters, and they got you drunk and had sex with you, would you be glad?

If an ox gores your servants, will you be willing to accept the 30 sheckels of silver owed as punishment? And will you stone the ox yourself?

I just ask this because there is a lot of stuff in the bible that is pretty off and taken literally is quite disturbing. You state that a Christian believes in the bible and every scripture is teachable, so I raised some that I find it hard to believe could be taught literally.

And comparing this POV to the person who believes in the same God but not stuff such as this. Who also calls themselves Christian.

I can certainly see a place for types of Christians... this is a Catholic Christian... this is an Anglican Christian... this is a Buddhist Christian.... and so on.

I'm going to stop posting because I guess you put this in the faith section because you think the definition of Christian should be made between Christians, and I support that.

I just wanted to put forward my reasons why you are wrong, which I feel you are.
nickfyoung
Hello_World wrote:
Nickofyoung wrote:
Quote:
Hello_World wrote:
This is the faith forum so I'll be nice I promise.

But I truly cannot see why someone who calls themselves a Christian can be denied that by another human being.

ie: the definition of 'Christian' is someone who calls themselves Christian.




I suppose one can call themselves anything they want. But I think maybe we are looking at who God calls a Christian. After all, it is his afterlife we are looking at.


What is the good of looking from the point of view of God? From a Christian point of view, now you are second-guessing what God thinks. From a usage point of view, Christian is a term to delineate which school of religion or non-religion someone belongs to.

And I disagree heartily that a Christian has to accept the Bible at all. What if that person believes in the Christian God, but accepts that the Bible was actually not written by Jesus but by people 400 years later, so they may have got some of it wrong? They don't go to church because they don't believe that they are obliged by God?

Are you suggesting that these people, who consider themselves Christian, aren't?

As to a literal interpretation of the bible, I just want to know. If you and your daughters are having guests over, and a raping hoard comes to your house, will you sacrifice your daughters to protect your guests?

If you were trapped on an island with your daughters, and they got you drunk and had sex with you, would you be glad?

If an ox gores your servants, will you be willing to accept the 30 sheckels of silver owed as punishment? And will you stone the ox yourself?

I just ask this because there is a lot of stuff in the bible that is pretty off and taken literally is quite disturbing.

And comparing it to the person who believes in the same God but not stuff such as this. Who calls themselves Christian.

I can certainly see a place for types of Christians... this is a Catholic Christian... this is an Anglican Christian... this is a Buddhist Christian.... and so on.



I can call myself a nuclear scientist too if I want but that wont make me one.

The term Christian comes from the meaning to have Christ in you so I guess God has a bit of a say in it.

"a Buddhist Christian." ??????????
Hello_World
Yeah, I threw that in. There are Buddhist Christians. Buddhism does not require adherence to any particular God. Some Buddhists believe in the Christian God. Buddhism is a way of living. Thought it might or might not raise some interesting points.

Note I edited my post while you were posting.
nickfyoung
Hello_World wrote:
Yeah, I threw that in. There are Buddhist Christians. Buddhism does not require adherence to any particular God. Some Buddhists believe in the Christian God. Buddhism is a way of living. Thought it might or might not raise some interesting points.

Note I edited my post while you were posting.



Satan believes in the Christian God too.
Hello_World
How about, then, that they believe in the Christian God, and support him?
nickfyoung
Hello_World wrote:
How about, then, that they believe in the Christian God, and support him?



I think satanists worship him as bad while luciferians worship him as good. Something like that.
Hello_World
I honestly don't know anything about Satanism. I thought mainly they are 16 year old boys who feel outcast from society.
nickfyoung
Hello_World wrote:
I honestly don't know anything about Satanism. I thought mainly they are 16 year old boys who feel outcast from society.



Haven't come across them for a long time. Same with witches. They seem to be quiet too.
Hello_World
There is still a few 'Wicca' about, but it isn't as trendy as Pagans at the moment. Wicca was so last season lol.

Must say I prefer Pagan ideas. Very tied into the natural world. Celebrate the seasons, stuff like that. Not bad.
Hello_World
At a Buddhist thing I went to, they said that to call yourself Buddhist, you need to "take refuge in the Buddha, the dharma and the sanga" which means to trust in Buddha, his teaching and the Buddhist community.

I'm not saying I agree, and it was at one of the more religious denominations of Buddhist temples (Tibetan). (Also, I'm not saying I'm a Buddhist. I'm too angry, have you noticed lol?).

I guess what I'm thinking with this is, that to call myself Buddhist, I would first feel that I trust in (my interpretation of) Buddhist thought as the best way forward, and act upon it.

I guess I feel that if someone callede themselves Christian, they would have firstly created a definition of what they believe it is, and decided to follow that.

And I guess that would have to include: believing in the Christian God, believing in their interpretations of his teachings, and following them.
nickfyoung
That makes sense. I went to a Buddhist thing once. A monk was on stage basically philosophizing with a mixture of Buddhism and Christianity. Very interesting.

There is only one snag with deciding to become a Christian. Some teach that you can make that decision while others teach that it is God who makes the decision.
Hello_World
If God makes the decision, then there is no need for the word Christian to be used by humans.

For how can we know?

You may be sure that the bible is all worthy of teaching, but others are just as confident that the OT is metaphoric.

But then, if God decides, how can we delineate in conversations about people who follow a set of beliefs encompassing belief in the Christian God?

Christian wanna-bes?

We are talking about, surely, human conversations about religion. We need to have an idea of what a Christian is.

And if it is so specific as you suggest, you will need to prove that your particular version of religion is correct, and frankly, people all over the world do all sorts of things to try to get everyone to agree with their version of bible/koran/etc. and it isn't the kind of argument you can win.

But my view is, of course, secular. I only care about the word for the purposes of human discussion, not because I am one. As I said, I would leave the conversation, and I feel that I have contributed all I can, because I am unable to see this from a true Christian viewpoint.

And I know that I, for one, get aggro when 'Christians' try to define 'atheist'.
nickfyoung
The reformed viewpoint is very simple.

Before God decided to create anything he decided to create mankind and selected some to spend eternity with him. He did this before anything so it was not based on anything in the person be it good or bad or whatever.

So then he had to have Jesus become a sacrifice to give these chosen ones the means to repent and come to him.

So he had to have mankind fall into sin, Adam, so that everyone born since inherits this sin nature.

So he had to start with the garden and Adam so this could all come about.

So under that theology the Christian is chosen before the start of the world and is redeemed back to God by the death of Jesus.

The other strain believes that Jesus died for all mankind and all can be redeemed back to God by using their freewill to make that decision.

They believe that the chosen are only the chosen because God knew the future and knew who would say yes to him.

I suppose if I had a choice between heaven or hell I would logically choose heaven.
SonLight
Nick,

It seems like you have a pretty good handle on what a Christian is, or at least should be, if they really intend to be followers of Jesus. You might be interested in the definition given in this old post http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-154441.html#154441 in this thread http://www.frihost.com/forums/vp-154441.html#154441 from 2005.

Jesus' followers called Him "teacher" or "master". Presumably they (we) are "students" of Jesus. The term "disciple", which is used only or mostly as a religious term in English, is probably the most common term for a follower of Jesus, at least in many translations of the Bible.

As you suggest, the requirements do seem to be strict. Entrance into the kingdom, however, is on a "come as you are" basis. "Only believe" -- but it must be from the heart and with intent to grow in grace -- and Jesus will make up for all the things you lack. The point of many of the hard sayings is that you _cannot_ do it, you must let Jesus do it. Your responsibility is to put your faith in Him and allow Him to change you.

There should be a little of the reformed viewpoint that God does it all and we do nothing, combined with the "whoever will come" aspect of us making a choice. This seeming paradox appears to be God's way of telling us that, as He says elsewhere, His ways are "higher than ours".
nickfyoung
That was an interesting post on the pros and cons of being a Christian.

In my last post I was basically talking about the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism.
deanhills
I thought Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist from New York put it well when he said that if any person prays to God, the act of praying to God means the person has faith in God. By the same token (he did not say this but this is what I think is true as well), if one prays through Jesus, that makes a person a Christian. My faith is in God and Jesus, not in the Bible and a Church. I believe that the content in the Bible is based on hearsay, and that people then modified their version of the Bible to tell others how to believe or not to believe. Some of the stories may be true, but have been modified to suit whatever Christian belief is being followed by human beings, not God. I don't see anything wrong with that, except I can't accept the content of the Bible literally as factually correct. Some of the stories may be true along the lines of fables that have been passed on from one generation to another, I can't for example accept that some people have been chosen by God and others have not, has no logic in it nor makes any sense to me.
nickfyoung
That was the common belief by all Christians up until 200 years ago and they believed it to be Biblical. After that, the previously denounced as heresy, Arminianism was introduced and became popular.

The reformed churches still believe it and teach it today.
SonLight
nickfyoung wrote:
That was the common belief by all Christians up until 200 years ago

(referring to Calvinistic or Reformed Theology, I presume) Not all. Calvin and Luther, and those who followed them, stressed the God-centered nature of salvation. The Anabaptists (later Mennonites) who also taught reliance on the Bible only for doctrine, stressed our choice to accept or reject salvation. The Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic also did not. Many consider them not to be true Christians, though, because they did not place as high a value on the Bible.
Quote:
and they believed it to be Biblical. After that, the previously denounced as heresy, Arminianism was introduced and became popular.

The reformed churches still believe it and teach it today.


Arminius stated his beliefs as an alternative to Reformed theology. The Calvinistic view was first clearly stated in response to Arminius' views. Arminianism was rejected by the Reformed churches at the time.

The two views continued to develop within the newer Christian groups. There have been extremes on both sides, some Calvinists denying free will and some Arminians believing it was easy to lose salvation for one or a few offenses against God.
nickfyoung
Ok, we know what Calvin taught and we know what Arminius taught, but what does the Bible teach. Which one of these two views or other views, is the Biblical view.
Isn't that our main criteria, to understand what the Bible teaches. Calvin believed that what he taught was what the Bible teaches and I presume Arminius did too although he has no great screeds of writings to say so.

The majority of the church believed that the Bible taught the same as Calvin and when Arminius came up with his version it was thrown out as heresy.
The same happened earlier when Palagianism was introduced and Augustine refuted it.
The Arminius version was introduced again in the Wesley era and became known as Wesleyism and is a fairly recent challenge to the traditional version but of course it was not challenged and has been allowed to flourish.

The question remains, is it Biblical?
loveandormoney
nickfyoung wrote:
It was suggested on another thread that this should be a new topic because I have some pretty warped idea of what a Christian is.

Christian's are sometimes referred to as "born again" because Jesus said that one must be born of the water (the physical birth) and the Spirit:

This is taken from Jesus in, "John 3:3-7 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

I know many people attend churches of all denominations and because of that they call themselves Christian.
But doesn't the Bible call for a bit more than that. Isn't the idea of becoming a Christian to spend eternity in a somewhat better way than most.

Surely God has some pretty strict requirements for who he is going to let into his heaven. If everybody was allowed in then it will be no better than here now. Wars and murders and all the other lovely things that go with humanity.

Do I have some pretty warped ideas on Christianity ?


He is living like Jesus.
How Jesus lives is descriebed in the Bible.
Old Testament shows the wishes about Jesus
New Testament are the facts.

Regards
nickfyoung
One must also do what Jesus said we have to do, be born again. It is rather difficult to be like Jesus who was sinless because we were born into sin and inherited the original sin.
That is why he said we must be born again, to have that sin dealt with so we can now start to be like Jesus on that long road of sanctification.
John 3:16 tells us that God loved his people so much that he gave up his only son to die for them. Jesus loved those same people so much that he died on the cross to redeem them from their sin.
The Christian feels just a little bit special when he realizes the extent of this love for him.
SonLight
nickfyoung wrote:

The question remains, is it Biblical?


Many Christians, including people I would consider believing and strongly committed Christians, read the Bible and find passages that convince them that Calvinism is correct; many just as committed find passages convincing them that Arminianism is correct.

Rather than try to find more passages for one point of view than the other, I would like to show that both have valid points. If these are unclear, I can post exact references. Jesus said, "No one can come to me unless the Holy Spirit draws him." That suggests to me that our conscience is corrupt and we have not the ability to choose to follow God on our own. In addition, "All have gone astray" and "No one seeks God". How, then, can I claim I chose to follow Jesus on my own?

The Bible also says that Jesus does not desire that any should be lost, and Jesus says all who come to Him will be saved. How, then, can I claim that Jesus chooses to save those who are "elect", and that they have no choice in the matter? I do not believe we can take either Calvinism or Arminianism to the extreme as some do.
nickfyoung
Yes, Jesus says that all that come to him will be saved, but it also says that none can come unless the Holy Spirit draws them.
So if God has chosen some then those are the ones that the Spirit draws and so those are the ones that will come to Jesus.
Dialogist
The question here is one of semantics. When I questioned your view of what makes a person a Christian in the other thread, I alluded to that. You could apply the same reasoning to anything. What makes a person a singer? Is someone who sings in the shower not included? The question of eligibility is at hand. Are you (or in most cases, others) entitled, qualified or even reasonable to call a person a Christian? And there's ramifications with both the judge and 'accused' (for want of a better word) too. 1. Who is being judged? 2. Who is judging and more importantly 3. By what criteria? The ramifications don't stop at interpretation of "true scotsman" Christianity. There's a ton of semantics at play too being that the ethos, maxim and standard of Christianity is so deeply entrenched in modern and historical western culture that the title, "Christian" can (and often is) used as verb. For example, the following statement may or may not be true: "Bob Geldof is not a Christian, but Bob Geldof is Christian". I would agree with that. And being that the term is being used in the latter to denote Christian ethic, then I'm sure he'd accept it to. Probably after a slew of swear words and organised religion rants, no doubt. The point is (as I outlined with the example of Jesus using the parable of the Good Samaritan) is that you don't need to be "a Christian" to be "Christian". And being that I derived this teaching from Christ himself, I would deem that a Christian teaching and dogma, regardless of what sacrament says. As far as judging who isn't a Christian, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and all that. It's a lot harder to judge who isn't "Christian" though (no a -) as actions speak louder than words. Which is kind of the whole point (imo). So sure, you can't just assume position, shop-window worship, lip-serve, vogue, strike a pose and expect salvation, but by the same token, you don't need to bother with any scripture if you're too busy feeding starving needy people to pontificate about the particulars of the definition. My personal opinion is that you can know everything there is to know about "true scotsman Christianity" but that doesn't get a lot done. The only problem I really have with other religions (Buddhism, Hinduism etc) is that are self-orientated. Inward. Christianity is outward. Giving out. It's not about you. Similarly, it's not your call to deem yourself a Christian. It's not your jurisdiction. That's for others to decide (Which is best because then it based on your actions rather than claims).

Quick question: Is a person who has gone through all the necessary sacraments dutifully and apathetically out of guilt, duty or fear who never really concerns themselves with deeds, example or outward Christian gestures "a better Christian" than somebody from Amnesty International or UNICEF who is an atheist? Is it not more Christian to help others than to entertain some deluded self-righteous sanctimony about one's own spiritual bucket list? You sound like a Buddhist. But some of those guys are good Christians too.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has: "Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. Man commits idolatry whenever he honours and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money etc."

Not to mention "self".

Again, Christianity is not about how great thou art.
SonLight
The Holy Spirit clearly draws some. That must include everyone who actually does become a disciple of Jesus. But nowhere does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit draws _only_ the ones that actually come.

How about the rich young ruler? Clearly Jesus made him an offer, I assume the Holy Spirit did draw him, or he probably wouldn't even have asked Jesus what he needed to do. Of course we don't know if the young man did accept Jesus later, but he certainly did not respond at that time. It says Jesus loved the young man. It would appear to me that God made every reasonable effort to reach out to him (short of violating his free will), yet he refused.

We simply aren't told all of God's secrets. Does the Holy Spirit draw everyone? If so, then no one can blame anyone but himself or herself for being left out. In Revelation it says that "every tongue will be stopped" at the last judgment. If God replays the scene where the person was drawn and had the best possible chance to freely choose Jesus, that would surely do it.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
The question here is one of semantics. When I questioned your view of what makes a person a Christian in the other thread, I alluded to that. You could apply the same reasoning to anything. What makes a person a singer? Is someone who sings in the shower not included? The question of eligibility is at hand. Are you (or in most cases, others) entitled, qualified or even reasonable to call a person a Christian? And there's ramifications with both the judge and 'accused' (for want of a better word) too. 1. Who is being judged? 2. Who is judging and more importantly 3. By what criteria? The ramifications don't stop at interpretation of "true scotsman" Christianity. There's a ton of semantics at play too being that the ethos, maxim and standard of Christianity is so deeply entrenched in modern and historical western culture that the title, "Christian" can (and often is) used as verb. For example, the following statement may or may not be true: "Bob Geldof is not a Christian, but Bob Geldof is Christian". I would agree with that. And being that the term is being used in the latter to denote Christian ethic, then I'm sure he'd accept it to. Probably after a slew of swear words and organised religion rants, no doubt. The point is (as I outlined with the example of Jesus using the parable of the Good Samaritan) is that you don't need to be "a Christian" to be "Christian". And being that I derived this teaching from Christ himself, I would deem that a Christian teaching and dogma, regardless of what sacrament says. As far as judging who isn't a Christian, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and all that. It's a lot harder to judge who isn't "Christian" though (no a -) as actions speak louder than words. Which is kind of the whole point (imo). So sure, you can't just assume position, shop-window worship, lip-serve, vogue, strike a pose and expect salvation, but by the same token, you don't need to bother with any scripture if you're too busy feeding starving needy people to pontificate about the particulars of the definition. My personal opinion is that you can know everything there is to know about "true scotsman Christianity" but that doesn't get a lot done. The only problem I really have with other religions (Buddhism, Hinduism etc) is that are self-orientated. Inward. Christianity is outward. Giving out. It's not about you. Similarly, it's not your call to deem yourself a Christian. It's not your jurisdiction. That's for others to decide (Which is best because then it based on your actions rather than claims).

Quents dutifully and apathetically out of guilt, duty or fear who never really concerns themselves with deeds, example or outward Christian gestures "a betteick question: Is a person who has gone through all the necessary sacramr Christian" than somebody from Amnesty International or UNICEF who is an atheist? Is it not more Christian to help others than to entertain some deluded self-righteous sanctimony about one's own spiritual bucket list? You sound like a Buddhist. But some of those guys are good Christians too.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has: "Idolatry not only refers to false pagan worship. Man commits idolatry whenever he honours and reveres a creature in place of God, whether this be gods or demons (for example satanism), power, pleasure, race, ancestors, the state, money etc."

Not to mention "self".

Again, Christianity is not about how great thou art.



"Who is judging and more importantly 3. By what criteria?'

Surely if one wants to be a Christian he must accept being judged by the criteria of the Bible and nothing else.


"that you don't need to be "a Christian" to be "Christian"


I can agree with you there. There are many people doing Christian works in our community and many that would put Christians to shame. Some of the cults have a greater display of practical Christian works than many Christians.


"you don't need to bother with any scripture if you're too busy feeding starving needy people to pontificate about the particulars of the definition."

That is one major mistake many make.


Your quick question. Neither one can be classed as a Christian


"You sound like a Buddhist. But some of those guys are good Christians too."


Complete paradox and impossible.


"Again, Christianity is not about how great thou art."


I think that was a song addressed to God.





[/quote]
nickfyoung
SonLight wrote:
The Holy Spirit clearly draws some. That must include everyone who actually does become a disciple of Jesus. But nowhere does the Bible say that the Holy Spirit draws _only_ the ones that actually come.

How about the rich young ruler? Clearly Jesus made him an offer, I assume the Holy Spirit did draw him, or he probably wouldn't even have asked Jesus what he needed to do. Of course we don't know if the young man did accept Jesus later, but he certainly did not respond at that time. It says Jesus loved the young man. It would appear to me that God made every reasonable effort to reach out to him (short of violating his free will), yet he refused.

We simply aren't told all of God's secrets. Does the Holy Spirit draw everyone? If so, then no one can blame anyone but himself or herself for being left out. In Revelation it says that "every tongue will be stopped" at the last judgment. If God replays the scene where the person was drawn and had the best possible chance to freely choose Jesus, that would surely do it.



You are assuming freewill of which there is no mention in the Bible. Because of the fall no one is able to come to salvation on his own. The only way he can come is by the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Therefore God draws who he wants to and that is all.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:


Surely if one wants to be a Christian he must accept being judged by the criteria of the Bible and nothing else.


Again, ...which Bible? The Bible that inspired it or the Bible that inspired that? And in which language? Latin Vulgate or New American translation? I think we've already fleshed out in other threads that they differ immensely. And also, by whose interpretation of any, and/or all Bibles? You read a verse and get a totally different interpretation than I do, and we are both Christians right? Of course, you'll say that I am not a Christian because I was unfortunate to be "born" properly the first time. This is the contention. Even if your Bible is right - as right as humanly can be some 2000 years later, through all the several language translations (as we both deem our respective preferred manuals to be), and even if your understanding and interpretation is right - and it follows the official dogmatic teaching and practice, who is to say that it is right? The reason I brought up the topic of idolatry is because you seem pent on telling Christians who were here before you and your 'new-age' faith that they have "God" all wrong. It's like you (or your Church) is speaking on behalf of God. This is how you apply "your God". But God is not under your authority and God doesn't answer to your fallible and flawed human interpretations and stipulations. It seems to me that this is idolatry because you are partaking in false worship of false idols. You bowing down to ministers or preachers as gods. And when your (their) interpretation of the Bible is in fact a latter-day amendment/revision/argumentation of the original understanding of the Bible, then that would present me cause for concern.

The simple fact of the matter (and this applies to all Christians of all different interpretations) is that you can only look at a piece of communicative text and process that information cogently in your brain to bear some kind of particular or personal meaning and relevance to you, yourself, personally. When you start saying, "The Church says..." then you're failing. Because although "Water is wet" may indeed be exactly what the Bible says, I may say that it isn't wet. Water is an adhesive. It is an intermolecular interaction of a cohesive liquid with a solid. And I would be right. Then a preacher could say, "But it still wets itself" and I'd say, "Wetting requires a previously dry solid" and I'd still be right, yet unable to prove that he isn't. So there. There's your "literal" and "metaphoric" interpretation. Illustrating I feel, adequately, the differences between interpretation, meaning, understanding and most especially: preference (the very thing that has us differing in terms of faith).

nickfyoung wrote:

"you don't need to bother with any scripture if you're too busy feeding starving needy people to pontificate about the particulars of the definition."

That is one major mistake many make.


Did St. Paul make this mistake when he rewrote the scripture?

nickfyoung wrote:

Your quick question. Neither one can be classed as a Christian


You're saying Jesus was wrong? Luke 10:25-37:

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

"Likewise" (like-Christ taught) (like-Christ) (Christ-like). This is the only definition of "Christianity" you shall ever need. And funnily enough, Christ often opposed "The law". So you're following a very polemic set of principals. You've taken it a step further though, which is over-confident. You're now "cherry-picking" Christ. How can you reconcile that with Christianity?

nickfyoung wrote:

"You sound like a Buddhist. But some of those guys are good Christians too."

Complete paradox and impossible.


I don't think it is. While it would be a facetious thing to say to a Buddhist, "That's not very Christian of you"; It would still have meaning and make sense.

nickfyoung wrote:

"Again, Christianity is not about how great thou art."


I think that was a song addressed to God.


Do you think that you're better than other Christians? Catholics for example? Do you think that you're better or more favoured by God than lesser subscribers to ritualistic religious practice? Do you think that you're more deserving of salvation than they are? Do you think you're in a position to say who is and is not a Christian, simply because you've fulfilled some personal dogmatic criteria which hasn't really helped anyone at all (and in your eyes, has only really helped Number One)? IF so, what a bizarre view you have of Christianity and salvation.
nickfyoung
Hey, I just tell it like it is. Nothing to do with me or my interpretation. Just as it is in the Bible.
It is all very clear and understandable.

We don't need to go into the Bible debate again because it has been accepted without any doubt as authoritive.

If I am telling you something new and obnoxious to you then you got it wrong the first time because I haven't changed anything. I just tell it exactly as Paul taught it and Jesus taught it.

The parable of the good Samaritan keeps coming up. Jesus was giving an illustration how to love your neighbor not how to become a Christian.

The Bible has many very hard teachings that are difficult to be understood by the non Christian but it teaches that the Christian is given the mind of Christ enabling a much greater understanding.

You call me arrogant for saying such stuff but like I said, I just tell it like it says in the Bible. Nothing to do with me.
SonLight
nickfyoung wrote:


You are assuming freewill of which there is no mention in the Bible. Because of the fall no one is able to come to salvation on his own. The only way he can come is by the drawing of the Holy Spirit. Therefore God draws who he wants to and that is all.


Neither free will nor determinism is specified as man's condition in the Bible. The Calvinistic premises suggest to some that freewill does not exist, yet many fully accept Calvinism and still claim that "God does not interfere with frewill". I cannot say that mankind _does_ have free will, yet the Bible leaves open the possibility that they _may_ have free will. I see many places where God says He desires people to accept Him, and asks them to. If these don't count as part of the Holy Spirit's drawing, then I don't know why they are written. Yet I know many will read them, perhaps be under conviction, but finally walk away like the rich young ruler did.

I am not convinced that Calvinism is Biblical to the exclusion of Arminianism, and of course if Arminianism is correct then free will must certainly exist, and "whoever will" means exactly what the naive reader would think it meant. I personally am drawn to Calvinistic explanations, because it appears to be a more "God centered" theology, yet I am reluctant to accept Calvinism entirely.

I am reluctant to deal with all the points of Calvinism here. A critical one for the idea of free will is "irresistible grace". Does God's Spirit draw everyone with irresistible grace, or else not draw them at all? I don't know the answer to that.

The idea of "limited atonement" can be true even if one's overall outlook is Arminian. Because of foreknowledge, Jesus could know each person who would come to Him, before the crucifixion. Therefore He need not interfere with anyone's ability to accept or reject Him, yet could be the sacrifice for sin for _only_ those who would actually choose to accept Him, both before and after the crucifixion.

I should point out that many Christians have not thought about the consequences of God's unlimited foreknowledge, so this might be a new idea to some. I know some people who believe free will _cannot_ exist, believing that foreknowledge automatically makes free will impossible.
nickfyoung
I tend to lean more towards a strict reformed view which criticizes some of Calvin's doctrine. The Calvin doctrine of combatiblism is one which tries to make mans freewill compatible to God's sovereignty.

Irresistible grace is just that. Irresistible. God draws the elect to get them saved so his grace, to them, is irresistible.

He doesn't just leave the rest but actively hardens them so they can't get saved.

Jesus made it pretty clear that he came for his sheep and wouldn't be dying for any goats.

It all boils down to the Biblical view of God and his total sovereignty.
loveandormoney
Quote:
One must also do what Jesus said we have to do, be born again. It is rather difficult to be like Jesus who was sinless because we were born into sin and inherited the original sin.
That is why he said we must be born again, to have that sin dealt with so we can now start to be like Jesus on that long road of sanctification.
John 3:16 tells us that God loved his people so much that he gave up his only son to die for them. Jesus loved those same people so much that he died on the cross to redeem them from their sin.
The Christian feels just a little bit special when he realizes the extent of this love for him.
_________________



Good morning. Thank You for Your post. This should be wrong. Or are all apostles wrong. Never they did it or write in their letters about it. Are Paul Pete John wrong in their doing and writing their letters or did Constantin change this? To read about "born again", there is chapter 3 in John 's book.
What is sin? Is sin a kind of doing or being? Is the sin man doing sin?
What do You think about Holy Spirit and baptism?
Jesus is love and Jesus does love, or is this wrong?
Regards
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:
One must also do what Jesus said we have to do, be born again. It is rather difficult to be like Jesus who was sinless because we were born into sin and inherited the original sin.
That is why he said we must be born again, to have that sin dealt with so we can now start to be like Jesus on that long road of sanctification.
John 3:16 tells us that God loved his people so much that he gave up his only son to die for them. Jesus loved those same people so much that he died on the cross to redeem them from their sin.
The Christian feels just a little bit special when he realizes the extent of this love for him.
_________________



Good morning. Thank You for Your post. This should be wrong. Or are all aposles wrong. Never they did it or write in their letters about it. Are Paul Pete John wrong in their doing and writing their letters or did Constantin change this? To read about "born again", there is chapter 3 in John 's book.
What is sin? Is sin a kind of doing or being? Is the sin man doing sin?
What do You think about Holy Spirit and baptism?
Jesus is love and Jesus does love, or is this wrong?
Regards



Because of the fall of man through Adam all have inherited sin or a state that separates them from God..All mankind deserve to go to hell because of this inherited sin.
There is only one way to escape hell and that is to be born again through the death of Jesus on the cross. This is the only way that makes a man acceptable to God.
Once you are saved in this way you are a Christian and then baptized in water. A further step that some Christians take is to get baptized in the Holy Spirit which gives them a bit more power and boldness to do the work that God requires of them. This usually is accompanied by the speaking of tongues as a sign.
Jesus is love as God is love. God loves his chosen people so much he gave up his only son for them. Jesus loves those same people so much he died for them on the cross.
darthrevan
My definition is a person that follows the Holy Bible; most people that I am around claim they are Christians, but I don't them as one. For example, I work at Walmart, and on Sundays, people will come in after church and then cuss out the cashiers because of something that they can't help; maybe because of policy, or nothing that a cashier can do. They are hypocrites and I really don't like those so called Christians.
nickfyoung
darthrevan wrote:
My definition is a person that follows the Holy Bible; most people that I am around claim they are Christians, but I don't them as one. For example, I work at Walmart, and on Sundays, people will come in after church and then cuss out the cashiers because of something that they can't help; maybe because of policy, or nothing that a cashier can do. They are hypocrites and I really don't like those so called Christians.



You got it right there. There are Christians and then there are Christians.
darthrevan
I wouldn't call those so called Christians, Christians Razz. I may not be the biggest Christian, but I am not going to go to church, go eat and then cuss somebody and go back to church again and repeat the cycle. It even says in the Bible that hypocrites are the worse(I believe it said something like this, I can be wrong). I don't believe in cussing; though I have, it tends to happen when I am really mad.

I personally want to be a better Christian, but living in this world makes it harder for a person to be Christian. May be because of the bad influences that exist now because of others and objects in the world.
nickfyoung
darthrevan wrote:
I wouldn't call those so called Christians, Christians Razz. I may not be the biggest Christian, but I am not going to go to church, go eat and then cuss somebody and go back to church again and repeat the cycle. It even says in the Bible that hypocrites are the worse(I believe it said something like this, I can be wrong). I don't believe in cussing; though I have, it tends to happen when I am really mad.

I personally want to be a better Christian, but living in this world makes it harder for a person to be Christian. May be because of the bad influences that exist now because of others and objects in the world.



When you became a Christian it was your spirit that was born again which is the real you but you are still living in your old sinful body.
There is a life long process of sanctification for a Christian to gradually change the old sinful nature into something more Christlike.
We won't fully get there till we get to heaven but we are having fun on the way.
I still cuss sometimes if I hurt myself or get real mad. My wife is always reminding me of it. Working on it.
darthrevan
It seems, I don't remember where, in the Bible it states that you have to have the Holy Ghost to enter into Heaven; It also states the path into Heaven will be narrow due to few will enter into Heaven at the end of time. Some people believe they go to Heaven right after they die. I don't believe this because it states in the Bible the dead will rise at the end of time.

Of course I have had somebody disagree with me. I am more of a Pentecostal type of person. I have went to many churches and ended up going to a Pentecostal church and get touched by the Holy Ghost. I think I got kinda "spooked" and it made me kinda withdraw and not get the Holy Ghost. I was so happy that I came so close; it was a wonderful experience.
nickfyoung
darthrevan wrote:
It seems, I don't remember where, in the Bible it states that you have to have the Holy Ghost to enter into Heaven; It also states the path into Heaven will be narrow due to few will enter into Heaven at the end of time. Some people believe they go to Heaven right after they die. I don't believe this because it states in the Bible the dead will rise at the end of time.

Of course I have had somebody disagree with me. I am more of a Pentecostal type of person. I have went to many churches and ended up going to a Pentecostal church and get touched by the Holy Ghost. I think I got kinda "spooked" and it made me kinda withdraw and not get the Holy Ghost. I was so happy that I came so close; it was a wonderful experience.


keep pushing in for some more of that Holy Spirit. Good for you.
loveandormoney
Quote:
Because of the fall of man through Adam all have inherited sin or a state that separates them from God..All mankind deserve to go to hell because of this inherited sin


Good morning. This story told in Genesis describes the 7 steps of the sin.
And also the consquences.
The mother, Eve, is misusing her son and he is killing his brother.
And if You read newspapers today, You can read, this happens very often in the year 2012 AD
All mankind is wrong, only the humans who like to live like Adam or Eve.
Regards
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:
Because of the fall of man through Adam all have inherited sin or a state that separates them from God..All mankind deserve to go to hell because of this inherited sin


Good morning. This story told in Genesis describes the 7 steps of the sin.
And also the consquences.
The mother, Eve, is misusing her son and he is killing his brother.
And if You read newspapers today, You can read, this happens very often in the year 2012 AD
All mankind is wrong, only the humans who like to live like Adam or Eve.
Regards


Got right there.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:

It all boils down to the Biblical view of God and his total sovereignty.


No, it doesn't. It boils down to your view of the generally accepted biblical view (whatever that may be, as it changes from congregation to country) and how that fairs with your own point of view as a living, breathing, conscious and sentient human being. And this vehicle of understanding the very nature of the God concept (although it is the best humanly accessible one, and you yourself don't utilize it, as you just believe whatever you're told, no matter how ridiculous and inhumane and uncompassionate it Does sound) is still insufficient in understanding such a concept of God.

So sure, "The Bible says..." is about as known to you as it is me (perhaps less to you, by current admissions) and it is about as known to Calvin, Augustine, Constantine, Luther and Henry VIII as it is to St Paul, who couldn't even decide which direction he was taking us half of the time. And fully digesting his right to a free will, he fully utilized it by bothering to try to lead us at all. As far as determinism goes:

Bill Hicks wrote:

The whole image is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love. That's the message we're brought up with, isn't it? Believe or die! "Thank you, forgiving Lord, for all those options."


Any flawed human being can be intelligent, compassionate and emotionally aware enough to not worship a celestial dictator. And any flawed human being will utilize that free will to not subscribe to this utter drivel about spiritually programmed worship-robots given a free will for seemingly no apparent reason at all. Free will to err= damnation. Free will to worship = not free will. How does that fit with God's sovereignty? That he's some sort of bungling buffoon who hasn't read his own human building starter kit instruction manual? This is why you're arrogant. You think your God is as stupid as those people who've got Him all figured out.

The truth is I don't have the answers. I just know a few things. If God did something that seems retarded, it probably wasn't God. It was probably man narrating God. And if you ever find yourself devaluing another human being due to any kind religious discrimination, you're not Christian or a Christian. You're a Nazi. If you find yourself issuing hell, fire and brimstone to good solid, sound and well meaning people because of what a text says, throw that text in the litter where it belongs.

Being a Christian is a lot easier than you make it sound, and a lot nicer and friendlier than your eschatological, catastrophist version of 'Christianity' paints. Maybe you should go to a church which spends a little less time obsessing about the devil and speaking the devil's words, of inadequacy, pain, suffering, doom, damnation segregation, hateful God and the valueless, meaningless human experience. This ain't no Chrisitianity. This is pure bullshit. I'm starting to think you're a sock puppet account.
nickfyoung
The quote you used of mine was in a post relating to a strict reformed view of the Bible which does stress the absolute sovereignty of God.

You keep using the term freewill of which there is none. There is none in the Bible and there is none anywhere. There is no such thing.

I know some proponents of Christianity use the term to justify some of their teachings but that doesn't mean it exists.

Christianity is very simple. Nothing difficult about it at all. The whole system is outlined in the Bible for all to see.

God created man. Man falls into sin separating himself from God. All mankind since inherit this same sin. All mankind deserve hell as a consequence of this sin. God selects some to be saved from hell through the cross.

Can't see anything complicated there. Seems pretty straight forward.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:

It all boils down to the Biblical view of God and his total sovereignty.


No, it doesn't. It boils down to your view of the generally accepted biblical view (whatever that may be, as it changes from congregation to country) and how that fairs with your own point of view as a living, breathing, conscious and sentient human being. And this vehicle of understanding the very nature of the God concept (although it is the best humanly accessible one, and you yourself don't utilize it, as you just believe whatever you're told, no matter how ridiculous and inhumane and uncompassionate it Does sound) is still insufficient in understanding such a concept of God.

So sure, "The Bible says..." is about as known to you as it is me (perhaps less to you, by current admissions) and it is about as known to Calvin, Augustine, Constantine, Luther and Henry VIII as it is to St Paul, who couldn't even decide which direction he was taking us half of the time. And fully digesting his right to a free will, he fully utilized it by bothering to try to lead us at all. As far as determinism goes:

Bill Hicks wrote:

The whole image is that eternal suffering awaits anyone who questions God's infinite love. That's the message we're brought up with, isn't it? Believe or die! "Thank you, forgiving Lord, for all those options."


Any flawed human being can be intelligent, compassionate and emotionally aware enough to not worship a celestial dictator. And any flawed human being will utilize that free will to not subscribe to this utter drivel about spiritually programmed worship-robots given a free will for seemingly no apparent reason at all. Free will to err= damnation. Free will to worship = not free will. How does that fit with God's sovereignty? That he's some sort of bungling buffoon who hasn't read his own human building starter kit instruction manual? This is why you're arrogant. You think your God is as stupid as those people who've got Him all figured out.

The truth is I don't have the answers. I just know a few things. If God did something that seems retarded, it probably wasn't God. It was probably man narrating God. And if you ever find yourself devaluing another human being due to any kind religious discrimination, you're not Christian or a Christian. You're a Nazi. If you find yourself issuing hell, fire and brimstone to good solid, sound and well meaning people because of what a text says, throw that text in the litter where it belongs.

Being a Christian is a lot easier than you make it sound, and a lot nicer and friendlier than your eschatological, catastrophist version of 'Christianity' paints. Maybe you should go to a church which spends a little less time obsessing about the devil and speaking the devil's words, of inadequacy, pain, suffering, doom, damnation segregation, hateful God and the valueless, meaningless human experience. This ain't no Chrisitianity. This is pure bullshit. I'm starting to think you're a sock puppet account.



"It boils down to your view of the generally accepted biblical view (whatever that may be, as it changes from congregation to country)"


The Biblical view has not changed for 2000 odd years. It is still the same as Paul taught it. Sure there are some variations amongst the many churches but that is to be expected with so many of them ranging from slight variations over minor points to blatant differences by many of the cults.

Otherwise it is still the same Bible, Still the same teaching, still the same God.


"is still insufficient in understanding such a concept of God. "


You forget that a Christian is given the mind of Christ at his conversion which is pretty handy in understanding the concept of God.


"This is pure bullshit. I'm starting to think you're a sock puppet account."


Once again, I keep telling you, it ain't me, has nothing to do with me. I just tell it like it says.

The Bible is very clear and understandable. Don't blame me for it.
Roland
nickfyoung wrote:
One must also do what Jesus said we have to do, be born again. It is rather difficult to be like Jesus who was sinless because we were born into sin and inherited the original sin.
That is why he said we must be born again, to have that sin dealt with so we can now start to be like Jesus on that long road of sanctification.
John 3:16 tells us that God loved his people so much that he gave up his only son to die for them. Jesus loved those same people so much that he died on the cross to redeem them from their sin.
The Christian feels just a little bit special when he realizes the extent of this love for him.


I'm not going to paraphrase but quote scripture: there was a man by the name of Lazarus; he was cripple from childhood; he was carried to gate beautiful every day that he might beg for alms that he might live. One day Lazarus Died he found himself outside the Gates of heaven: the keeper of the Gate came and said ''yes'' what can I do for you! Lazarus replied; all my life I have been a cripple; where I was Carried to gate beautiful in order that I might beg for alms that I might live! But now that I am Dead, ''He that made me this way does not want to have anything to do with me, and now I have nowhere to lay my head? The keeper of the Gate took pity upon him and welcomed him into the Kingdom of Heaven. (pause for Three seconds before you read on). Two weeks later, a well dressed priest died; He too found himself outside the Gates of Heaven. He was so confident that he tried to get through the gate him self! but the Keeper of the Gate held him back and said; Yes'' what can I do for you? The well dressed Priest said; ''What do you mean! What can you do for Me; I healed the sick cast out demons and preached the Gospel in your Name: and you say what can you do for me? The keeper of the gate Pushed him out and said ''Get thee Hence Satan for I know You not! Jesus then said to his disciples. there will be many that will use my name in order to heal the sick, cast out demons and preach the Gospel; but I tell you this ''Beware'' of wolves in sheep' clothing for they are ravenous wolves that will tear you apart. ''beware of the traditions of man'' If a church should divide its self from its self how Great will that fall be! Its like two Blind men guiding each other where one day they will guide each other over the top of a cliff and how great will that fall be. Not all who say lord lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but those that do the will of my father and keep his commandments; and he that teaches them to break those commandments they too shall not enter.
There are many roads that lead to death and destruction but there is only one road that leads to heavens door?
God one truth one light one door into the kingdom of heaven.

It annoys me that Vicars and Fathers and even Pentecostal Pastors keep telling their Congregations that whatever church we belong to we all worship God in a different way? What a load of Hogwash? Jesus said unless you exceed that of the Pharisee and the sadducees. you shall in no way enter into the kingdom of heaven. the pharisee and sadducees of today is non other than the RC C o E and those that follow the same traditions as those churches? If you want to hear More send me an Email I can prove beyond a doubt of which church is founded upon a Rock. I have been a pentecostal since the Age of 11, and was able to heal three people of their illness, but does that Make me into a disciple of Jesus: the Answer to that question is no. So who are the true god fearing Christians? if you want to truly find out, and if you want salvation then look at your church, do as Jesus said ''check it out''? does it have Baptism of water unto the repentance of sin? or does it have something similar? Similar is not good enough? People are told that when they come to the front and have the pastor pray for them where they are told that they are saved? and that the baptism of water is where one choses a piece of scripture within the Bible that relates to yourself where you tell the Congregation that you have know jesus for many years: you are in for a big shock: I knew things before I even had computer; the word of god spoke to me. the book spoke to me in many ways I'm running out of space but feel free to contact me. I'm not afraid to have my email address broadcast. I know that there are many ex Pentecostals today who share my views and if you are such a person Praise god
nickfyoung
Got no argument there.
loveandormoney
Quote:

Being a Christian is a lot easier than you make it sound, and a lot nicer and friendlier than your eschatological, catastrophist version of 'Christianity' paints. Maybe you should go to a church which spends a little less time obsessing about the devil and speaking the devil's words, of inadequacy, pain, suffering, doom, damnation segregation, hateful God and the valueless, meaningless human experience. This ain't no Chrisitianity. This is pure bullshit. I'm starting to think you're a sock puppet account.


Good morning.
Is the life of a Christian easy. This is a good question.
If You look in the Bible special the NT
You can see, Pete and the other 11 betrayed Jesus.
So did they do it, because betray is more easy then truth?
But if betray is easy, why did Pete and the others follow Jesus?
You talk about spending time in a church.
The psycho science is saying, statistical viewed, people visit every week a church live 8 years longer.
Regards
ocalhoun
loveandormoney wrote:

The psycho science is saying, statistical viewed, people visit every week a church live 8 years longer.

But if they live to be older than 56, they'll end up spending more than 8 years (cumulatively) in church, so it's not worth it. ^.^
Bikerman
Quote:
The Biblical view has not changed for 2000 odd years. It is still the same as Paul taught it. Sure there are some variations amongst the many churches but that is to be expected with so many of them ranging from slight variations over minor points to blatant differences by many of the cults.

Hillarious.
Assuming it is true then it is a damning indictment. Imagine that other systems of thought and understanding remained today as they were 2000 years ago. No development, no progress...ouch.
But, of course, it isn't true - it is SOO not true that I barely know where to start.
Let's start with Paul. Paul didn't teach anything about a character called Jesus. Read it again - he talks about a spiritual Christos, not a man who had lived barely 2 decades previously.
We also have to remember that at the time of Paul, there were numerous different factions of what would later become Christians. They didn't have a scriptural 'view' for the very good and obvious reason that there WAS no scripture. Paul's writings are the earliest in the NT and the cannon did not get finalised for nearly 2 centuries - much of it didn't get written until a whole 2 generations had passed from the time of Paul. So obviously the notion that the bible is understood today in the same way as in Paul's time is a logical nonsense as well as empirical twaddle. In fact the version of the bible 'understanding' shared by Protestants like nickyoung didn't even appear until after the Lutheran reformation - barley 500 years ago, not 2 millennia. Now, of course, the protestant may try to argue that they are simply returning to an earlier understanding of scripture - rescuing the truth from the perverted doctrines that grew out of Catholicism during the previous 1500 years, but even if that were true (and it isn't) it clearly makes a nonsense of the claim that the bible has been 'understood' the same way for 2000 years....
In fact the modern 'literalist' Christian tendency is something quite new. More sophisticated Christians moved beyond scriptural literalism during the first few hundred years. Origin and Saint Basil (4th century CE) had already understood that the creation story was parable, not history.
Augustine actually cautioned against literalistic/dogmatic approaches to the bible which went against what is known. Modern creationists would have embarrassed and angered him in pretty equal measure - he regarded such people as dangerous idiots who brought the faith into disrepute.
Augustine wrote:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
nickfyoung
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
The Biblical view has not changed for 2000 odd years. It is still the same as Paul taught it. Sure there are some variations amongst the many churches but that is to be expected with so many of them ranging from slight variations over minor points to blatant differences by many of the cults.

Hillarious.
Assuming it is true then it is a damning indictment. Imagine that other systems of thought and understanding remained today as they were 2000 years ago. No development, no progress...ouch.
But, of course, it isn't true - it is SOO not true that I barely know where to start.
Let's start with Paul. Paul didn't teach anything about a character called Jesus. Read it again - he talks about a spiritual Christos, not a man who had lived barely 2 decades previously.
We also have to remember that at the time of Paul, there were numerous different factions of what would later become Christians. They didn't have a scriptural 'view' for the very good and obvious reason that there WAS no scripture. Paul's writings are the earliest in the NT and the cannon did not get finalised for nearly 2 centuries - much of it didn't get written until a whole 2 generations had passed from the time of Paul. So obviously the notion that the bible is understood today in the same way as in Paul's time is a logical nonsense as well as empirical twaddle. In fact the version of the bible 'understanding' shared by Protestants like nickyoung didn't even appear until after the Lutheran reformation - barley 500 years ago, not 2 millennia. Now, of course, the protestant may try to argue that they are simply returning to an earlier understanding of scripture - rescuing the truth from the perverted doctrines that grew out of Catholicism during the previous 1500 years, but even if that were true (and it isn't) it clearly makes a nonsense of the claim that the bible has been 'understood' the same way for 2000 years....
In fact the modern 'literalist' Christian tendency is something quite new. More sophisticated Christians moved beyond scriptural literalism during the first few hundred years. Origin and Saint Basil (4th century CE) had already understood that the creation story was parable, not history.
Augustine actually cautioned against literalistic/dogmatic approaches to the bible which went against what is known. Modern creationists would have embarrassed and angered him in pretty equal measure - he regarded such people as dangerous idiots who brought the faith into disrepute.



It is not hilarious, it is really quite sad.


"They didn't have a scriptural 'view' for the very good and obvious reason that there WAS no scripture."


Pauls letters are scripture. There was some 300 or so letters circulating amongst the early churches. When they were canonized into Scripture the ones selected were the ones most inspired.

The Bible can not be refuted. Better men than you have been trying for 2000 years to do that.

We have 'The Codex Sinaiticus' a 4th century Greek Bible in the British Museum.

'The Codex Alexandrius', Creek Bible from the 5th century now in the British Museum.

'The Cdex Vaticanus', whole Bible from middle 4th century now in the Vatican library.

The Septuagiant, Old Testament Creek translation from Alexandria 250 BC.

The Samaritian Pentateuck,

Peshitta between 1st and 2nd century in common Syria language.

The Vulgate, Latin version by Jerome completed 400 AD.

The Masoretic Text by Jewish scholars between AD 500-900

And of course The Dead Sea Scrolls which are still being translated.

"No development, no progress...ouch."

That is the trouble with you science types, you look at everything through your colored glasses.
The Bible is the inspired word of God and is complete as it was in day one. It has not changed and nothing has been added to it or taken away from it.

Everything that was foretold in it has happened like it said. It has been proved so many times in so many ways and like I said, better men than you have tried to discredit it and all have failed miserably.
loveandormoney
Quote:
Hillarious.
Assuming it is true then it is a damning indictment. Imagine that other systems of thought and understanding remained today as they were 2000 years ago. No development, no progress...ouch.


Good morning? What do You think is "hillarious"?
Let us read Tacitus or Seneca. And when You read it, it sounds like
the author is suffering today.
No diffence.
The authors describe bad relationships and misusing drugs and so on, and so the question is:
The humans in Rome are happy the same way people today, are they happy?

Why they want to live the same way, or is this the best way of living?

regards
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
The quote you used of mine was in a post relating to a strict reformed view of the Bible which does stress the absolute sovereignty of God.

You keep using the term freewill of which there is none. There is none in the Bible and there is none anywhere. There is no such thing.

I know some proponents of Christianity use the term to justify some of their teachings but that doesn't mean it exists.

Christianity is very simple. Nothing difficult about it at all. The whole system is outlined in the Bible for all to see.

God created man. Man falls into sin separating himself from God. All mankind since inherit this same sin. All mankind deserve hell as a consequence of this sin. God selects some to be saved from hell through the cross.

Can't see anything complicated there. Seems pretty straight forward.


Once again, at risk of repeating myself and stating the blatant, glaringly obvious: the very fact that we disagree about the existence of free will is testament to the testament of Free Will. I can similarly, enter your temple, and over-turn all of your money-changing tables that have this teaching on them, in a very "unChristian/Christ-like" manner, and then face St. Peter on judgement day, and say, "Hey, I felt it was the right thing to do, and I also stand by it. Can I come in please, sir?"

The Bible is rich in free will. Everything, from Abraham to Jesus to Peter to Judas is the application of free will, the consequence of the chosen action and the lesson learned. Every single parable and teaching Jesus ever uttered dealt with Free Will. What the good person actually chose seems to be of critical relevance. And if you really want to get deeper into the argument, and discuss The Problem of Evil and why God allows suffering and pain, we can do that too. But the more philosophical it gets, the more the argument gets away from you. If there was no free will, firstly, the pure, perfect God you worship would have no diametric opposite, and secondly, would NOT exist.

I can't really see any argument (even for the sake of sophistry) that I could possibly propose (even for fun and giggles) to deny man's inherent choice to do either Good or Bad. The argument is not merely elementary, it is actually mind numbingly puerile.

nickfyoung wrote:
The Biblical view has not changed for 2000 odd years. It is still the same as Paul taught it. Sure there are some variations amongst the many churches but that is to be expected with so many of them ranging from slight variations over minor points to blatant differences by many of the cults.


Christianity was once a cult and it was also blasphemous to the Judea religion that Jesus and St. Paul were ardent followers of. What I am saying is not a genetic fallacy. What I saying is that the religion began as subversive and didn't adhere to Judaism and was considered punishable by Death by Execution. And yes, it has changed, Lutherite. It has changed far the unrecognizable characteristics of what St. Paul, Matthew, John and Luke had written, which in itself (the Birth of Christianity itself) was a huge paradigmatic shift.

nickfyoung wrote:

Otherwise it is still the same Bible, Still the same teaching, still the same God.


It's not the same Bible as the Torah. It's not the same trinity as Yahweh/Eli and it not the same teaching and the teaching itself, which has fluctuated back and forth since there was any documented religion in historicity, has never stayed stagnant for the simple and obvious fact that it has never, not once been the standard. People have always had different teachings and different understandings of the different teachings. The Bible may be the exact word of God. But man plays Chinese Whispers with it and man being man, if we are being 'brutally honest' didn't have the required divinity to hear it correctly the first time. Let's not make man gods, is what I am saying about idolatry. And let's not place one cult higher than the next cult. Cut to 2000 years from now: "They all used to make fun of Tom Cruise on the internets". Blaaaah.

nickfyoung wrote:
The Bible is very clear and understandable. Don't blame me for it.


I'm not blaming you for anything. I think you've been misled by overzealous teachings by misinformed pastors, is all I am saying. Your god seems a bit of a despot. He doesn't seem to love his creation or created. He seems to be using them in some sort of sort sick game they can't possibly succeed in, like a cat toying with a cornered mouse. Worship that god if it makes sense to you, but this is not the message Jesus shared nor taught. This is not Christianity. Don't call it Christianity. Call it Lutheranism or Luciferanism or something more indicative of the inclination and regard for humanity and love it has. Don't soil Christianity by claiming to be a part of it. We have enough problems with other deviants trying to infiltrate it from the inside right now.

nickfyoung wrote:

God created man. Man falls into sin separating himself from God. All mankind since inherit this same sin. All mankind deserve hell as a consequence of this sin. God selects some to be saved from hell through the cross.

Can't see anything complicated there. Seems pretty straight forward.


...Seems pointless, evil, bitter and vindictive, imo. Good luck with that. I'll be somewhere pondering how God decides which persons are eligible to be selected to be saved. And whether he looks at their life choices or not, or just chooses randomly like a name out of a hat. But then even that would require free-will to be free willing to be careful not to implement any, wouldn't it? Would it? You decide. Use your God given free will do so. Ridiculous argument. Also, your god kinda sucks.

Dialogist.
nickfyoung
[quote="Dialogist"]
nickfyoung wrote:
The quote you used of mine was in a post relating to a strict reformed view of the Bible which does stress the absolute sovereignty of God.

You keep using the term freewill of which there is none. There is none in the Bible and there is none anywhere. There is no such thing.

I know some proponents of Christianity use the term to justify some of their teachings but that doesn't mean it exists.

Christianity is very simple. Nothing difficult about it at all. The whole system is outlined in the Bible for all to see.

God created man. Man falls into sin separating himself from God. All mankind since inherit this same sin. All mankind deserve hell as a consequence of this sin. God selects some to be saved from hell through the cross.

Can't see anything complicated there. Seems pretty straight forward.


Once again, at risk of repeating myself and stating the blatant, glaringly obvious: the very fact that we disagree about the existence of free will is testament to the testament of Free Will. I can similarly, enter your temple, and over-turn all of your money-changing tables that have this teaching on them, in a very "unChristian/Christ-like" manner, and then face St. Peter on judgement day, and say, "Hey, I felt it was the right thing to do, and I also stand by it. Can I come in please, sir?"

The Bible is rich in free will. Everything, from Abraham to Jesus to Peter to Judas is the application of free will, the consequence of the chosen action and the lesson learned. Every single parable and teaching Jesus ever uttered dealt with Free Will. What the good person actually chose seems to be of critical relevance. And if you really want to get deeper into the argument, and discuss The Problem of Evil and why God allows suffering and pain, we can do that too. But the more philosophical it gets, the more the argument gets away from you. If there was no free will, firstly, the pure, perfect God you worship would have no diametric opposite, and secondly, would NOT exist.

I can't really see any argument (even for the sake of sophistry) that I could possibly propose (even for fun and giggles) to deny man's inherent choice to do either Good or Bad. The argument is not merely elementary, it is actually mind numbingly puerile.

nickfyoung wrote:
The Biblical view has not changed for 2000 odd years. It is still the same as Paul taught it. Sure there are some variations amongst the many churches but that is to be expected with so many of them ranging from slight variations over minor points to blatant differences by many of the cults.


Christianity was once a cult and it was also blasphemous to the Judea religion that Jesus and St. Paul were ardent followers of. What I am saying is not a genetic fallacy. What I saying is that the religion began as subversive and didn't adhere to Judaism and was considered punishable by Death by Execution. And yes, it has changed, Lutherite. It has changed far the unrecognizable characteristics of what St. Paul, Matthew, John and Luke had written, which in itself (the Birth of Christianity itself) was a huge paradigmatic shift.

nickfyoung wrote:

Otherwise it is still the same Bible, Still the same teaching, still the same God.


It's not the same Bible as the Torah. It's not the same trinity as Yahweh/Eli and it not the same teaching and the teaching itself, which has fluctuated back and forth since there was any documented religion in historicity, has never stayed stagnant for the simple and obvious fact that it has never, not once been the standard. People have always had different teachings and different understandings of the different teachings. The Bible may be the exact word of God. But man plays Chinese Whispers with it and man being man, if we are being 'brutally honest' didn't have the required divinity to hear it correctly the first time. Let's not make man gods, is what I am saying about idolatry. And let's not place one cult higher than the next cult. Cut to 2000 years from now: "They all used to make fun of Tom Cruise on the internets". Blaaaah.

nickfyoung wrote:
The Bible is very clear and understandable. Don't blame me for it.


I'm not blaming you for anything. I think you've been misled by overzealous teachings by misinformed pastors, is all I am saying. Your god seems a bit of a despot. He doesn't seem to love his creation or created. He seems to be using them in some sort of sort sick game they can't possibly succeed in, like a cat toying with a cornered mouse. Worship that god if it makes sense to you, but this is not the message Jesus shared nor taught. This is not Christianity. Don't call it Christianity. Call it Lutheranism or Luciferanism or something more indicative of the inclination and regard for humanity and love it has. Don't soil Christianity by claiming to be a part of it. We have enough problems with other deviants trying to infiltrate it from the inside right now.

nickfyoung wrote:

God created man. Man falls into sin separating himself from God. All mankind since inherit this same sin. All mankind deserve hell as a consequence of this sin. God selects some to be saved from hell through the cross.

Can't see anything complicated there. Seems pretty straight forward.


...Seems pointless, evil, bitter and vindictive, imo. Good luck with that. I'll be somewhere pondering how God decides which persons are eligible to be selected to be saved. And whether he looks at their life choices or not, or just chooses randomly like a name out of a hat. But then even that would require free-will to be free willing to be careful not to implement any, wouldn't it? Would it? You decide. Use your God given free will do so. Ridiculous argument. Also, your god kinda sucks.

Dialogist.[/quote


"I can't really see any argument (even for the sake of sophistry) that I could possibly propose (even for fun and giggles) to deny man's inherent choice to do either Good or Bad."


The bible is clear, man is a slave to sin and is unable to choose good. God is sovereign and he has the free will. Sure you have choices but they are not free choices


"And yes, it has changed, "


Paul and Jesus taught a definite doctrine and theology. That is still taught today unchanged. Sure the Catholic church got off the rails but that was corrected at the reformation. Wesley changed a few things when he took it to America which means the pentecostal church still carries those changes but the basics are unchanged.


"And yes, it has changed, "


Not sure what you referring to here. Is it the Catholic Church, in which case it has changed as I said above.


"somewhere pondering how God decides which persons are eligible to be selected to be saved. And whether he looks at their life choices or not, "


The Bible teaches that God selected them before he even created anything and the selection was unconditional.


Hope this helps.
Dialogist
Read maybe Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton in regards to "change". He is up there as Church Father with Augustine and Aquinas in my estimation. He presents a similar case to what I am saying, although he does it a lot more fluently and seamlessly. He says that the Church has embraced change and she has done so appropriately and necessarily at all the right times in History. He also presents a highly convincing argument about when she has stood steadfast and refused to change at critical times. He was Church of England in writing it, and Catholic not long after. The book also deals with what Bikerman touched upon about Augustine stipulations between belief and faith. The faith aspect - which you seem to overlook and ...well, just not have at all (if I'm being cautiously presumptuous), is the consoling undercurrent undulating throughout the entire work. He is careful to remind, at every given interval, as he does throughout Heathens too, that this isn't about fear and warning and punishment. This about childlike glee, wonder, astonishment, love and trust. It is about loving your dad, rather than being scared shitless of Him. His overuse of the archaic meaning of the word, "Gay", notwithstanding, it is a must read for any protestant currently asking all the right questions.

As for the those asking the wrong ones, you're presenting a case for an omniscient, foreseeing, all-knowing God who created man in his own image and saw that it was good (Adam) and told him not to sip the Jesus-juice knowing he would (which I'd already labored over philosophically by the time I was like, eight, and come to terms with in later years after grappling with his immovable object and settling finally on the realization that I was trying to translate Enochian script into hieroglyphics using Babelfish). So no, it doesn't help. And you cannot help me because you haven't even failed 1000 times yet. You're still looking at a square and calling it a circle because the a bunch of reformists insisted on it, and you're missing the whole purpose of what you are: A Christian, rather than a Catholic Opposer. But without getting personal, I really think there is some flaws in your belief system if you believe God created Adam perfect specifically to fail and that His Garden ultimatum was merely just a 'bit of a laugh', and that he supposedly did this unconditionally, and then created everyone else flawed, [fingerquotes] before the creation he saw was good[/fingerquotes] and created a lot of them to fail anyway, with no chance of salvation, and then weirdly, created a subsection "Blessed" sect of humanity about 500 years ago called "Protestants" who all get saved because they do the baptism thing later on. This is God's plan. This is what you believe. Maybe Ricky Gervais was onto something when he said, "thank God for making me an atheist". Because according to you, he did, with the guy having no say in the matter or any choice to make a move left or right in his future. If this is true, haha, and let's be honest, it's absolutely garbage then you need not be born again nor become a Christian, choose Pentecostal, protestant or any Church or accept Jesus or God into your heart at all. Just don't do anything. Because, hey, if you have no say in this determinism merry-go-round, mind-game of this "prankster" god's, then it is all futile anyway. What's to say that every single thing that you strive for and achieve as a Christian hasn't all been vain? IE: Absolutely worthless and pointless. It's not like you did anything. God did it all. You're just a puppet on a string.

And please stop saying the Bible teaches this. It does not, and neither does SAINT Paul.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Read maybe Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton in regards to "change". He is up there as Church Father with Augustine and Aquinas in my estimation. He presents a similar case to what I am saying, although he does it a lot more fluently and seamlessly. He says that the Church has embraced change and she has done so appropriately and necessarily at all the right times in History. He also presents a highly convincing argument about when she has stood steadfast and refused to change at critical times. He was Church of England in writing it, and Catholic not long after. The book also deals with what Bikerman touched upon about Augustine stipulations between belief and faith. The faith aspect - which you seem to overlook and ...well, just not have at all (if I'm being cautiously presumptuous), is the consoling undercurrent undulating throughout the entire work. He is careful to remind, at every given interval, as he does throughout Heathens too, that this isn't about fear and warning and punishment. This about childlike glee, wonder, astonishment, love and trust. It is about loving your dad, rather than being scared shitless of Him. His overuse of the archaic meaning of the word, "Gay", notwithstanding, it is a must read for any protestant currently asking all the right questions.

As for the those asking the wrong ones, you're presenting a case for an omniscient, foreseeing, all-knowing God who created man in his own image and saw that it was good (Adam) and told him not to sip the Jesus-juice knowing he would (which I'd already labored over philosophically by the time I was like, eight, and come to terms with in later years after grappling with his immovable object and settling finally on the realization that I was trying to translate Enochian script into hieroglyphics using Babelfish). So no, it doesn't help. And you cannot help me because you haven't even failed 1000 times yet. You're still looking at a square and calling it a circle because the a bunch of reformists insisted on it, and you're missing the whole purpose of what you are: A Christian, rather than a Catholic Opposer. But without getting personal, I really think there is some flaws in your belief system if you believe God created Adam perfect specifically to fail and that he Garden ultimatum was merely just a 'bit of a laugh', and that he supposedly did this unconditionally, and then created everyone else flawed, [fingerquotes] before the creation he saw was good[/fingerquotes] and created a lot of them to fail anyway, with no chance of salvation, and then weirdly, created a subsection "Blessed" sect of humanity about 500 years ago called "Protestants" who all get saved because they do the baptism thing later on. This is God's plan. This is what you believe. Maybe Ricky Gervais was onto something when he said, "thank God for making me an atheist". Because according to you, he did, with the guy having no say in the matter or any choice to make a move left or right in his future. If this is true, haha, and let's be honest, it's absolutely garbage then you need not be born again nor become a Christian, choose Pentecostal, protestant or any Church or accept Jesus or God into your heart at all. Just don't do anything. Because, hey, if you have no say in this determinism merry-go-round, mind-game of this "prankster" god's, then it is all futile anyway. What's to say that every single thing that you strive and achieve as a Christian has all been vain? IE: Absolutely worthless and pointless. It's not like you did anything. God did it all. You're just a puppet on a string.

And please stop saying the Bible teaches this. It does not, and neither does SAINT Paul.



Can I understand a couple of things here. Are you coming from a Catholic perspective and are you arguing against predestination.

I am not quite clear from your posts what your position is.
Dialogist
I'm saying (as title-less, unpigeonholed, free thinking human being) that God didn't put me here to tell you (oh, enlightened one) that you have this horribly wrong. I am in fact doing that out of my own free will. I am now choosing to finish the wallpaper steaming instead, that I chose not to do earlier. Peace out.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Read maybe Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton in regards to "change". He is up there as Church Father with Augustine and Aquinas in my estimation. He presents a similar case to what I am saying, although he does it a lot more fluently and seamlessly. He says that the Church has embraced change and she has done so appropriately and necessarily at all the right times in History. He also presents a highly convincing argument about when she has stood steadfast and refused to change at critical times. He was Church of England in writing it, and Catholic not long after. The book also deals with what Bikerman touched upon about Augustine stipulations between belief and faith. The faith aspect - which you seem to overlook and ...well, just not have at all (if I'm being cautiously presumptuous), is the consoling undercurrent undulating throughout the entire work. He is careful to remind, at every given interval, as he does throughout Heathens too, that this isn't about fear and warning and punishment. This about childlike glee, wonder, astonishment, love and trust. It is about loving your dad, rather than being scared shitless of Him. His overuse of the archaic meaning of the word, "Gay", notwithstanding, it is a must read for any protestant currently asking all the right questions.

As for the those asking the wrong ones, you're presenting a case for an omniscient, foreseeing, all-knowing God who created man in his own image and saw that it was good (Adam) and told him not to sip the Jesus-juice knowing he would (which I'd already labored over philosophically by the time I was like, eight, and come to terms with in later years after grappling with his immovable object and settling finally on the realization that I was trying to translate Enochian script into hieroglyphics using Babelfish). So no, it doesn't help. And you cannot help me because you haven't even failed 1000 times yet. You're still looking at a square and calling it a circle because the a bunch of reformists insisted on it, and you're missing the whole purpose of what you are: A Christian, rather than a Catholic Opposer. But without getting personal, I really think there is some flaws in your belief system if you believe God created Adam perfect specifically to fail and that His Garden ultimatum was merely just a 'bit of a laugh', and that he supposedly did this unconditionally, and then created everyone else flawed, [fingerquotes] before the creation he saw was good[/fingerquotes] and created a lot of them to fail anyway, with no chance of salvation, and then weirdly, created a subsection "Blessed" sect of humanity about 500 years ago called "Protestants" who all get saved because they do the baptism thing later on. This is God's plan. This is what you believe. Maybe Ricky Gervais was onto something when he said, "thank God for making me an atheist". Because according to you, he did, with the guy having no say in the matter or any choice to make a move left or right in his future. If this is true, haha, and let's be honest, it's absolutely garbage then you need not be born again nor become a Christian, choose Pentecostal, protestant or any Church or accept Jesus or God into your heart at all. Just don't do anything. Because, hey, if you have no say in this determinism merry-go-round, mind-game of this "prankster" god's, then it is all futile anyway. What's to say that every single thing that you strive for and achieve as a Christian hasn't all been vain? IE: Absolutely worthless and pointless. It's not like you did anything. God did it all. You're just a puppet on a string.

And please stop saying the Bible teaches this. It does not, and neither does SAINT Paul.



"This about childlike glee, wonder, astonishment, love and trust. It is about loving your dad,"


Got no argument there. Jesus said one must have the faith of a little child..


"A Christian, rather than a Catholic Opposer."


Your lower rant seems to indicate that you may be a Protestant opposer.. I know that the Catholic church claims to have prior knowledge and all the truth and Protestants have some maybe.


I wouldn't say I was a Catholic opposer any more than I am a Mormon opposer or a Muslim opposer simply because they are distorting what the Bible teaches.

It sounds from your last post that you are having major problems with the doctrines on the sovereignty of God as related to freewill and predestination. I hope I have got that right. You have a unique way of putting things which I don't quite get sometimes.


" Ex. 4:11 And the Lord said to him [Moses], "Who has made man's mouth? Or who makes him dumb or deaf, or seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?"

"Ex. 33:19 And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion"

"Deut. 32:39 See now that I, I am He, and there is no god besides Me; it is I who puts to death and gives life. I have wounded, and it is I who heals; and there is no one who can deliver from My hand."

"1 Sam. 2:6-7 The Lord kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. The Lord makes poor and rich; He brings low, He also exalts."

"Mt. 10:29,30 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs on your head are numbered. "

"Mt. 11:25-27 And no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him."

"Mt. 13:11 To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but to them it has not been granted."

"Mt. 19:11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it has been given. (NIV)"

"Mk. 13:20 But for the sake of the elect whom He chose, He shortened the days."



Is that the sort of thing you are after. I just selected a very few of the many available.
darthrevan
I think the title should say, what doesn't make a person a Christian, because the majority of people I see that go to church are hypocrites and don't actually conform to the Christian ways.
SonLight
darthrevan wrote:
I think the title should say, what doesn't make a person a Christian, because the majority of people I see that go to church are hypocrites and don't actually conform to the Christian ways.


That's part of the issue of definition. To what extent does one need to conform to standards to be called a Christian? The best-behaved people still fall far short of the standards Jesus set, so maybe there are no real Christians, just wanna-be Christians?

My understanding of Christianity is that is is a "come as you are" community. Those who come, and recognize the validity of the standards Jesus set, and really desire to grow towards those standards, are the ones I consider to have a healthy relationship with God. Some of them are just learning, and have made few changes in their behavior. If you consider a person over a number of years, and see substantial improvement, then I have no problem thinking that person was really a Christian, in spite of some bad behavior that may persist for years. When I see someone who _doesn't care_ whether their behavior is consistent with Jesus' teaching or not, then I have my doubts whether that person should be considered a Christian.

It does seem that Jesus has dramatically influenced our culture, because most people do seem to have an opinion about what behaviors are appropriate for Christians. Often the boundaries between expected behavior and personal choice consistent with Christianity are not well understood though, even by many who are long-time Christians.
nickfyoung
SonLight wrote:
darthrevan wrote:
I think the title should say, what doesn't make a person a Christian, because the majority of people I see that go to church are hypocrites and don't actually conform to the Christian ways.


That's part of the issue of definition. To what extent does one need to conform to standards to be called a Christian? The best-behaved people still fall far short of the standards Jesus set, so maybe there are no real Christians, just wanna-be Christians?

My understanding of Christianity is that is is a "come as you are" community. Those who come, and recognize the validity of the standards Jesus set, and really desire to grow towards those standards, are the ones I consider to have a healthy relationship with God. Some of them are just learning, and have made few changes in their behavior. If you consider a person over a number of years, and see substantial improvement, then I have no problem thinking that person was really a Christian, in spite of some bad behavior that may persist for years. When I see someone who _doesn't care_ whether their behavior is consistent with Jesus' teaching or not, then I have my doubts whether that person should be considered a Christian.

It does seem that Jesus has dramatically influenced our culture, because most people do seem to have an opinion about what behaviors are appropriate for Christians. Often the boundaries between expected behavior and personal choice consistent with Christianity are not well understood though, even by many who are long-time Christians.



I guess the term Christian has too many connotations for many people so that to get an accurate definition could be difficult.

To be more accurate I suppose we could say, something like, how do we define those who are going to heaven when they die as compared to those who go to hell. Are there those who go to hell or do all go to heaven or is there no afterlife and we are dead when we die. (sounds a bit funny)

Jesus said we must be born again or born from above to see the kingdom of God. Does the kingdom of God mean heaven or is the kingdom of God within you. Do we enter the kingdom of God at the point of being born again or do we have to die first.

So many questions it is no wonder it all sounds confusing to the non believer.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
Your lower rant seems to indicate that you may be a Protestant opposer.


I'm Roman Catholic, how can I possibly be a protest-ant protest-er? That's genetically, chronologically and lexically absurd. Even if it were possible, I'd have more than a case for being provoked so would you like me to change my plea to self-defense? I'm afraid that I can't even do that. You see, I'm the Catholic just going about Catholicism, and you are the Protester, by name, title, definition, dogma, theology and whole purpose. All you really have is this Lutheran/Calvinistic "Fatalism" which Aquinas swept the floor with circa 1250! That's a good 400 years before these 'theologians' even piped up. And he did such a fine job of putting this Augustinian problem to bed that they actually attempted to appeal to him to back their nonsense, feeling that they had too, because he'd slammed the door shut on this one already, and not including some cherry-picked allusions which he wrote off-record before he even addressed it would result in resounding failure, because Aquinas is the Doctor of this one, not Augustine. He's the go-to man for the argument but Calvin goes nowhere near him! He conflates Predeterminism with Fatalism, attempting to switch and bait it, which isn't Christianity, it is in fact Moslem fatalism, and it is heresy. You said Freemasons are incompatible with Christianity when you mentioned the Red Lodge. You were correct. Now include Protestants, because they are incompatible with Christianity for the exact same reasons that Mohammed is. I'm sorry to break that to you, being that you're such a literalistic reader, and a letter-of-the-law guy, but what you're reading isn't from Christianity. It is from Islam...

nickfyoung wrote:

I wouldn't say I was a Catholic opposer any more than I am a Mormon opposer or a Muslim opposer simply because they are distorting what the Bible teaches.


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?104164-Calvinist-amp-Islamic-fatalism

...and therefore what you are preaching is blasphemy and heresy, even in today's ultra-liberal V2 "Christian" climate. If you're such a God-Fearing man, you might to want to double check if you're not pissing Him off. I doubt you are though, because God loves you, regardless of your choices. You can call that 'unconditional fatalism' if it helps you sleep at night. You can drop the free-will part about choices, if you like (it's up to you).

Here is all Aquinas said, and all he had to say, and it so simple and obvious (and also vital for God to have created everything) that there's just NO rebuttal against it, especially not 3-400 hundred years later, by people having the bare-faced audacity, sheer audacity, and similar chronological absurdity to try to suggest that he was agreeing with them.

newadvent.org wrote:

Among the early Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine stands pre-eminent in his handling of this subject. He clearly teaches the freedom of the will against the Manichæeans, but insists against the Semipelagians on the necessity of grace, as a foundation of merit. He also emphasizes very strongly the absolute rule of God over men's wills by His omnipotence and omniscience--through the infinite store, as it were, of motives which He has had at His disposal from all eternity, and by the foreknowledge of those to which the will of each human being would freely consent. St. Augustine's teaching formed the basis of much of the later theology of the Church on these questions, though other writers have sought to soften the more rigorous portions of his doctrine. This they did especially in opposition to heretical authors, who exaggerated these features in the works of the great African Doctor and attempted to deduce from his principles a form of rigid predeterminism little differing from fatalism. The teaching of St. Augustine is developed by St. Thomas Aquinas both in theology and philosophy. Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom. But God possesses an infallible knowledge of man's future actions. How is this prevision possible, if man's future acts are not necessary?

God does not exist in time.


Ok? Now find a new religion. This one has been done for centuries before it even began.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Your lower rant seems to indicate that you may be a Protestant opposer.


I'm Roman Catholic, how can I possibly be a protest-ant protest-er? That's genetically, chronologically and lexically absurd. Even if it were possible, I'd have more than a case for being provoked so would you like me to change my plea to self-defense? I'm afraid that I can't even do that. You see, I'm the Catholic just going about Catholicism, and you are the Protester, by name, title, definition, dogma, theology and whole purpose. All you really have is this Lutheran/Calvinistic "Fatalism" which Aquinas swept the floor with circa 1250! That's a good 400 years before these 'theologians' even piped up. And he did such a fine job of putting this Augustinian problem to bed that they actually attempted to appeal to him to back their nonsense, feeling that they had too, because he'd slammed the door shut on this one already, and not including some cherry-picked allusions which he wrote off-record before he even addressed it would result in resounding failure, because Aquinas is the Doctor of this one, not Augustine. He's the go-to man for the argument but Calvin goes nowhere near him! He conflates Predeterminism with Fatalism, attempting to switch and bait it, which isn't Christianity, it is in fact Moslem fatalism, and it is heresy. You said Freemasons are incompatible with Christianity when you mentioned the Red Lodge. You were correct. Now include Protestants, because they are incompatible with Christianity for the exact same reasons that Mohammed is. I'm sorry to break that to you, being that you're such a literalistic reader, and a letter-of-the-law guy, but what you're reading isn't from Christianity. It is from Islam...

nickfyoung wrote:

I wouldn't say I was a Catholic opposer any more than I am a Mormon opposer or a Muslim opposer simply because they are distorting what the Bible teaches.


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?104164-Calvinist-amp-Islamic-fatalism

...and therefore what you are preaching is blasphemy and heresy, even in today's ultra-liberal V2 "Christian" climate. If you're such a God-Fearing man, you might to want to double check if you're not pissing Him off. I doubt you are though, because God loves you, regardless of your choices. You can call that 'unconditional fatalism' if it helps you sleep at night. You can drop the free-will part about choices, if you like (it's up to you).

Here is all Aquinas said, and all he had to say, and it so simple and obvious (and also vital for God to have created everything) that there's just NO rebuttal against it, especially not 3-400 hundred years later, by people having the bare-faced audacity, sheer audacity, and similar chronological absurdity to try to suggest that he was agreeing with them.

newadvent.org wrote:

Among the early Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine stands pre-eminent in his handling of this subject. He clearly teaches the freedom of the will against the Manichæeans, but insists against the Semipelagians on the necessity of grace, as a foundation of merit. He also emphasizes very strongly the absolute rule of God over men's wills by His omnipotence and omniscience--through the infinite store, as it were, of motives which He has had at His disposal from all eternity, and by the foreknowledge of those to which the will of each human being would freely consent. St. Augustine's teaching formed the basis of much of the later theology of the Church on these questions, though other writers have sought to soften the more rigorous portions of his doctrine. This they did especially in opposition to heretical authors, who exaggerated these features in the works of the great African Doctor and attempted to deduce from his principles a form of rigid predeterminism little differing from fatalism. The teaching of St. Augustine is developed by St. Thomas Aquinas both in theology and philosophy. Will is rational appetite. Man necessarily desires beatitude, but he can freely choose between different forms of it. Free will is simply this elective power. Infinite Good is not visible to the intellect in this life. There are always some drawbacks and deficiencies in every good presented to us. None of them exhausts our intellectual capacity of conceiving the good. Consequently, in deliberate volition, not one of them completely satiates or irresistibly entices the will. In this capability of the intellect for conceiving the universal lies the root of our freedom. But God possesses an infallible knowledge of man's future actions. How is this prevision possible, if man's future acts are not necessary?

God does not exist in time.


Ok? Now find a new religion. This one has been done for centuries before it even began.



Yes he is not bad and some of his stuff is quite good.

May I suggest another tack. Now that you have established that you are a Catholic I would like to suggest that you give me your Catholic definition of a Christian and the relevant Scriptures supporting it and we can go from there.

Otherwise we are getting bogged down in all sorts of stuff.
darthrevan
nickfyoung wrote:
SonLight wrote:
darthrevan wrote:
I think the title should say, what doesn't make a person a Christian, because the majority of people I see that go to church are hypocrites and don't actually conform to the Christian ways.


That's part of the issue of definition. To what extent does one need to conform to standards to be called a Christian? The best-behaved people still fall far short of the standards Jesus set, so maybe there are no real Christians, just wanna-be Christians?

My understanding of Christianity is that is is a "come as you are" community. Those who come, and recognize the validity of the standards Jesus set, and really desire to grow towards those standards, are the ones I consider to have a healthy relationship with God. Some of them are just learning, and have made few changes in their behavior. If you consider a person over a number of years, and see substantial improvement, then I have no problem thinking that person was really a Christian, in spite of some bad behavior that may persist for years. When I see someone who _doesn't care_ whether their behavior is consistent with Jesus' teaching or not, then I have my doubts whether that person should be considered a Christian.

It does seem that Jesus has dramatically influenced our culture, because most people do seem to have an opinion about what behaviors are appropriate for Christians. Often the boundaries between expected behavior and personal choice consistent with Christianity are not well understood though, even by many who are long-time Christians.



I guess the term Christian has too many connotations for many people so that to get an accurate definition could be difficult.

To be more accurate I suppose we could say, something like, how do we define those who are going to heaven when they die as compared to those who go to hell. Are there those who go to hell or do all go to heaven or is there no afterlife and we are dead when we die. (sounds a bit funny)

Jesus said we must be born again or born from above to see the kingdom of God. Does the kingdom of God mean heaven or is the kingdom of God within you. Do we enter the kingdom of God at the point of being born again or do we have to die first.

So many questions it is no wonder it all sounds confusing to the non believer.


About wondering if a person went to heaven or not,I read somewhere in the Bible that a person doesn't get raised from the dead until the end of time
nickfyoung
Yes I was under the impression that the dead in Christ will rise first but some say that is the old body to be restored to the heavenly body and reunited with your soul that went there when you died.

I suppose when you die and wake up in heaven 1000 years hence it will just seem like waking up in the morning from an overnight sleep.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
I would like to suggest that you give me your Catholic definition of a Christian and the relevant Scriptures supporting it and we can go from there.


My (general/Catholic/protestant/fundamentalist/evangelical/seventhdayaventist/muslim/hindu/bud dist/shinto/rastafarian/scientologist/jedi/athiest/dictionary) defintion of "Christian" is somebody who regards themselves as a Christian. My deep-down, inner-most, personal definition of a Christian is somebody who attempts or would like to emulate Christ.

Re: The relevant scripture supporting it can be found in every single word, line, letter and number of the Douay Rheims Bible, and before that, The Latin Vulgate and before that, Christ's words falling directly out of his mouth, being recorded nightly by His best friend, His rock and apostle and our first Pope, St. Peter.

What have you got?

Don't give a German from 500 years ago who did the religious version of changing "Pavement" to "Sidewalk" and calling it "The New American Version" or I'll just feel justified to laugh in your face.

The Catechism of The Catholic Church and all of its Church Fathers, Philosophers, Scientists, Mathematicians, Theologians, Astronomers, Writers, Poets and Artists have covered pretty every single word in "your" Bible about 7 thousand times over. Throughout history, faced with an entire history Caesar, Muslims, New Age thinkers, the enlightenment, science and Darwin, we've been tested to the hilt. We've been through the mill. We're still here. You are asking me for examples from My Bible to give to you as why I know what being a Christian entails?

How about I ask you for any reason (scripture or non scripture) why the protestant branch off just isn't just another johnny come lately poor imitation? It's like a fan club. An unofficial facebook page. It doesn't even have an governing body. If it was an email account, it would end with hotmail.com. It's somewhat of a frivolous joke to me and has no divinity, saints nor important religious figures connected with it. It has no authenticity. It was invented by a German farm boy. It is, in my opinion, up there with Mormonism, which was invented by an American farm boy. It has no business asking me to provide authentication of anything. It's actually gotten to the point where I could grant you TULIP (wholesale), and say, you know what, you protestants are RIGHT about prederminism. That's egg on our face. Silly us. Nice spot, protestants! Good looking out!

And what else? Thanks for the fan mail?

Send you some stickers?

[/rant]
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
I would like to suggest that you give me your Catholic definition of a Christian and the relevant Scriptures supporting it and we can go from there.


My (general/Catholic/protestant/fundamentalist/evangelical/seventhdayaventist/muslim/hindu/bud dist/shinto/rastafarian/scientologist/jedi/athiest/dictionary) defintion of "Christian" is somebody who regards themselves as a Christian. My deep-down, inner-most, personal definition of a Christian is somebody who attempts or would like to emulate Christ.

Re: The relevant scripture supporting it can be found in every single word, line, letter and number of the Douay Rheims Bible, and before that, The Latin Vulgate and before that, Christ's words falling directly out of his mouth, being recorded nightly by His best friend, His rock and apostle and our first Pope, St. Peter.

What have you got?

Don't give a German from 500 years ago who did the religious version of changing "Pavement" to "Sidewalk" and calling it "The New American Version" or I'll just feel justified to laugh in your face.

The Catechism of The Catholic Church and all of its Church Fathers, Philosophers, Scientists, Mathematicians, Theologians, Astronomers, Writers, Poets and Artists have covered pretty every single word in "your" Bible about 7 thousand times over. Throughout history, faced with an entire history Caesar, Muslims, New Age thinkers, the enlightenment, science and Darwin, we've been tested to the hilt. We've been through the mill. We're still here. You are asking me for examples from My Bible to give to you as why I know what being a Christian entails?

How about I ask you for any reason (scripture or non scripture) why the protestant branch off just isn't just another johnny come lately poor imitation? It's like a fan club. An unofficial facebook page. It doesn't even have an governing body. If it was an email account, it would end with hotmail.com. It's somewhat of a frivolous joke to me and has no divinity, saints nor important religious figures connected with it. It has no authenticity. It was invented by a German farm boy. It is, in my opinion, up there with Mormonism, which was invented by an American farm boy. It has no business asking me to provide authentication of anything. It's actually gotten to the point where I could grant you TULIP (wholesale), and say, you know what, you protestants are RIGHT about prederminism. That's egg on our face. Silly us. Nice spot, protestants! Good looking out!

And what else? Thanks for the fan mail?

Send you some stickers?

[/rant]



That is a bit of a rant. You have the advantage on me because I have never had much to do with the Catholic church or it's teachings. I gleaned a little during debate with Bikerman and my wife used to be a Catholic. Other than that I only know what I have read and we both know that can be unreliable at times.

From what I gleaned from Bikerman whether is right or not, is that the Catholic church baptize you as a baby which means you are a member of the church and a Christian.

Even the modern protestants say all you have to do is come forward and say a little prayer and you are a Christian which usually means you have a church full of false converts.


Are you saying that because the Catholic church is the first and present church with the history of popes and saints that one can't become a Christian anywhere else.

I am just trying to read between the lines of your post.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
I would like to suggest that you give me your Catholic definition of a Christian and the relevant Scriptures supporting it and we can go from there.


My (general/Catholic/protestant/fundamentalist/evangelical/seventhdayaventist/muslim/hindu/bud dist/shinto/rastafarian/scientologist/jedi/athiest/dictionary) defintion of "Christian" is somebody who regards themselves as a Christian. My deep-down, inner-most, personal definition of a Christian is somebody who attempts or would like to emulate Christ.

Re: The relevant scripture supporting it can be found in every single word, line, letter and number of the Douay Rheims Bible, and before that, The Latin Vulgate and before that, Christ's words falling directly out of his mouth, being recorded nightly by His best friend, His rock and apostle and our first Pope, St. Peter.

What have you got?

Don't give a German from 500 years ago who did the religious version of changing "Pavement" to "Sidewalk" and calling it "The New American Version" or I'll just feel justified to laugh in your face.

The Catechism of The Catholic Church and all of its Church Fathers, Philosophers, Scientists, Mathematicians, Theologians, Astronomers, Writers, Poets and Artists have covered pretty every single word in "your" Bible about 7 thousand times over. Throughout history, faced with an entire history Caesar, Muslims, New Age thinkers, the enlightenment, science and Darwin, we've been tested to the hilt. We've been through the mill. We're still here. ou are askinYg me for examples from My Bible to give to you as why I know what being a Christian entails?

How about I ask you for any reason (scripture or non scripture) why the protestant branch off just isn't just another johnny come lately poor imitation? It's like a fan club. An unofficial facebook page. It doesn't even have an governing body. If it was an email account, it would end with hotmail.com. It's somewhat of a frivolous joke to me and has no divinity, saints nor important religious figures connected with it. It has no authenticity. It was invented by a German farm boy. It is, in my opinion, up there with Mormonism, which was invented by an American farm boy. It has no business asking me to provide authentication of anything. It's actually gotten to the point where I could grant you TULIP (wholesale), and say, you know what, you protestants are RIGHT about prederminism. That's egg on our face. Silly us. Nice spot, protestants! Good looking out!

And what else? Thanks for the fan mail?

Send you some stickers?

[/rant]



"What have you got?"


"<< John 3 >>
Douay-Rheims Bible
1 AND there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. 3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. "


"You are asking me for examples from My Bible"


Any Bible will do, they are all the same.


"How about I ask you for any reason (scripture or non scripture) why the protestant branch off"


We both know why there was a Protestant branch off. Corruption in the Catholic church and non Christian behavior by it's popes.
Afaceinthematrix
Dialogist wrote:
Once again, at risk of repeating myself and stating the blatant, glaringly obvious: the very fact that we disagree about the existence of free will is testament to the testament of Free Will.


Are you joking?

If you don't have freewill then you would have no control over your belief in freewill or not. Your statement was absurd both logically and philosophically.
nickfyoung
I think I am beginning to understand after reading some of Catholic theology.

The Catholic church teaches that to be justified before God you start with baptism and go through the seven sacraments.


Protestants believe that righteousness before God is by grace alone and back it up with Scriptures.
These are to the early church of Rome.

"Romans 3:28 says, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified [how?] by faith apart from the deeds of the law.”

Romans 4:3 says, “For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.'”

Romans 4:5 says, “But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness”

Romans 5:1 says, “Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ”
loveandormoney
Quote:

But if they live to be older than 56, they'll end up spending more than 8 years (cumulatively) in church, so it's not worth it. ^.^


Good morning.
You are right
if You think
to stay in a community with humans is wasted time.
How can You spend Your life better?

Regards
Dialogist
Afaceinthematrix wrote:

Are you joking?

If you don't have freewill then you would have no control over your belief in freewill or not. Your statement was absurd both logically and philosophically.


Oh, this is precious. I have a protestant on one side accusing my church of Biblical errancy and an atheist on the other side telling me about logic and philosophy! It's actually really simple: If Nickfyoung is arguing with somebody who doesn't agree with him, whether he believes in free will or not is irrelevant (especially if he is right), and if he is indeed arguing with somebody who doesn't agree with him, then somebody has clearly broken the mold. If the mold was cast by God (which is circular logic, causally, for you especially, as an atheist to even appeal to as agent, for the sole purpose of attempting to scold me about my grasp logic) then the Agent had the free-will to give him absolute fatalism and a belief in his fatalistic eventuality and the Agent also had the free-will to give me a belief in benevolent predeterminism with free-will as the elect promoter or relegator. Alternatively, the Agent had the free-will to give us both one or the other. Either way the Agent still had the free-will to select who would get what. And they are both opposite, so a choice was made. The Agent is therefore exhibiting His free-will which ever way you cut it. The decider is of course, the Agent made man in his own likeness.

Any more thoughts?

I have. The free-will I have in believing in what Nickfyoung believes doesn't even concern God. I can do that tomorrow if the mood takes me. If that was my secret predetermined destiny all along, and I just didn't know about it, then I guess Nickfyoung and the Catch 22 coin toss of all of these two decisions will catch me out anyway, in an ouroboros loop of trying to constantly second guess God in some ridiculous game of Salvation Russian Roulette (like all protestants). If I am indeed attempting to have any say the matter, which I most definitely am, then I don't know what you'd like me to call that, other than "free-will".

So, sir. It is your logic that is ridiculous. Any attempt by me to prove that I have free-will is free-will evidenced in its very conception and any failure to prove that I have free-will causes an infinite regress of "how do you know that wasn't what was decided all along?", so if we are talking about what is "logically and philosophically absurd", then congrats, you've nailed it.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
I would like to suggest that you give me your Catholic definition of a Christian and the relevant Scriptures supporting it and we can go from there.


My (general/Catholic/protestant/fundamentalist/evangelical/seventhdayaventist/muslim/hindu/bud dist/shinto/rastafarian/scientologist/jedi/athiest/dictionary) defintion of "Christian" is somebody who regards themselves as a Christian. My deep-down, inner-most, personal definition of a Christian is somebody who attempts or would like to emulate Christ.

Re: The relevant scripture supporting it can be found in every single word, line, letter and number of the Douay Rheims Bible, and before that, The Latin Vulgate and before that, Christ's words falling directly out of his mouth, being recorded nightly by His best friend, His rock and apostle and our first Pope, St. Peter.

What have you got?

Don't give a German from 500 years ago who did the religious version of changing "Pavement" to "Sidewalk" and calling it "The New American Version" or I'll just feel justified to laugh in your face.

The Catechism of The Catholic Church and all of its Church Fathers, Philosophers, Scientists, Mathematicians, Theologians, Astronomers, Writers, Poets and Artists have covered pretty every single word in "your" Bible about 7 thousand times over. Throughout history, faced with an entire history Caesar, Muslims, New Age thinkers, the enlightenment, science and Darwin, we've been tested to the hilt. We've been through the mill. We're still here. You are asking me for examples from My Bible to give to you as why I know what being a Christian entails?

How about I ask you for any reason (scripture or non scripture) why the protestant branch off just isn't just another johnny come lately poor imitation? It's like a fan club. An unofficial facebook page. It doesn't even have an governing body. If it was an email account, it would end with hotmail.com. It's somewhat of a frivolous joke to me and has no divinity, saints nor important religious figures connected with it. It has no authenticity. It was invented by a German farm boy. It is, in my opinion, up there with Mormonism, which was invented by an American farm boy. It has no business asking me to provide authentication of anything. It's actually gotten to the point where I could grant you TULIP (wholesale), and say, you know what, you protestants are RIGHT about prederminism. That's egg on our face. Silly us. Nice spot, protestants! Good looking out!

And what else? Thanks for the fan mail?

Send you some stickers?

[/rant]



That is a bit of a rant. You have the advantage on me because I have never had much to do with the Catholic church or it's teachings. I gleaned a little during debate with Bikerman and my wife used to be a Catholic. Other than that I only know what I have read and we both know that can be unreliable at times.

From what I gleaned from Bikerman whether is right or not, is that the Catholic church baptize you as a baby which means you are a member of the church and a Christian.

Even the modern protestants say all you have to do is come forward and say a little prayer and you are a Christian which usually means you have a church full of false converts.


Are you saying that because the Catholic church is the first and present church with the history of popes and saints that one can't become a Christian anywhere else.

I am just trying to read between the lines of your post.


You are trying to bait to switch is what you're doing. Reading between the lines of my posts?.. there's no lines there because I didn't use lineheight:30px to make negative space for imaginary alternative arguments that you'd perhaps feel more confident in prevailing with.

But I will address what you asked. I am not saying that the authenticity of the Catholic Church prevents other Christians from welcoming their own Christians into their Christian congregation at all. Good luck to them. I actually wasn't saying anything about True Scotsman Christianity at all. I also wasn't belittling protestant Christianity in an discriminate manner. I was saying that I find it easy to not take it seriously. That's why I used the word "frivolous". I don't see any authority that it can claim on any aspect of genetic Christian authenticity. Twinned with the proposition, that I as a Catholic, a faith with all the necessary hallmarks of direct-bloodline family orientated authenticity, am being summoned to present a case for the authenticity of the teaching that I follow, from a protestant?!? ...I am afraid that I will be enticed into resorting to ridicule, primarily because I find the notion ridiculous. But I stress, in a laughable sort of way. A Christian (One who attempts to emulate Christ) is a Christian. Whether he's African and The Book of Enoch in his Bible, or Protestant and that wacky near-evangelisation of Agrippa by a chained Saint Paul is in his Bible (no two Bibles are the same, as I have told you several times). A Christian, following Christ, or at least trying to, is a Christian so, no, Nickfyoung, when you say:

wrote:
come forward and say a little prayer and you are a Christian which usually means you have a church full of false converts.


That is not correct at all. It is not for you to say what is in a man's heart, nor it is for you to judge his destination. That's playing God.

Nickfyoung wrote:
the Catholic church baptize you as a baby which means you are a member of the church and a Christian.


Your parents do that. You still have zero say in the matter, but the saying, "I'd rather have a gun and not need one than need a gun and not have one" springs to mind. If you want 'out of the club', don't make your first communion. If you're still too young to call the shots at that age, just don't get confirmed. You're liable to stay on the baptism books for life, but nobody actually keeps a book, and nobody can do anything with it, only grant you things, you know, like sanctuary, a purpose in life, spiritual nourishment, a marriage, salvation etc. The little 'perks' that make life meaningful. If you're angry as hell at the church and want out, you're already out. You don't even need to do anything. The work is put into staying a Christian, not absconding. Any jackass can do that. I fear a lot of us do it unintentionally without even noticing, but I don't fear that as much as you do, because my faith is based upon faith in a loving, forgiving, patient, compassionate God. So while no two Bibles are the same, no two gods are the same either.

Nickfyoung wrote:

We both know why there was a Protestant branch off. Corruption in the Catholic church and non Christian behavior by it's popes.


I thought it was all about scripture only and that all Bibles are the same? Why the knee-jerk reaction to politics all of a sudden? Doesn't your scripture tell you that not a single hair on the scriptures shall be altered or eternal damnation awaits? I believe it does! It believe it was John and it the very last verse! Ooops! You altered the scriptures (please don't tell me that 'put them back to how they should have been', as you've only been around for 500 years). "You shall not eat from the tree of life", protestants. You shall not eat from the tree of life because you followed Luther who changed the Bible.


Nickfyoung wrote:

<< John 3 >>
Douay-Rheims Bible

1 AND there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. 3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. "


*(...1899 "American Edition")

Tip: Whenever you see the word "American.." in a Bible title, it's roughly around 200 years old, because well, America is only around 200 years old, and thus, its inerrant authenticity, classical meaning, rhetoric and symbolism tends to get lost in the lack of supporting commentary, which although is often external, is readily available in print or online, but that, and twinned with the fact that the officially regarded Bible scholar's and historian's commentaries are themselves older than the Bible you are currently holding (printed by Penguin or Blackhorse), then it tending to suck a little bit isn't usually too much of a coincidence.

As for the content of the actual verse itself, this old news and has been covered extensively (again, since well before your religion even existed, a time when mostly all Christians spoke some latin). Google, "Natus fuerit denuo" if you want a proper translation.

Actually, I'd do it for you:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.arts.tv/JFAIKyS3DGo/vqfiNGGwH8wJ

What you do not have, Nickfyoung, as a protestant, is commentary. Or you do, and it's just not good enough. It's not old enough. It's not well-read enough. New jack theologians etc. Problematic!

Nickfyoung wrote:

Any Bible will do, they are all the same.


I still suspect sockpuppetry. Call me suspicious but you say shit like this and you sound suspect.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
I would like to suggest that you give me your Catholic definition of a Christian and the relevant Scriptures supporting it and we can go from there.


My (general/Catholic/protestant/fundamentalist/evangelical/seventhdayaventist/muslim/hindu/bud dist/shinto/rastafarian/scientologist/jedi/athiest/dictionary) defintion of "Christian" is somebody who regards themselves as a Christian. My deep-down, inner-most, personal definition of a Christian is somebody who attempts or would like to emulate Christ.

Re: The relevant scripture supporting it can be found in every single word, line, letter and number of the Douay Rheims Bible, and before that, The Latin Vulgate and before that, Christ's words falling directly out of his mouth, being recorded nightly by His best friend, His rock and apostle and our first Pope, St. Peter.

What have you got?

Don't give a German from 500 years ago who did the religious version of changing "Pavement" to "Sidewalk" and calling it "The New American Version" or I'll just feel justified to laugh in your face.

The Catechism of The Catholic Church and all of its Church Fathers, Philosophers, Scientists, Mathematicians, Theologians, Astronomers, Writers, Poets and Artists have covered pretty every single word in "your" Bible about 7 thousand times over. Throughout history, faced with an entire history Caesar, Muslims, New Age thinkers, the enlightenment, science and Darwin, we've been tested to the hilt. We've been through the mill. We're still here. You are asking me for examples from My Bible to give to you as why I know what being a Christian entails?

How about I ask you for any reason (scripture or non scripture) why the protestant branch off just isn't just another johnny come lately poor imitation? It's like a fan club. An unofficial facebook page. It doesn't even have an governing body. If it was an email account, it would end with hotmail.com. It's somewhat of a frivolous joke to me and has no divinity, saints nor important religious figures connected with it. It has no authenticity. It was invented by a German farm boy. It is, in my opinion, up there with Mormonism, which was invented by an American farm boy. It has no business asking me to provide authentication of anything. It's actually gotten to the point where I could grant you TULIP (wholesale), and say, you know what, you protestants are RIGHT about prederminism. That's egg on our face. Silly us. Nice spot, protestants! Good looking out!

And what else? Thanks for the fan mail?

Send you some stickers?

[/rant]



That is a bit of a rant. You have the advantage on me because I have never had much to do with the Catholic church or it's teachings. I gleaned a little during debate with Bikerman and my wife used to be a Catholic. Other than that I only know what I have read and we both know that can be unreliable at times.

From what I gleaned from Bikerman whether is right or not, is that the Catholic church baptize you as a baby which means you are a member of the church and a Christian.

Even the modern protestants say all you have to do is come forward and say a little prayer and you are a Christian which usually means you have a church full of false converts.


Are you saying that because the Catholic church is the first and present church with the history of popes and saints that one can't become a Christian anywhere else.

I am just trying to read between the lines of your post.


You are trying to bait to switch is what you're doing. Reading between the lines of my posts?.. there's no lines there because I didn't use lineheight:30px to make negative space for imaginary alternative arguments that you'd perhaps feel more confident in prevailing with.

But I will address what you asked. I am not saying that the authenticity of the Catholic Church prevents other Christians from welcoming their own Christians into their Christian congregation at all. Good luck to them. I actually wasn't saying anything about True Scotsman Christianity at all. I also wasn't belittling protestant Christianity in an discriminate manner. I was saying that I find it easy to not take it seriously. That's why I used the word "frivolous". I don't see any authority that it can claim on any aspect of genetic Christian authenticity. Twinned with the proposition, that I as a Catholic, a faith with all the necessary hallmarks of direct-bloodline family orientated authenticity, am being summoned to present a case for the authenticity of the teaching that I follow, from a protestant?!? ...I am afraid that I will be enticed into resorting to ridicule, primarily because I find the notion ridiculous. But I stress, in a laughable sort of way. A Christian (One who attempts to emulate Christ) is a Christian. Whether he's African and The Book of Enoch in his Bible, or Protestant and that wacky near-evangelisation of Agrippa by a chained Saint Paul is in his Bible (no two Bibles are the same, as I have told you several times). A Christian, following Christ, or at least trying to, is a Christian so, no, Nickfyoung, when you say:

wrote:
come forward and say a little prayer and you are a Christian which usually means you have a church full of false converts.


That is not correct at all. It is not for you to say what is in a man's heart, nor it is for you to judge his destination. That's playing God.

Nickfyoung wrote:
the Catholic church baptize you as a baby which means you are a member of the church and a Christian.


Your parents do that. You still have zero say in the matter, but the saying, "I'd rather have a gun and not need one than need a gun and not have one" springs to mind. If you want 'out of the club', don't make your first communion. If you're still too young to call the shots at that age, just don't get confirmed. You're liable to stay on the baptism books for life, but nobody actually keeps a book, and nobody can do anything with it, only grant you things, you know, like sanctuary, a purpose in life, spiritual nourishment, a marriage, salvation etc. The little 'perks' that make life meaningful. If you're angry as hell at the church and want out, you're already out. You don't even need to do anything. The work is put into staying a Christian, not absconding. Any jackass can do that. I fear a lot of us do it unintentionally without even noticing, but I don't fear that as much as you do, because my faith is based upon faith in a loving, forgiving, patient, compassionate God. So while no two Bibles are the same, no two gods are the same either.

Nickfyoung wrote:

We both know why there was a Protestant branch off. Corruption in the Catholic church and non Christian behavior by it's popes.


I thought it was all about scripture only and that all Bibles are the same? Why the knee-jerk reaction to politics all of a sudden? Doesn't your scripture tell you that not a single hair on the scriptures shall be altered or eternal damnation awaits? I believe it does! It believe it was John and it the very last verse! Ooops! You altered the scriptures (please don't tell me that 'put them back to how they should have been', as you've only been around for 500 years). "You shall not eat from the tree of life", protestants. You shall not eat from the tree of life because you followed Luther who changed the Bible.


Nickfyoung wrote:

<< John 3 >>
Douay-Rheims Bible

1 AND there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This man came to Jesus by night, and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him. 3 Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. "


*(...1899 "American Edition")

Tip: Whenever you see the word "American.." in a Bible title, it's roughly around 200 years old, because well, America is only around 200 years old, and thus, its inerrant authenticity, classical meaning, rhetoric and symbolism tends to get lost in the lack of supporting commentary, which although is often external, is readily available in print or online, but that, and twinned with the fact that the officially regarded Bible scholar's and historian's commentaries are themselves older than the Bible you are currently holding (printed by Penguin or Blackhorse), then it tending to suck a little bit isn't usually too much of a coincidence.

As for the content of the actual verse itself, this old news and has been covered extensively (again, since well before your religion even existed, a time when mostly all Christians spoke some latin). Google, "Natus fuerit denuo" if you want a proper translation.

Actually, I'd do it for you:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.arts.tv/JFAIKyS3DGo/vqfiNGGwH8wJ

What you do not have, Nickfyoung, as a protestant, is commentary. Or you do, and it's just not good enough. It's not old enough. It's not well-read enough. New jack theologians etc. Problematic!

Nickfyoung wrote:

Any Bible will do, they are all the same.


I still suspect sockpuppetry. Call me suspicious but you say shit like this and you sound suspect.



Just for the record I would describe myself as a Reformed Pentecostal. Not as in reformed Pentecostal but a Pentecostal with a reformed theology. That is something that is still pretty rare but is a growing trend.

I can't see any difference in Bibles. As far as I can see they are all the same. Sure there are versions that have newer versions of English and some are even paraphrases but they all still are faithfully the same. I have one that has four versions side by side so you can see what each translation has done with each verse.


The first commentary I bought was a John Calvin, (of course). It was a multi volume set which covered all the books of the Bible. That soon became inadequate because while he did an excellent job of expounding on every verse, he never touched any verses with the Holy Spirit. I suppose being one who believed that the gifts of the Spirit had died out with the Apostles he was unable to comment on verses that said otherwise.

Do you require older commentators or those who are not part of the reformation. I actually prefer one now who I am reading online and is a strict reformed viewpoint. He also does a credible systematic theology . Bikerman doesn't like him and calls him all sorts I suspect because he claims to be an expert on debating Atheists.

Incidentally, that link above wouldn't work for me.


I didn't realize I made a knee jerk reaction to politics. I thought you asked me "How about I ask you for any reason (scripture or non scripture) why the protestant branch off just isn't just another johnny come lately poor imitation? "

Reading it again I may have misconstrued what you were asking. The Protestant believe now is that at the time of the Reformation we went back to the Bible and started it all again Biblically. The cry of the Reformation was salvation by grace and by grace alone which did upset the Catholic church.


Now to get back on topic. We still believe that conversion is a definite spiritual experience identifiable with a specific point in time. That is the start of a relationship with Jesus which develops with the period of sanctification which is a life long thing.[/img]
mgeek
Christian was the name the disciples in Antioch of Syria called themselves. That community produced the missionaries Paul and Barnabas.
In John 3, Jesus tells Nicodemus that unless a man be born from above he will not see the kingdom of God. A subsequent passage explains "born from above" as "born from water and Spirit."
darthrevan
easy everyone lol. this isn't a political argument. People have different views about everything including religion. Though there may be a common thing we have in common and may can agree on. A true Christian loves God with their heart and wants to goto heaven. Though to go to heaven you must act/do as God wants you to do.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
Just for the record I would describe myself as a Reformed Pentecostal. Not as in reformed Pentecostal but a Pentecostal with a reformed theology. That is something that is still pretty rare but is a growing trend.


Well like I suggested earlier, Protestants are just Catholics trying to insert Moslem (sic) Fatalism into the equation and (perhaps) dishonestly (according certain Catholic commentators of notable standing) trying to conflate it with predeterminism which the Catholic Church had already accepted from Augustine and had made mainstay for them by Thomism. So an Islamic Catholic is perhaps rarer than you give yourself credit for.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I can't see any difference in Bibles. As far as I can see they are all the same. Sure there are versions that have newer versions of English and some are even paraphrases but they all still are faithfully the same.


Tell that to the Council of Constance. This is what I'm saying about the importance of the age of your religion. It just hasn't been through the mill. I can't definitely say it will even be around for another half-century. I have no reason to think that it will. Who shall defend it should the question arise? Which body will be appealed to? The Church of England? "It" doesn't really exist. Where is its HQ? Who is it's leader? And perhaps more malignantly, yet critically in today's climate, where is it's bank?

Nickfyoung wrote:
The first commentary I bought was a John Calvin, (of course). It was a multi volume set which covered all the books of the Bible. That soon became inadequate because while he did an excellent job of expounding on every verse, he never touched any verses with the Holy Spirit. I suppose being one who believed that the gifts of the Spirit had died out with the Apostles he was unable to comment on verses that said otherwise.


Calvin is a respectable guy, I am not saying he isn't. His name carries authority and he is well regarded as a theologian. His arguments, mainly have been highly instrumental in developing strength and congruency within modern Catholic thought. But that's hardly a testament to his writings or how insightful he was. It's hardly a prophet at work. It's just somebody asking the wrong questions at the right time. It amounts to: We appreciate the report. We've patched those security holes. Download the new service update which fixes those issues. Anything else?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Bikerman doesn't like him and calls him all sorts


Shurely there mosht be shome mishtake, Missh Moneypenny?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Incidentally, that link above wouldn't work for me.


That's actually great and I'm glad because I only skim-read it myself and you read down and the link is horrible. The author turns out to be a lunatic talking about Zeus and Apollo and banging on about transforming into Light and damning everyone to the sea of fire and such. There is also a great deal of hatred in his words. I would remove the link but you've already quoted it so c'est la vie. I only linked to it because his translation of "Natus fuerit" was absolutely spot-on, and his following comments about "born agains" manipulating it to their own ends was to. Maybe he copied and pasted that from elsewhere. In any case, discard the link, because aside from the first paragraph, the rest of the content is pure garbage.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I didn't realize I made a knee jerk reaction to politics. I thought you asked me "How about I ask you for any reason (scripture or non scripture) why the protestant branch off just isn't just another johnny come lately poor imitation? "


Good point. But you did say that you only deal with scripture and what is in the Bible. There's no popes in the Bible, apart from the first Catholic one, and his 10 fishing buddies, who made everyone's entire Bible possible. Just saying.

Nickfyoung wrote:

The cry of the Reformation was salvation by grace and by grace alone which did upset the Catholic church.


Because it makes God out to be either a capricious puppet master, celestial dictator or just a simpleton. It's also self devouring in it's "no free-will" philosophy because grace clearly isn't the default. In other words, it didn't necessarily 'upset' the Catholic Church, it just doesn't work.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Now to get back on topic. We still believe that conversion is a definite spiritual experience identifiable with a specific point in time.


Why does it have be at a specific point in time? Why can't you born of the creator in his own image like everyone else? Like, why are you less than before you make the appeal, as opposed to capable and worthy of making the appeal, and doesn't the worthiness fall into the category of "by grace alone" after you've decided personally to follow Jesus? I'm asking... How can it be fatalistic that an unworthy soul can become worthy of receiving Christ without him always having that propensity to do initially? It doesn't make sense. What ever is predetermined (from a God answerable to time space, subject to chronology and causality - as you weirdly believe) must be the IS rather than the OUGHT because it has already been finalized. Explain it to me. How does God finalize your destination and then request your participation? Why... does he do that? And more importantly, how does he leap inside time and wait to see IF what he already decided actually comes in fruition? ... Umm, "By grace alone"

...Bananas.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Nickfyoung wrote:
Just for the record I would describe myself as a Reformed Pentecostal. Not as in reformed Pentecostal but a Pentecostal with a reformed theology. That is something that is still pretty rare but is a growing trend.


Well like I suggested earlier, Protestants are just Catholics trying to insert Moslem (sic) Fatalism into the equation and (perhaps) dishonestly (according certain Catholic commentators of notable standing) trying to conflate it with predeterminism which the Catholic Church had already accepted from Augustine and had made mainstay for them by Thomism. So an Islamic Catholic is perhaps rarer than you give yourself credit for.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I can't see any difference in Bibles. As far as I can see they are all the same. Sure there are versions that have newer versions of English and some are even paraphrases but they all still are faithfully the same.


Tell that to the Council of Constance. This is what I'm saying about the importance of the age of your religion. It just hasn't been through the mill. I can't definitely say it will even be around for another half-century. I have no reason to think that it will. Who shall defend it should the question arise? Which body will be appealed to? The Church of England? "It" doesn't really exist. Where is its HQ? Who is it's leader? And perhaps more malignantly, yet critically in today's climate, where is it's bank?

Nickfyoung wrote:
The first commentary I bought was a John Calvin, (of course). It was a multi volume set which covered all the books of the Bible. That soon became inadequate because while he did an excellent job of expounding on every verse, he never touched any verses with the Holy Spirit. I suppose being one who believed that the gifts of the Spirit had died out with the Apostles he was unable to comment on verses that said otherwise.


Calvin is a respectable guy, I am not saying he isn't. His name carries authority and he is well regarded as a theologian. His arguments, mainly have been highly instrumental in developing strength and congruency within modern Catholic thought. But that's hardly a testament to his writings or how insightful he was. It's hardly a prophet at work. It's just somebody asking the wrong questions at the right time. It amounts to: We appreciate the report. We've patched those security holes. Download the new service update which fixes those issues. Anything else?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Bikerman doesn't like him and calls him all sorts


Shurely there mosht be shome mishtake, Missh Moneypenny?

Nickfyoung wrote:

Incidentally, that link above wouldn't work for me.


That's actually great and I'm glad because I only skim-read it myself and you read down and the link is horrible. The author turns out to be a lunatic talking about Zeus and Apollo and banging on about transforming into Light and damning everyone to the sea of fire and such. There is also a great deal of hatred in his words. I would remove the link but you've already quoted it so c'est la vie. I only linked to it because his translation of "Natus fuerit" was absolutely spot-on, and his following comments about "born agains" manipulating it to their own ends was to. Maybe he copied and pasted that from elsewhere. In any case, discard the link, because aside from the first paragraph, the rest of the content is pure garbage.

Nickfyoung wrote:

I didn't realize I made a knee jerk reaction to politics. I thought you asked me "How about I ask you for any reason (scripture or non scripture) why the protestant branch off just isn't just another johnny come lately poor imitation? "


Good point. But you did say that you only deal with scripture and what is in the Bible. There's no popes in the Bible, apart from the first Catholic one, and his 10 fishing buddies, who made everyone's entire Bible possible. Just saying.

Nickfyoung wrote:

The cry of the Reformation was salvation by grace and by grace alone which did upset the Catholic church.


Because it makes God out to be either a capricious puppet master, celestial dictator or just a simpleton. It's also self devouring in it's "no free-will" philosophy because grace clearly isn't the default. In other words, it didn't necessarily 'upset' the Catholic Church, it just doesn't work.

Nickfyoung wrote:

Now to get back on topic. We still believe that conversion is a definite spiritual experience identifiable with a specific point in time.


Why does it have be at a specific point in time? Why can't you born of the creator in his own image like everyone else? Like, why are you less than before you make the appeal, as opposed to capable and worthy of making the appeal, and doesn't the worthiness fall into the category of "by grace alone" after you've decided personally to follow Jesus? I'm asking... How can it be fatalistic that an unworthy soul can become worthy of receiving Christ without him always having that propensity to do initially? It doesn't make sense. What ever is predetermined (from a God answerable to time space, subject to chronology and causality - as you weirdly believe) must be the IS rather than the OUGHT because it has already been finalized. Explain it to me. How does God finalize your destination and then request your participation? Why... does he do that? And more importantly, how does he leap inside time and wait to see IF what he already decided actually comes in fruition? ... Umm, "By grace alone"

...Bananas.



"Who is it's leader?"
'



We tend to look at Christ as the head of the church and us as the bride of Christ.

Each denomination has it's structure and head office with governing bodies and rules to follow.


"apart from the first Catholic one"


We don't believe Jesus was referring to Peter when he mentioned the rock on which he was going to build his church. I don't think Peter was even a part of the early church in Rome let alone a leader or pope.


"Because it makes God out to be either a capricious puppet master,"


It is by grace you are saved and not of works less any should boast. It is clearly spelled out in the Bible.


All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The Bible makes it clear that no one is worthy because of the inherited sin of Adam.

Because we are slaves to sin we are unable to make a move towards God. Paul says we are enemies of God and even worse, that there is an enmity between us and God.

God draws us to a point where we can accept Jesus and be saved. That is a specific point, a specific happening, a spiritual experience. One is changed from that point on. We become a new man in Christ which produces fruit in ones life. By their fruits you will know them.

That is the start of the Christian walk. From there most go on to be baptized in water and some go onto be baptized in the Holy Spirit.


"How does God finalize your destination and then request your participation? Why... does he do that? "


What is the destination. The kingdom of God is within you. When you are saved you have reached your destination. It is the here and now.


"Why can't you born of the creator in his own image like everyone else? "


God has no image being Spirit. To created in the image of God is to have his reason and logic because God is reason and logic. We are all created the same and all inherit the sin of Adam. We all deserve to go to hell because of that. We are unable and don't want to come anywhere near God. He draws us by his Spirit to a point where our hard hearts are softened enough to accept Jesus who paid the penalty for our sin on the cross. That is the point of being born again or born from above.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
We tend to look at Christ as the head of the church and us as the bride of Christ.




Nickfyoung wrote:
We don't believe Jesus was referring to Peter when he mentioned the rock on which he was going to build his church.




Nickfyoung wrote:
I don't think Peter was even a part of the early church in Rome let alone a leader or pope.




wrote:
It is by grace you are saved and not of works less any should boast. It is clearly spelled out in the Bible.




Nickfyoung wrote:
Paul says we are enemies of God and even worse, that there is an enmity between us and God.




Nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:

How does God finalize your destination and then request your participation? Why... does he do that?


What is the destination. The kingdom of God is within you.




Nickfyoung wrote:
We are all created the same and all inherit the sin of Adam. We all deserve to go to hell because of that.




Nickfyoung wrote:
there is no choice for salvation or damnation as it is all predetermined by God.


...........!
nickfyoung
"The scripture reference to which the Roman Catholic Church attempts to substantiate its position is found in Matt. 16:18. Here it is in context.

"Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" 14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 He *said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" 16 And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. 19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ," (Matt. 16:13-20).

There are problems with the Roman Catholic position. First of all, when we look at the Greek of Matthew 16:18 we see something that is not obvious in the English. "...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..." In Greek nouns have gender. It is similar to the English words actor and actress. The first is masculine and the second is feminine. Likewise, the Greek word "petros" is masculine; "petra" is feminine. Peter, the man, is appropriately referred to as Petros. But Jesus said that the rock he would build his church on was not the masculine "petros" but the feminine "petra." Let me illustrate by using the words "actor" and "actress:" "You are the actor and with this actress I will make my movie." Do see that the gender influences how a sentence is understood? Jesus was not saying that the church will be built upon Peter, but upon something else. What, then, does petra, the feminine noun, refer to?

The feminine "petra" occurs four times in the Greek New Testament:

Matt. 16:18, "And I also say to you that you are Peter (petros), and upon this rock (petra) I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it."
Matt. 27:60, "and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock (petra); and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

We can clearly see that in the three other uses of the Greek word petra (nominative singular; "petras" in 1 Cor. 10:4 is genitive singular) we find it referred to as a large immovable mass of rock in which a tomb is carved out (Matt. 27:60) and in reference to Christ (1 Cor. 10:4; 1 Pet. 2:Cool. Note that Peter himself in the last verse referred to petra as being Jesus! If Peter uses the word as a reference to Jesus, then shouldn't we?

In addition, Greek dictionaries and lexicons give us further insight into the two Greek words under discussion:

Petros:
Petros, "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα (Source: Liddell, H., 1996. A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
Petros, Πέτρος, Peter, meaning stone. The masc. of the fem. pétra (4073), a massive rock or cliff.” (Spiros Zodhiates, The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, electronic ed., G4074, Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000, c1992, c1993).
Petros, Πέτρος, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
Petra:
Petra, πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)
Petra, πέτρα , (4073) denotes a mass of rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved." Source: Vine, W., & Bruce, F. (1981; Published in electronic form by Logos Research Systems, 1996). Vine's Expository dictionary of Old and New Testament words (2:302). Old Tappan NJ: Revell)
Petra, πέτρα, ας, ἡ (1) literally, living rock, bedrock (MT 7.24), in contrast to πέτρος (isolated stone); (Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg and Neva F. Miller, vol. 4, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, Baker's Greek New Testament library, 311, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 2000).
Petra, πέτρα, noun feminine; ≡ bedrock, (James Swanson, Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains : Greek (New Testament), electronic ed., GGK4376 (Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997).
Petros & Petros
πέτρα petra; a prim. word; a (large mass of) rock:— rock(10), rocks(3), rocky(2). Πέτρος Petros, “a noun akin to 4073, used as a proper name; “a stone” or “a boulder,” Peter, one of the twelve apostles:— Peter(150), Peter’s(5).” (Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition, H8674, Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998, 1981).
"On this rock (ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ). The word is feminine, and means a rock, as distinguished from a stone or a fragment of rock (πέτρος, above)." (Marvin Richardson Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, 1:91, Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2002).
Petros, "πέτρος, a stone, distinguished from πέτρα. Petra, πέτρα , Ion. and Ep. πέτρη, , a rock, a ledge or shelf of rock, Od. 2. a rock, i.e. a rocky peak or ridge...Properly, πέτρα is a fixed rock, πέτρος a stone." (Source: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon : Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.)

A stone is movable, unstable and this is exactly what we see with Peter, who doubted when he walked on water, who denied Jesus, and who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch.

Matt. 14:29-30, "And Peter got out of the boat, and walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But seeing the wind, he became afraid, and beginning to sink, he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!"
Luke 22:57-58, "But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know Him." 58 And a little later, another saw him and said, "You are one of them too!" But Peter said, "Man, I am not!"
Gal. 2:11,14 "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned...14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?"

Jesus, who knew the heart of Peter, was not saying that Peter, the movable and unstable stone, would be the immovable rock upon which the Church would be built. Rather, it would be built upon Jesus and it was this truth that Peter had affirmed what he said to Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," (Matt. 16:16). This is consistent with scripture elsewhere where the term rock is sometimes used in reference of God, but never of a man.

Deut. 32:4, "The Rock! His work is perfect, for all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice."
2 Sam. 22:2-3, "The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; 3 My God, my rock, in whom I take refuge."
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

It should be obvious from the Word of God that the rock Jesus was referring to was not Peter, but himself." http://carm.org/is-peter-the-rock
nickfyoung
"The Bride of Christ or bride, the Lamb's wife is a term used in reference to a group of related verses in the Bible—in the Gospels, Revelation, the Epistles and related verses in the Old Testament. Sometimes the Bride is implied through calling Jesus a Bridegroom. For over fifteen hundred years the Church was identified as the bride betrothed to Christ. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_Christ
nickfyoung
"Even if we accept the tradition that Peter was martyred in Rome, however, there is no direct evidence for his having established the Christian church there. It is likely that Christianity appeared in Rome some time during the 40s, about two decades before Peter would have arrived. That Peter founded the Christian church in Rome is more of a pious legend than historical fact, and the connection between Peter and bishop of Rome was not even made explicit by the Church until the reign of Leo I during the fifth century. " http://atheism.about.com/od/popesandthepapacy/a/peterpope.htm
nickfyoung
"<< Ephesians 2 >>
Douay-Rheims Bible
1 And you, when you were dead in your offences, and sins, 2 Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief: 3 In which also we all conversed in time past, in the desires of our flesh, fulfilling the will of the flesh and of our thoughts, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest: 4 But God, (who is rich in mercy,) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,) 6 And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. 7 That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them. " http://drb.scripturetext.com/ephesians/2.htm
nickfyoung
"<< Romans 8 >>
Douay-Rheims Bible
1 THERE is now therefore no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh. 2 For the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath delivered me from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh; 4 That the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit. 5 For they that are according to the flesh, mind the things that are of the flesh; but they that are according to the spirit, mind the things that are of the spirit. 6 For the wisdom of the flesh is death; but the wisdom of the spirit is life and peace. 7 Because the wisdom of the flesh is an enemy to God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither can it be. 8 And they who are in the flesh, cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10 And if Christ be in you, the body indeed is dead, because of sin; but the spirit liveth, because of justification. 11 And if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead, dwell in you; he that raised up Jesus Christ from the dead, shall quicken also your mortal bodies, because of his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. 13 For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live. 14 For whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. 15 For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba (Father). 16 For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. 17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him. " http://drb.scripturetext.com/romans/8.htm
nickfyoung
"Jesus was once asked when the kingdom of God would come. The kingdom of God, Jesus replied, is not something people will be able to see and point to. Then came these striking words: “Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.” (Luke 17:21)"

WHAT IS THE KINGDOM OF GOD?
It is that spiritual state in which the life of God and of heaven is made accessible to
men, and they enter into its enjoyment here on earth. http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/library/murray_within.pdf
Dialogist
Dear God, this is the biggest straw-grasp in the history of frihost. You even linked to unfounded atheistic propaganda as your sourcing cite material. Is this telling of your predestination? Or are you really just an atheist pretending to be a protestant on a message forum for the sole purpose of slinging (wet) mud at Catholicism? What kind of Christian links to atheist websites for reference? I had you sussed weeks ago. I'm going to school you on this last blatant attempt to debase Christianity via it's most reputable and powerful faith (Catholicism) and then I'm going to ignore you and hope you disappear back under whatever pseudonym you normally go by, or the other five or six alternatives.

Jesus says to Cephas, "I say unto you that you are Peter...". And Peter is like, "Wow, no shit. You really are the son of God!" And Jesus doesn't tell him what his name is because Peter suffers from early senility. Jesus tells Peter what his name is as a lead-up to his wordplay, which isn't wordplay unless he points out that 'Peter by name, Peter by nature' is the whole point, structure and purpose of the sentence.

As for "unstable" rocks, I wonder how many of those I could throw at your face until you changed your mind. As for "feminine" rocks, hahaha, this is beyond ridiculous, and desperate! And if I myself hadn't already ruined this argument (in this very thread, about 7 posts up) then you mightn't have should a ridiculous argument:

Dialogist wrote:

He says that the Church has embraced change and she has done so appropriately and necessarily at all the right times in History. He also presents a highly convincing argument about when she has stood steadfast and refused to change at critical times.


Countries, Vehicles, Churches, etc... are always referred to in a female tense. Peter is the male rock (because wow, he's a man!) and The Church is the female rock, because the correct way to refer to a body used by men is "She". Always has been, always will be.

It is widely known, accepted and beyond all conjecture that the Pope of Antioch overthrew Simon Magnus and took the throne. It is widely known that he (St. Peter) was ministering 7 years before that. What you are doing is arguing with 2000 years of solid historicity and saying, "Eh, I don't believe that". Nobody gives two hoots what you believe!

Especially the current Pope. Who is a qualified historian and theologian who taught it at degree level. Sorry if my link is biased from a Catholic perspective, but I still find it a damn-sight more acceptable that anything http://atheism.about.com/ has to say... on anything other than "what it is like to be atheist", which is the one single-solitary thing that they could educate me on. But perhaps not you, eh "mate"? *wink*

How to source material from credible scholars: http://www.storialibera.it/epoca_antica/cristianesimo_e_storicita/simon_pietro/index_en.php

As for all that other pap, I couldn't care less. The last thing I want to do is listen to yet another atheist tell me about religion and theology in the faith forum.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
The last thing I want to do is listen to yet another atheist tell me about religion and theology in the faith forum.
Well said for me too Dialogist. Think I've become mostly intolerant of the egoistic sense of "superiority" and condescending remarks that go with knocking religion around here, but at least know that not all atheists are alike, as much as not all Christians are alike either. I prefer the ones with open minds on both sides.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Dear God, this is the biggest straw-grasp in the history of frihost. You even linked to unfounded atheistic propaganda as your sourcing cite material. Is this telling of your predestination? Or are you really just an atheist pretending to be a protestant on a message forum for the sole purpose of slinging (wet) mud at Catholicism? What kind of Christian links to atheist websites for reference? I had you sussed weeks ago. I'm going to school you on this last blatant attempt to debase Christianity via it's most reputable and powerful faith (Catholicism) and then I'm going to ignore you and hope you disappear back under whatever pseudonym you normally go by, or the other five or six alternatives.

Jesus says to Cephas, "I say unto you that you are Peter...". And Peter is like, "Wow, no shit. You really are the son of God!" And Jesus doesn't tell him what his name is because Peter suffers from early senility. Jesus tells Peter what his name is as a lead-up to his wordplay, which isn't wordplay unless he points out that 'Peter by name, Peter by nature' is the whole point, structure and purpose of the sentence.

As for "unstable" rocks, I wonder how many of those I could throw at your face until you changed your mind. As for "feminine" rocks, hahaha, this is beyond ridiculous, and desperate! And if I myself hadn't already ruined this argument (in this very thread, about 7 posts up) then you mightn't have should a ridiculous argument:

Dialogist wrote:

He says that the Church has embraced change and she has done so appropriately and necessarily at all the right times in History. He also presents a highly convincing argument about when she has stood steadfast and refused to change at critical times.


Countries, Vehicles, Churches, etc... are always referred to in a female tense. Peter is the male rock (because wow, he's a man!) and The Church is the female rock, because the correct way to refer to a body used by men is "She". Always has been, always will be.

It is widely known, accepted and beyond all conjecture that the Pope of Antioch overthrew Simon Magnus and took the throne. It is widely known that he (St. Peter) was ministering 7 years before that. What you are doing is arguing with 2000 years of solid historicity and saying, "Eh, I don't believe that". Nobody gives two hoots what you believe!

Especially the current Pope. Who is a qualified historian and theologian who taught it at degree level. Sorry if my link is biased from a Catholic perspective, but I still find it a damn-sight more acceptable that anything http://atheism.about.com/ has to say... on anything other than "what it is like to be atheist", which is the one single-solitary thing that they could educate me on. But perhaps not you, eh "mate"? *wink*

How to source material from credible scholars: http://www.storialibera.it/epoca_antica/cristianesimo_e_storicita/simon_pietro/index_en.php

As for all that other pap, I couldn't care less. The last thing I want to do is listen to yet another atheist tell me about religion and theology in the faith forum.



Well done. I was wondering if you would pick up that Atheist link. At least you are reading what I post. Congratulations.


I understand that you love your church and I don't want to denigrate that. There are plenty of pictures out there that I could use too if I was that way inclined.

It is not about ridiculing each others believe system surly. I consider my belief legitimate as do you yours. I used to have a video of a Catholic Priest, Father Dean Brawn. He came to Australia and ministered at an Assemblies of God conference. They are one of the largest Pentecostal organizations world wide. He was a very funny man and I enjoyed him immensely. He ministered in his full Catholic regalia, robes and cassocks etc. and told the story of how he got baptized in the Holy Spirit and it was brilliant. But what came across was his love for his church. He said, "I love my church, If I had my way I would make you all Catholics. Close the door, close the door." So there was a little Catholic Priest captivating a huge Pentecostal audience and doing it so well.

My wife was a Catholic, being from the Philippines the highest percentage Catholic country in the world. It is always refreshing to go there because they are so open with their faith. It is not hidden away and practiced in private but part of everything they do. We were in a checkout queue in a huge supermarket one day and had just reached the checkout when there was a dong over the loud speaker system and the cash register shut down and I thought what now. Then, over the loud speaker there was a short devotional and a prayer and then another dong and all returned to normal. I was impressed.


Years ago, before I was a Christian, I moved town and ended up next door to some Jehovah's Witnesses. They were lovely people and we soon became friends and this guy spent a whole year trying to convert me. He was pretty convincing and I was coming round but I just couldn't see myself knocking on doors like they do.

One day I was with him when he returned a book that some one at a door had given him. I thumbed through it in the car and decided I should read it. It was titled "The Kingdom Of The Cults".
I went back this guys house after and asked could I read it too. Turned out this guy was a Christian and ended up taking me to his church were I consequently got saved and we are still best mates. My neighbor was not impressed after all the work he had put in. So could have been a JW just as easily.

I would still debate you on the Peter rock thing but I don't want to cast dispersions on something that is obviously so important to you and your faith.
loveandormoney
Good morning.
Sorry, this is wrong.
Chapter 3 Book John describes the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus.
Chapter 7 Book John descriebes how Nicodemus failed.
What You talk is a part of the way.
But not more.
Regards
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Good morning.
Sorry, this is wrong.
Chapter 3 Book John describes the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus.
Chapter 7 Book John descriebes how Nicodemus failed.
What You talk is a part of the way.
But not more.
Regards



To see the kingdom of God you must be born again or born from above.
Dialogist
Nickfyoung wrote:
I moved town and ended up next door to some Jehovah's Witnesses. They were lovely people and we soon became friends and this guy spent a whole year trying to convert me.


The thing that I hate most about Jehova's Witnesses, perhaps more than any other faith specifically, is what irritatingly lovely people they always seem to be. It puts me to shame. I think they do it on purpose personally. Look at how nice you're not, little vulgarte meany pants... Is Ned Flanders a Jovo? Actually you yourself are incredibly difficult to get a rise out of. It's an admirable quality so...

Nickfyoung wrote:
There are plenty of pictures out there that I could use too if I was that way inclined.


Sincere apologies. It was a tacky thing to do. It is a funny pic though. Even the devil wouldn't use those trolls. Also the fundamentalist/evangelicals meet the baptists and pentcostals half way on this one. Perhaps mainly in the US. Eyes rolling back in their heads... "Tell me when Lord! Tell me when to destory them all!" Out of all the major faiths I think Christianity probably has some of the weirdest followers.

Nickfyoung wrote:
I would still debate you on the Peter rock thing but I don't want to cast dispersions on something that is obviously so important to you and your faith.


I wasn't upset by it, I just thought you were taking the piss and I thought it obvious (barefaced) with the atheistic link. I read all kinds of atheistic literature. Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw are two of my favourite writers. Many comedians like Bill Hicks and George Carlin always had anti-religious rhetoric too, but they were funny as hell. I just don't want it were it's not applicable. Where it is at its least qualified to speak. The response, then, wasn't outrage. It was just frustration out of sheer disbelief. I can't believe you didn't know that Peter was the only apostle that Christ renamed instantly upon meeting him... to Peter (from Simon) and nobody else got a "calling". He walked up to him without knowing him and said you are now called Rock. I mean, that alone. Then he tells him later, why, in no uncertain terms that I say to unto you that you are Rock, and on this rock I'll... eh. You'd have to have a real problem with Peter via Catholicism (and thus Christ) to find holes in those foundations. The story itself is rock solid. The tiniest details are sediment. It doesn't bother me that you don't subscribe it, though. But do well to respect it as insurmountable is all. Because it is.

But to answer the title of your thread: Definition of a Christian: Deanhills.
nickfyoung
Just went back and had another look at that picture. It is so funny it is obscene.

The JWs tend to be what Christians are not, living practical Christianity. The trouble is they have spoiled it now because people are sick of them knocking on their door and so lump all Christianity in with them together.

My wife did that in the Philippines full time for 12 years on a complete faith ministry. She had a suburb to look after and knocked on doors every day. If she didn't get offered any food she didn't eat. Brought up two teenage daughters at the same time. Admire her for that dedication.
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:
Well said for me too Dialogist. Think I've become mostly intolerant of the egoistic sense of "superiority" and condescending remarks that go with knocking religion around here, but at least know that not all atheists are alike, as much as not all Christians are alike either. I prefer the ones with open minds on both sides.


Hey, I didn't see you there. Wedged in between my rants. I was just talking about you and there you were above. The problem I have debating atheists on certain aspects of Christianity, I feel, is fairly self-explanatory. While I will welcome their balanced thoughts into the politics and practices of The Church, I can still only go so far down the Dogma route with them before I start wondering where they get their moral justification from and whether it is worth anything, and mainly, if I find myself agreeing with it morally (not ethically) then which inherent authority are we both appealing to. If I find myself agreeing with it ethically (not morally) I'm still wondering which governing body originally instilled these values. I guess I can only listen to "what is right" if I have some sort of cliffnote telling me who told them so. Viz. God or Christianity (directly, every single time).

I just can't do theology or faith with somebody who has no capacity to truly grasp either, I'm afraid. And it's not an intellectual, nor a 'privileged' disposition that I have to atheists. I don't think I'm holier than thou. I actually think that they are holier than themselves and that their limit their own potential to know and behold certain metaphysical truths, whether they are axiomatic, Godelian or just as plain as the nose on their face. I encounter this a lot. As a Christian willing to doubt (As part of faith understanding appreciating that it actually values and depends on some aspect of doubt), I am constantly being supplanted by atheists who believe that they know everything there is to know about the inner and outer because they have the false authority of science to appeal to via wikipedia.

I'm a Thomist. I wasn't until later on, but only after I discovered Aquinas' writings and realized that the man had been confirming my inner most suspicions and musings to Catholics since centuries before I was even born. It's somewhat of a revelation in itself to discover such a scribe who has written a sentence you already know the ending to before you've even read it anywhere before. Aquinas holds that there are two ways to know truth. Natural revelation and supernatural revelation. This formed the a priori, a posteri methodology which is basically like how-to of modern philosophy (and science). His Aristotelian first principals basically make it impossible for an atheist to tell me anything about faith or theology. The prior being the knowing of God without natural revelation and the latter, being the knowing of God primarily through supernatural revelation. He says you need to know the nature of something before you can understand it. Descartes similarly doubted every single thing he'd ever known and started over. What ever he could not remove through doubt, he kept as fact. His metaphysical truths where all he found himself left with. He is the father of modern philosophy. So in dealing with knowing, and the ability to know certain things (to trust in a God or to know a God's nature) both eyes are closed to the atheist and there's no way of them getting over these hurdles. I'm not saying that they should even attempt to leap them, I'm just saying that I'd just settle for them not acting disingenuous about these subjects at all. I won't ever tell you about quantum physics, mainly because I don't know the first thing about it. The difference in this comparison is though, that I am capable of knowing some things about it and overall, I haven't disabled myself from knowing anything about it (by proud declaration). Which is self defeatist, redundant and unqualified to speak.
deanhills
Dialogist wrote:
I just can't do theology or faith with somebody who has no capacity to truly grasp either,
Great post, as per usual, thanks! I get the feeling that the above quote is a reciprocal of atheists not being able to discuss religion with those who can't grasp their absence of faith. Sort of one of the one and one of the other. And yes, I do believe that some of the atheists are holier than though about science and I for one cannot understand their insistence in claiming science for themselves. I.e. there has to be something wrong if someone who is religious is a scientist as well. Now that to me shows a lack of an open mind. The other way around as well. For the religious to think that all atheists are against religion. That is obviously a sign of a huge lack of an open mind as well as education.

I'm of course very naive in hoping that the two could have a better understanding of one another so there could be a greater tolerance of their differences.
LxGoodies
@nick that is not a warped idea about christianity, it pretty much sounds like most of you "reborn christians"

My question would be

Would God let you into heaven without you doin at least SOMETHING GOOD to your poorer fellow men ? people that are poorer and less lucky than you are ?

Maybe I',m too naive to actually believe all that resolving sin stuff you talk about.. in my view a person SHOULD be rewarded for good deeds toward fellow men.. but actually.. I DONT KNOW if afterlife exists anyway !! Is that afterlife reward thing really needed to behave good in life ?

And there is something else I dont understand. I'm a European maybe that explains my question. Why all these socalled reborn christians in the US support Romney, libertarianism and capitalism ? it just looks so egoistic to me to only believe in these personal "resolving sin" etc.. how in the world could a rich pig be true christian

(sorry if this may offend)

Lx Confused
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
@nick that is not a warped idea about christianity, it pretty much sounds like most of you "reborn christians"

My question would be

Would God let you into heaven without you doin at least SOMETHING GOOD to your poorer fellow men ? people that are poorer and less lucky than you are ?

Maybe I',m too naive to actually believe all that resolving sin stuff you talk about.. in my view a person SHOULD be rewarded for good deeds toward fellow men.. but actually.. I DONT KNOW if afterlife exists anyway !! Is that afterlife reward thing really needed to behave good in life ?

And there is something else I dont understand. I'm a European maybe that explains my question. Why all these socalled reborn christians in the US support Romney, libertarianism and capitalism ? it just looks so egoistic to me to only believe in these personal "resolving sin" etc.. how in the world could a rich pig be true christian

(sorry if this may offend)

Lx Confused



There are certainly lots of paradoxes and hypocritical happenings within Christianity. This causes much of the resentment towards Christianity which is understandable.

Good deeds towards a fellow man are rewarded here and not necessarily in the afterlife. We give the certificates to show they are heroes etc.

I have a problem with Romney too. I understood that he is a Mormon which is not really Christianity but the Christian church seem to be supporting him. Maybe they hope that if he becomes president he will introduce a bill where men can have multiple wives.

I will give you a little view point of one theologian.

"When it comes to theology, theologians take the wicked man's perspective and ignore everything else. He saves a drowning man! He works in a soup kitchen! He has musical talents! But God requires him to see himself as this drowning man, even a dead man, who needs Christ to rescue him. In saving the drowning man, he shows that he has an idea of rescue, but he does not ask Christ for salvation. By working in a soup kitchen, he shows that he grasps, at least in a natural sense, the ideas of poverty, hunger, and compassion. Why does he not acknowledge his spiritual poverty, so that Christ can make him rich? Why does he not hunger for the righteousness of God and for his kingdom? Why does he not ask for Christ's compassion? If he has musical talents, why does he not praise God with songs and melodies? Thus all these things become testimonies against the man. But God decrees and causes all things, and he is the one who makes him save the drowning man, who makes him work in the soup kitchen, who makes him a musical talent, all the while knowing and intending the final effects in a person who does these things but who does not believe in Christ. "
http://www.vincentcheung.com/2010/10/16/grace-for-his-own/

Maybe a radical viewpoint but just to give you an idea what thinking is out there.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Well said for me too Dialogist. Think I've become mostly intolerant of the egoistic sense of "superiority" and condescending remarks that go with knocking religion around here, but at least know that not all atheists are alike, as much as not all Christians are alike either. I prefer the ones with open minds on both sides.


Hey, I didn't see you there. Wedged in between my rants. I was just talking about you and there you were above. The problem I have debating atheists on certain aspects of Christianity, I feel, is fairly self-explanatory. While I will welcome their balanced thoughts into the politics and practices of The Church, I can still only go so far down the Dogma route with them before I start wondering where they get their moral justification from and whether it is worth anything, and mainly, if I find myself agreeing with it morally (not ethically) then which inherent authority are we both appealing to. If I find myself agreeing with it ethically (not morally) I'm still wondering which governing body originally instilled these values. I guess I can only listen to "what is right" if I have some sort of cliffnote telling me who told them so. Viz. God or Christianity (directly, every single time).

I just can't do theology or faith with somebody who has no capacity to truly grasp either, I'm afraid. And it's not an intellectual, nor a 'privileged' disposition that I have to atheists. I don't think I'm holier than thou. I actually think that they are holier than themselves and that their limit their own potential to know and behold certain metaphysical truths, whether they are axiomatic, Godelian or just as plain as the nose on their face. I encounter this a lot. As a Christian willing to doubt (As part of faith understanding appreciating that it actually values and depends on some aspect of doubt), I am constantly being supplanted by atheists who believe that they know everything there is to know about the inner and outer because they have the false authority of science to appeal to via wikipedia.

I'm a Thomist. I wasn't until later on, but only after I discovered Aquinas' writings and realized that the man had been confirming my inner most suspicions and musings to Catholics since centuries before I was even born. It's somewhat of a revelation in itself to discover such a scribe who has written a sentence you already know the ending to before you've even read it anywhere before. Aquinas holds that there are two ways to know truth. Natural revelation and supernatural revelation. This formed the a priori, a posteri methodology which is basically like how-to of modern philosophy (and science). His Aristotelian first principals basically make it impossible for an atheist to tell me anything about faith or theology. The prior being the knowing of God without natural revelation and the latter, being the knowing of God primarily through supernatural revelation. He says you need to know the nature of something before you can understand it. Descartes similarly doubted every single thing he'd ever known and started over. What ever he could not remove through doubt, he kept as fact. His metaphysical truths where all he found himself left with. He is the father of modern philosophy. So in dealing with knowing, and the ability to know certain things (to trust in a God or to know a God's nature) both eyes are closed to the atheist and there's no way of them getting over these hurdles. I'm not saying that they should even attempt to leap them, I'm just saying that I'd just settle for them not acting disingenuous about these subjects at all. I won't ever tell you about quantum physics, mainly because I don't know the first thing about it. The difference in this comparison is though, that I am capable of knowing some things about it and overall, I haven't disabled myself from knowing anything about it (by proud declaration). Which is self defeatist, redundant and unqualified to speak.



And some Atheists who are ex-theologians are fun too especially if their theology is flawed. I like a guy I read a lot of online who is strict reformed faith. He says quite a bit about Atheists. I will give you just a little bit.


"After so many centuries of philosophy and science, including thousands of guesses, speculations, and random musings, this is as far as they got? As the people of God, we have been sure of the truth for thousands of years — indeed, since the beginning of the world — and there was never any need to change our answer. What unbelievers call "progress" is just a nice word for revising previous answers. Such progress does not denote advance in knowledge, but it indicates that they never had any to begin with. Continual "progress" in this sense means only that they are moving from one error to another. But with God, truth is one, constant, and forever. So what is wrong with them? Do they lack the intellectual courage to commit to a position? Do they lack the competence to attain an answer to anything at all? And is atheism nothing more than non-belief in God? Good, then it also means that atheists are nothing more than cowards and idiots. They have been so since the beginning, and by their admission, nothing has changed after all these years. " http://www.vincentcheung.com/2006/12/06/atheism-as-non-belief/


He doesn't mess around with Atheists and is quite famous for his Atheist/Christianity debates although he doesn't even get as far as faith in his debates, there is one debate online, but knocks them out with his argument of argument and reasoning.
LxGoodies
Thanks for your answer Nick.. Wink I think I am such a person that respects (and tries to comply to) these principles of love and compassion and helping but.. not a real believer. For me it is idealism rather than faith I guess..

Lx
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
Thanks for your answer Nick.. Wink I think I am such a person that respects (and tries to comply to) these principles of love and compassion and helping but.. not a real believer. For me it is idealism rather than faith I guess..

Lx



That faith is only one more small step to take.
loveandormoney
nickfyoung wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Good morning.
Sorry, this is wrong.
Chapter 3 Book John describes the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus.
Chapter 7 Book John descriebes how Nicodemus failed.
What You talk is a part of the way.
But not more.
Regards



To see the kingdom of God you must be born again or born from above.


Good morning.
Thank You again:
What is the difference between
born again
and
born from above?
Who will tell You this?

Regards
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Good morning.
Sorry, this is wrong.
Chapter 3 Book John describes the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus.
Chapter 7 Book John descriebes how Nicodemus failed.
What You talk is a part of the way.
But not more.
Regards



To see the kingdom of God you must be born again or born from above.


Good morning.
Thank You again:
What is the difference between
born again
and
born from above?
Who will tell You this?

Regards



Same thing depending on who is doing the translation.
loveandormoney
Quote:

There are certainly lots of paradoxes and hypocritical happenings within Christianity.


Good morning.
There is no paradox in the bible. Also there is no mistake in the bible.
If You think so, then please show me.
Regards
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:

There are certainly lots of paradoxes and hypocritical happenings within Christianity.


Good morning.
There is no paradox in the bible. Also there is no mistake in the bible.
If You think so, then please show me.
Regards


You are quite correct. there are no paradoxes or mistakes in the Bible. But there are within Christianity. Some interpret the Bible differently and some misinterpret it deliberately.
loveandormoney
Quote:

You are quite correct. there are no paradoxes or mistakes in the Bible. But there are within Christianity. Some interpret the Bible differently and some misinterpret it deliberately.



Good morning. Thank You for answer.
But You are wrong.
Christianity is based on the bible special
the New Testament.
So only Atheists interpret the bible.
Look at LK Chapter

Jesus is reading not interpreting.

So two jokes:
Many atheists say The pope is god or Jesus. This is wrong. The pope is an follower of Pete. This is very different.
2
It is wrong, that people watcht the show Jesus Christ Superstar on Broadway or on TV are Christians.


So
a Christian has no pradox.
Pontius Pilatus has many paradoxes.
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:

You are quite correct. there are no paradoxes or mistakes in the Bible. But there are within Christianity. Some interpret the Bible differently and some misinterpret it deliberately.



Good morning. Thank You for answer.
But You are wrong.
Christianity is based on the bible special
the New Testament.
So only Atheists interpret the bible.
Look at LK Chapter

Jesus is reading not interpreting.

So two jokes:
Many atheists say The pope is god or Jesus. This is wrong. The pope is an follower of Pete. This is very different.
2
It is wrong, that people watcht the show Jesus Christ Superstar on Broadway or on TV are Christians.


So
a Christian has no pradox.
Pontius Pilatus has many paradoxes.



The Bible has been interpreted by two major theological schools both radically different.

The Mormons have Jesus wondering around the US.

The JWs have Jesus as a lesser god but not the God of creation.

There are so many Biblical interpretations it is not funny.
loveandormoney
Quote:

The Bible has been interpreted by two major theological schools both radically different.

The Mormons have Jesus wondering around the US.

The JWs have Jesus as a lesser god but not the God of creation.

There are so many Biblical interpretations it is not funny.


Good morning
Let us talk about schisma.

TWO?
This is absolutely wrong.
Every year 1,000 communities are build new and leave the catholic church.
So please write:
The Bible has been interpreted by two thounsand and more major theological schools both radically different.
This is real.

Quote:

The Mormons have Jesus wondering around the US.

Sorry,
I dont understand this sentence.
Quote:

The JWs have Jesus as a lesser god but not the God of creation.


What is a "lesser" god?
What kind of power does he not have?

Quote:

There are so many Biblical interpretations it is not funny.


Why it isnt funny?


Nobody can stop You to read the bible.


Regards
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:

The Bible has been interpreted by two major theological schools both radically different.

The Mormons have Jesus wondering around the US.

The JWs have Jesus as a lesser god but not the God of creation.

There are so many Biblical interpretations it is not funny.


Good morning
Let us talk about schisma.

TWO?
This is absolutely wrong.
Every year 1,000 communities are build new and leave the catholic church.
So please write:
The Bible has been interpreted by two thounsand and more major theological schools both radically different.
This is real.

Quote:

The Mormons have Jesus wondering around the US.

Sorry,
I dont understand this sentence.
Quote:

The JWs have Jesus as a lesser god but not the God of creation.


What is a "lesser" god?
What kind of power does he not have?

Quote:

There are so many Biblical interpretations it is not funny.


Why it isnt funny?


Nobody can stop You to read the bible.


Regards



The two major schools are Calvinism and Arminianism.

The book of Mormon says that Jesus was in the US not the middle East.


The JWs say that Jesus was only the son of God and not God in a part of the trinity.
SonLight
nickfyoung wrote:



The two major schools are Calvinism and Arminianism.


Among Protestant Christians at least, these two describe some of the most important variations. I view people of either persuasion as good Christian brothers and sisters in the Lord. There are some dangerous excesses in the direction of each of these positions, though, which are dangerous. Some in the Arminian direction do not adequately acknowledge the sovereignty of God, and may even come to believe salvation is the product of something they do. Some in the Calvinist direction do not see the need to share Christ with others, and may even come to believe that their behavior is of no consequence because they are in the Kingdom anyway.

Quote:
The book of Mormon says that Jesus was in the US not the middle East.


The Book of Mormon does say that Jesus was in the American continent -- not necessarily the US. Nothing in it denies that Jesus lived, died and was resurrected in Israel though.

Quote:
The JWs say that Jesus was only the son of God and not God in a part of the trinity.


They place Jesus in a permanently subordinate position, believing that He was a created being. I presume they acknowledge that Jesus existed before the Earth was made, however, and that Jesus was directly responsible for the creation of the Earth.
loveandormoney
Quote:


The two major schools are Calvinism and Arminianism.

The book of Mormon says that Jesus was in the US not the middle East.


The JWs say that Jesus was only the son of God and not God in a part of the trinity.
_________________





Good morning.
So You visited two schools. What kind of school did give You more power:
Calvinism
or
Arminianism?

What is out of Your view the difference?

The bible says
that what You write of place of birth of Jesus (middle east and USA)
is wrong
because if that would be true, then You would make the people in Rio or Manila very angry.

Quote:

Jesus was only the son


Why do You use the word ONLY?


Regards
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:


The two major schools are Calvinism and Arminianism.

The book of Mormon says that Jesus was in the US not the middle East.


The JWs say that Jesus was only the son of God and not God in a part of the trinity.
_________________





Good morning.
So You visited two schools. What kind of school did give You more power:
Calvinism
or
Arminianism?

What is out of Your view the difference?

The bible says
that what You write of place of birth of Jesus (middle east and USA)
is wrong
because if that would be true, then You would make the people in Rio or Manila very angry.

Quote:

Jesus was only the son


Why do You use the word ONLY?


Regards



I tend to be more reformed which is a stricter version of Calvinism. I happen to believe that Calvinism is the more Biblical version of the two.


To say that Jesus was only the son of God and not God is wrong.
loveandormoney
Good morning.
Thank You for Your answer.
What is in daily life: "living stricter".
What is a less strict life?
What is a more Bibical version?

Can there be more Jesus?

Where in the bibel is written
Jesus is God?

If You think so
You will have a problem with



Acts Chapter 7,55

Regards and thank You.


For people
with problems with the Trinity
Chapter 7,55 Acts gives You the answer.
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Good morning.
Thank You for Your answer.
What is in daily life: "living stricter".
What is a less strict life?
What is a more Bibical version?

Can there be more Jesus?

Where in the bibel is written
Jesus is God?

If You think so
You will have a problem with



Acts Chapter 7,55

Regards and thank You.


For people
with problems with the Trinity
Chapter 7,55 Acts gives You the answer.



The right hand of God. I didn't think God had any hands.
Dialogist
deanhills wrote:
I for one cannot understand their insistence in claiming science for themselves. I.e. there has to be something wrong if someone who is religious is a scientist as well. Now that to me shows a lack of an open mind. The other way around as well. For the religious to think that all atheists are against religion. That is obviously a sign of a huge lack of an open mind as well as education.


Defensiveness. Whenever a person feels defensive they seek the detractor/enemy/opposition/nemesis. And what is the most rational conceivable enemy of cold, sober, rationality? Religion. It will always be so. But those who do so, are not scientists. They have very little true time for the blood, sweat, tears, emotional turmoil, pain, patience, faith and endurance of demanding scientific inquiry, or like it said above Max Plank's lab: "Let no one enter here who does not have faith". They just subscribe to it on the intertubes because they think it makes them look smart. This is why aggressive-to-religion scientists are always more celebrated to them than actual scientists. Compare the fame and notoriety of Richard Dawkins with Ibn al-Haytham, for example, and ask the public for a consensus on which one actually did some meaningful science. If they are not capable of doing any, whether practitioner or follower, they just talk trash about what they fallaciously see as 'their thing' being "better than that!". Hence what we see now. Which is completely fake, ill researched and popularity seeking. These people are impostors. But hey, if all you have is a screwdriver, everything gets screwed.

deanhills wrote:
Why all these so-called reborn Christians in the US support Romney, libertarianism and capitalism ? it just looks so egoistic to me to only believe in these personal "resolving sin" etc.. how in the world could a rich pig be true Christian.


Same as above. Defensiveness. They believe that if they tolerate their detractor/enemy/opposition/nemesis then they are either a) as bad or b) worse. They are both. You're correct (for the most part) in that greed is incompatible with Christianity but wealth may not necessarily be. It may and it may not. The indulgences of Augustine, for example, were necessary. The Medici money funding the renaissance, spread of Catholicism through out the western world via the medium of art, literature, philosophy, science and politics (banking, currency, political infrastructure, public relations etc) were vital. So the old school boy question of "What would Jesus say to the indulgences of the Vatican" etc, is basically puerile. He'd ask what it was for, and then make judgements accordingly.

The fundamentalist Christian is in a pickle politically in today's climate. He often hails from an intrinsically racist and sexist God-fearing society. He is trying to reconcile this with his Christianity and he fails fairly often. If he doesn't support Romney, a war-mongering, platitude-spouting Mormon, whose institutionalised misogyny is clear for all to see: Then he has to follow Obama, who is a baby-butchering war-mongering, Osama-assassinating Muslim. What is a good-old-boy to do?

Personally I think Christianity is dead in mainstream America. This does not speak for normal, church abiding citizens. It merely speaks about the image of Christianity portrayed by the RIA, KKK and GOP southern states which is damaging and inflammatory to respectable Christianity universally (much more damaging than anything The New Atheism movement could hope to write), as children in the west are looking and observing and thinking, "wow, I knew about the bad, but this is the best of them?" and they are falling away in their droves. And why not? Their father's houses have literally become a den of thieves. Turning the tables is the Christian thing to do, right? Unfortunately they don't ever even get that far deep into it, because their religious education is largely pathetic too. Stuck on some new adventist, 7 day, fire and brimstone warning manual, teaching sex is evil and that God hates you if you're gay, and even if you're not, he still doesn't like you that much anyway. Repent or else.

I hear from a lot of atheists who want the Bible removed the classrooms. No, leave the Bible. Let me choose which and which Biblical scholars and historians to accompany it. But I will help you carry those Mormon, Evangelical, Fundamentalist and Pentecostal preachers out of there, in my own arms. Deal? It's not the subjects being taught, let's teach all of them, it's the authority in which they are being insisted upon. And that goes for all subjects. Children are smart. When you tell them how to think, they'll find other ways how to stop thinking.

SonLight wrote:

nickfyoung wrote:

The two major schools are Calvinism and Arminianism.

Among Protestant Christians at least,


You're still being too charitable. Calvinism was little more than an embarrassing 16th century anecdote which seemed subversive and trendy at the time (temporarily) because flew in the face of theology itself (the very nature of being capable of knowing God's nature). And it failed, instantly, because, well, yeah, you've guessed it... it flew in the face of theology itself (the very nature of being capable of knowing God's nature). It was an anti-theology. The dadaism of spirituality. And it is not upheld any more by modern protestants than it was then by Lutherites, who themselves, threw it out with the bath water, as futile, over-analytical garbage. The reason I suspected Nickfyoung as being an atheist in disguise posting this stuff (perhaps wrongly) is because his views are wholly compatible with the philosophies of the New Atheism (even in terms of abiogenic determinism) and there really is little difference in terms of making fellow Christians doubt their faith in a loving, compassionate and benevolent God. What he is speaking is a false doctrine, and yes, it should be called a spade if it digs like one.

Calvin is a respected scholar, but only because of the time he emerged and the anxiety he caused (the devil makes them all doubt etc etc is classic biblical prose) but he really brought nothing of note to the table. He just threw a couple of banana skins into the path of theological progression and he was accordingly stepped over and forgotten.

Just because Homo Unius Libri is posting an inordinate amount of material about this tired subject on here, doesn't mean it is (or ever) was relevant. Even to its own: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4672

The barely credible protestants (ones who directly follow Luther) do not subscribe to Calvinism. Just the new-age, "born again" types, who don't subscribe to Christianity either. They are, as I have pointed out, much more theoretically compatible with atheism.
loveandormoney
Quote:

The right hand of God. I didn't think God had any hands.


Where did You find a hand?
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:

The right hand of God. I didn't think God had any hands.


Where did You find a hand?



Isn't Jesus sitting at the right hand of God.?
loveandormoney
No.
I think You have a bad translation.
Jesus is not sitting.


Sorry there are many many many bad translations in the world.

90% of translations Spanish Vulgata English French are wrong

Example:




In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
King James
Wrong translation.
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
No.
I think You have a bad translation.
Jesus is not sitting.


Sorry there are many many many bad translations in the world.

90% of translations Spanish Vulgata English French are wrong

Example:




In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
King James
Wrong translation.


Vulgata: Genesis 1:1

In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram?

Translation:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Septuagint: Genesis 1:1

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

Translation:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

There's only the ancient Hebrew before these two, and while this guy,

http://ancienthebrewgrammar.wordpress.com/2011/11/11/genesis-1-hebrew-grammar-translation/

who seems rather angry in his writing prose (and also, at times entertaining, due to this) only really finds flaws in the grammatical translation of the noun-bound-to-claus structure of the old Hebrew texts. He eventually drops his own translation:

“In the beginning period that God created the heavens and earth (the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the wind of God was hovering over the surface of the waters), God said, ‘Let light be!’”

There's many losses in translation in the Bible but a lot of them occurred later on, especially when America got involved and wanted Jesus "hanging out" by the Sea of Galilee and so on. The further back you go, the more credibility the texts have in their translations. The Vulgate is only three books in and not only was Jerome an excellent multilinguist, he, unlike his modern counterparts could have lost his head for misinterpreting one single accent or ascender.

Edit: I'd also like to add that Tyndale and Wycliff did lose their lives for translating the Bible incorrectly, and while it is incorrect that they should lose their lives, it's not incorrect that they translated the Bible incorrectly.
loveandormoney
Quote:


Vulgata: Genesis 1:1

In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram?

Translation:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.



Good morning.
Thank You for Your answer.
Both translation are wrong, Latin and English.
I prefer to speak about English, because the problems are the same
and so everybody else can control it.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
This is wrong.
In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram?
This is wrong.

The question is,why do interpreter and translater do translate wrong.
If You study, and You would translate like this, the teacher will see and recognize the mistake.
I know, there are no translations, because
Spanish SI and English YES are not the same.

Regards
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
The question is,why do interpreter and translater do translate wrong.


I have just asking to myself this also.
loveandormoney
Without knowing each interpreter:
Misusing the power.
Dialogist
Good morning.

I don't speak French and only Spanish sporadically, so I'm definitely not making fun of your grasp on English. English is one of the most difficult languages to learn to an Englishman, let alone an outsider.

I'm just enjoying the irony of your criticisms of translators, when you should have either used one, or did use a crappy one to type your incoherent message complaining about losses in translations (which I still managed to get the general gist of). The latin vulgate is the best translated version of the Bible we have because Jerome only used the Septuagint when he struggled to find latin equivalents for terms within the Hebrew OT. It is a hybrid translation in that respect. The best of the good for both translation from Hebrew with backup reserve from the Greek from the Hebrew. He's also doing so at a time when the church was still apostolic (circa 4th-century, and the Church was established, 303 - 400 A.D. ). The Vulgate is still used by that church to this day. It's western followers read the Douy Rheims (the vulgate in English). The loss in translations are there, all right, but as I've hoped to outline above, they are few, the very best we could do, and considerably more reliable than anything since.

Good Morning (6:30am, 10:29pm and 4:17pm)? Does the sun never set in France?

Regards.
mgeek
What competence do you have to say that a translation is not possible or is wrong?
loveandormoney
Good morning.Try to translate the Spanisch word "Si" to the English word "Yes."
And You will see, it is not possible.

regards
SonLight
loveandormoney wrote:
Good morning.Try to translate the Spanisch word "Si" to the English word "Yes."
And You will see, it is not possible.

regards


To translate _exactly_ or _perfectly_ from one language to another is impossible. To give the general meaning is not only possible, but is the normal result of Bible translations.

One example of a translation problem I know of is "mister" for "senor". In English mister is a general word, and unless used with a name, may imply disrespect. "Hey Mister!" is about like saying "Hey you!" Senor, on the other hand, implies respect, so much so that the usual name for God is "El Senor", which would be literally "The Mister" in English and totally fail to give the right meaning.

Many Bibles have marginal notes explaining alternative translations. The common term "born again" or "born from above" is a case in point. In any case, either interpretation is accurate enough to use it confidently.
loveandormoney
"The common term "born again" or "born from above" is a case in point"

What did John really say?
Or is this boring?
Dialogist
He said "Born from above" in most credible (English) sources, or from what I can determine from the English translations of those Latin commentators translating Greek from Hebrew from whatever Enochian tongues God speaks in. It's irrelevant in when placed in the context of the Jewish scribe who was no more "born", in a baptismal sense, the first time, than protestants ("Again" implies repetition purely for the sole requirement of antagonizing Catholicism). That said, if you grant "born from above" then you leave the door wide open for these wingnuts to chime in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_World_Messianity

You can't have your cake and eat it.

loveandormoney wrote:
Or is this boring?


Dowsing? What's that got to do with divination? Oh right, it doesn't matter what translation you have, the truth comes back full circle anyway. Predestination being the congenial thing that it is. As attested to by everyone from Catholics to Buddhists to Hindus to Islam. The only ones who seek fatality in fatality are the proddies.
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:

He said "Born from above" in most credible (English) sources, or from what I can determine from the English translations of those Latin commentators translating Greek from Hebrew from whatever Enochian tongues God speaks in. It's irrelevant in when placed in the context of the Jewish scribe who was no more "born", in a baptismal sense, the first time, than protestants ("Again" implies repetition purely for the sole requirement of antagonizing Catholicism)


Good morning. Thank You for Your answer.
I am interested in the meaning.
So the opposite of
born from above is
what?
Born from down?
How is a human living born from down?
Sitting under the table?

Regards



Born from above is born of God.

It is referring to a spiritual rebirth. Because of the fall of Adam we are all born with a disconnected spirit. To get reconnected to God we have to have that spirit reconnected or born again or born from above.
Dialogist
loveandorblatanttroll wrote:

Sitting under the table?


While it's not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs, the term "born from above" doesn't need to specifically assign an opposite. I guess you could say that the opposite of above is below, but you'd becoming from left-field on that one. Maybe even a right winged view from the East. You could go the whole diameter but it'd be Euclis. It just says from above. It doesn't say anywhere else, like a womb or...

what am I doing? Meh.
loveandormoney
nickfyoung wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:

He said "Born from above" in most credible (English) sources, or from what I can determine from the English translations of those Latin commentators translating Greek from Hebrew from whatever Enochian tongues God speaks in. It's irrelevant in when placed in the context of the Jewish scribe who was no more "born", in a baptismal sense, the first time, than protestants ("Again" implies repetition purely for the sole requirement of antagonizing Catholicism)


Good morning. Thank You for Your answer.
I am interested in the meaning.
So the opposite of
born from above is
what?
Born from down?
How is a human living born from down?
Sitting under the table?

Regards



Born from above is born of God.

It is referring to a spiritual rebirth. Because of the fall of Adam we are all born with a disconnected spirit. To get reconnected to God we have to have that spirit reconnected or born again or born from above.


How do people like this live, opposite of the over people? Are there two groups of humans?
Regards

So You said:
Born Sick
healing with .... and then...no sin?
Born sick no healing luiving sick and ....

What kind of god should that be?
nickfyoung
loveandormoney wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:

He said "Born from above" in most credible (English) sources, or from what I can determine from the English translations of those Latin commentators translating Greek from Hebrew from whatever Enochian tongues God speaks in. It's irrelevant in when placed in the context of the Jewish scribe who was no more "born", in a baptismal sense, the first time, than protestants ("Again" implies repetition purely for the sole requirement of antagonizing Catholicism)


Good morning. Thank You for Your answer.
I am interested in the meaning.
So the opposite of
born from above is
what?
Born from down?
How is a human living born from down?
Sitting under the table?

Regards



Born from above is born of God.

It is referring to a spiritual rebirth. Because of the fall of Adam we are all born with a disconnected spirit. To get reconnected to God we have to have that spirit reconnected or born again or born from above.


How do people like this live, opposite of the over people? Are there two groups of humans?
Regards

So You said:
Born Sick
healing with .... and then...no sin?
Born sick no healing luiving sick and ....

What kind of god should that be?



Yes, two groups of humans, the elect and the reprobates. One lot destined for heaven the other hell.

Still sin, one lot forgiven the other lot not forgiven, but still sin.
LxGoodies
Nick wrote:
One lot destined for heaven the other hell.

Pfff so reality is a PHP-script ? Sure.

.. try me.. Razz In the event I would die (I hope not, but just suppose I would) and I reach the doors of heaven and they won't let me in, I would kick some ass up there. I've done nothing wrong. So let's start immediately. First.. punch Peter on his fat nose. If he turns the other cheek i will punch that also and then pull his beard. Hard. When Peter is down, I'll steal his keys, enter into Heaven and kick all those hypocrits out that have been admitted because they payed money for it long ago. After doing that, I'd say to Jesus he should get his lazy ass off that throne and return to earth to make peace in the middle east (asap, please etc)

Lx
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
Nick wrote:
One lot destined for heaven the other hell.

Pfff so reality is a PHP-script ? Sure.

.. try me.. Razz In the event I would die (I hope not, but just suppose I would) and I reach the doors of heaven and they won't let me in, I would kick some ass up there. I've done nothing wrong. So let's start immediately. First.. punch Peter on his fat nose. If he turns the other cheek i will punch that also and then pull his beard. Hard. When Peter is down, I'll steal his keys, enter into Heaven and kick all those hypocrits out that have been admitted because they payed money for it long ago. After doing that, I'd say to Jesus he should get his lazy ass off that throne and return to earth to make peace in the middle east (asap, please etc)

Lx



Sounds like a fun day coming up for you...
LxGoodies
nickfyoung wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
Nick wrote:
One lot destined for heaven the other hell.

Pfff so reality is a PHP-script ? Sure.

.. try me.. Razz In the event I would die (I hope not, but just suppose I would) and I reach the doors of heaven and they won't let me in, I would kick some ass up there. I've done nothing wrong. So let's start immediately. First.. punch Peter on his fat nose. If he turns the other cheek i will punch that also and then pull his beard. Hard. When Peter is down, I'll steal his keys, enter into Heaven and kick all those hypocrits out that have been admitted because they payed money for it long ago. After doing that, I'd say to Jesus he should get his lazy ass off that throne and return to earth to make peace in the middle east (asap, please etc)

Lx



Sounds like a fun day coming up for you...


Yep.. and you know what Nick ? it probably won't happen.. This is just to tell you I can't do it. I can't realize lasting peace in the Middle East on my own. My point is, no virtual entity tells me what to do, I will suggest it to them, it's my prayer, but you don't recognize that. I say to the Saints: just do it please ! show your powers !

But again.. probably, scientifically spoken, it won't happen. Because science tells us we won't go anywhere. My identity will evaporate along with the decay of electricity in my brain. My corpse will feed the plants. This is not the definition of a christian, I know it.. but that does not give anyone the right to tell me I will end up in hell, because I refuse to be "saved". I've got the same love for my fellow human, I've got ideals that could be yours as well.. but I don't believe in anything. I even don't believe the non-existence of God because the very idea of "a God" is too big for me. Senseless to speak about.

I do my best in life to keep and live my ideals, be kind and honest. To keep the 10 commandments. That should do it. And if I would find these Saints up there in white clothing.. I would spank them, tell them they are lazy. That the earth is a mess, that zillions of people hope and believe in them, and they do nothing. I will show them photographs of Auschwitz and ask them where the were.. And if they kick me out because I've not been "saved", I don't wanna be with them anyway. Then, I prefer a warmer place..

Lx
nickfyoung
LxGoodies wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
Nick wrote:
One lot destined for heaven the other hell.

Pfff so reality is a PHP-script ? Sure.

.. try me.. Razz In the event I would die (I hope not, but just suppose I would) and I reach the doors of heaven and they won't let me in, I would kick some ass up there. I've done nothing wrong. So let's start immediately. First.. punch Peter on his fat nose. If he turns the other cheek i will punch that also and then pull his beard. Hard. When Peter is down, I'll steal his keys, enter into Heaven and kick all those hypocrits out that have been admitted because they payed money for it long ago. After doing that, I'd say to Jesus he should get his lazy ass off that throne and return to earth to make peace in the middle east (asap, please etc)

Lx



Sounds like a fun day coming up for you...


Yep.. and you know what Nick ? it probably won't happen.. This is just to tell you I can't do it. I can't realize lasting peace in the Middle East on my own. My point is, no virtual entity tells me what to do, I will suggest it to them, it's my prayer, but you don't recognize that. I say to the Saints: just do it please ! show your powers !

But again.. probably, scientifically spoken, it won't happen. Because science tells us we won't go anywhere. My identity will evaporate along with the decay of electricity in my brain. My corpse will feed the plants. This is not the definition of a christian, I know it.. but that does not give anyone the right to tell me I will end up in hell, because I refuse to be "saved". I've got the same love for my fellow human, I've got ideals that could be yours as well.. but I don't believe in anything. I even don't believe the non-existence of God because the very idea of "a God" is too big for me. Senseless to speak about.

I do my best in life to keep and live my ideals, be kind and honest. To keep the 10 commandments. That should do it. And if I would find these Saints up there in white clothing.. I would spank them, tell them they are lazy. That the earth is a mess, that zillions of people hope and believe in them, and they do nothing. I will show them photographs of Auschwitz and ask them where the were.. And if they kick me out because I've not been "saved", I don't wanna be with them anyway. Then, I prefer a warmer place..

Lx


"but that does not give anyone the right to tell me I will end up in hell, because I refuse to be "saved"."


Sorry cobber, Don't mean to offend. Not necessarily being personal here but just trying to enlighten on Biblical teachings.

Realize that there are many interpretations on Biblical teachings and you are entitled to yours. At least now you are aware of mine too.
Dialogist
LxGoodies wrote:
I can't realize lasting peace in the Middle East on my own.


Just leave it for somebody else to do then, like Gandhi in India, Churchill with the Auschwitz dilemma or Jesus Christ with a depraved society worshiping a hatred ruled law-prioritizing "religion" rather than the goodness and benevolence of God. Just leave it for somebody else to worry about. Maybe the saints might take care of it? Oh no, that's right, they are too damn lazy, unlike yourself. See all these moral judgements coming from the immorality of apathetic buck-passing of "it's someone else's job" don't carry a lot of water, I'm afraid, and what's more, it makes you guilty of the same crime as you accuse them of, rendering you a hypocrite.

Needless to say, if you can name me a "lazy" saint, I'll shit in my hat and eat it again.
LxGoodies
You're a lazy hypocrit saint Dialogist.. now you start eating Laughing Laughing

you, earlier wrote:
English is one of the most difficult languages to learn to an Englishman, let alone an outsider.

Indeed...

Lx
Dialogist
LxGoodies wrote:
You're a lazy hypocrit saint Dialogist.. now you start eating Laughing Laughing

you, earlier wrote:
English is one of the most difficult languages to learn to an Englishman, let alone an outsider.

Indeed...

Lx


I'm a hypocrite, not a hypocrit. Try to keep up.
loveandormoney
nickfyoung wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Quote:

He said "Born from above" in most credible (English) sources, or from what I can determine from the English translations of those Latin commentators translating Greek from Hebrew from whatever Enochian tongues God speaks in. It's irrelevant in when placed in the context of the Jewish scribe who was no more "born", in a baptismal sense, the first time, than protestants ("Again" implies repetition purely for the sole requirement of antagonizing Catholicism)


Good morning. Thank You for Your answer.
I am interested in the meaning.
So the opposite of
born from above is
what?
Born from down?
How is a human living born from down?
Sitting under the table?

Regards



Born from above is born of God.

It is referring to a spiritual rebirth. Because of the fall of Adam we are all born with a disconnected spirit. To get reconnected to God we have to have that spirit reconnected or born again or born from above.


How do people like this live, opposite of the over people? Are there two groups of humans?
Regards

So You said:
Born Sick
healing with .... and then...no sin?
Born sick no healing luiving sick and ....

What kind of god should that be?



Yes, two groups of humans, the elect and the reprobates. One lot destined for heaven the other hell.

Still sin, one lot forgiven the other lot not forgiven, but still sin.



So You can see in the subway
two different kind of humans?
SonLight
loveandormoney wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:



Yes, two groups of humans, the elect and the reprobates. One lot destined for heaven the other hell.

Still sin, one lot forgiven the other lot not forgiven, but still sin.



So You can see in the subway
two different kind of humans?


No one can 'see' the two groups of people as different. The Bible says that man sees the outward, but God sees the inner man. While the distinction can not be seen with the natural eye, it is true that humans who are at peace with God and know it tend to act differently.

There are two ways of grouping people accorting to salvation. One way is to distinguish those who are 'elect', and will ultimately be saved, whether or not they currently have a saving knowledge of Christ and His sacrifice, from 'non-elect', who will never come to saving knowledge. We are assured that God knows the end from the beginning, so God is able to know in advance who is in each group. Another way is to distinguish those who currently have saving knowledge of Christ and His sacrifice from those who don't.

Some Christians emphasize elect vs non-elect, others emphasize currently saved vs unsaved. Some believe there is no free will in the matter, others believe that each person will make a real choice one way or the other.
nickfyoung
SonLight wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:



Yes, two groups of humans, the elect and the reprobates. One lot destined for heaven the other hell.

Still sin, one lot forgiven the other lot not forgiven, but still sin.



So You can see in the subway
two different kind of humans?


No one can 'see' the two groups of people as different. The Bible says that man sees the outward, but God sees the inner man. While the distinction can not be seen with the natural eye, it is true that humans who are at peace with God and know it tend to act differently.

There are two ways of grouping people accorting to salvation. One way is to distinguish those who are 'elect', and will ultimately be saved, whether or not they currently have a saving knowledge of Christ and His sacrifice, from 'non-elect', who will never come to saving knowledge. We are assured that God knows the end from the beginning, so God is able to know in advance who is in each group. Another way is to distinguish those who currently have saving knowledge of Christ and His sacrifice from those who don't.

Quote:
Some Christians emphasize elect vs non-elect, others emphasize currently saved vs unsaved. Some believe there is no free will in the matter, others believe that each person will make a real choice one way or the other.



Yes, there is a great diversity to suit all people. I believe that we had to have the modern Pentecost to suit different people so Arminianism was introduced to allow Pentecostalism to grow from it.
It could not have grown from the reformed faith because they are mostly ceasationists and would not have allowed the freedom of the Spirit necessary.
Dialogist
SonLight wrote:
We are assured that God knows the end from the beginning, so God is able to know in advance who is in each group.


This is an incredibly simplistic view to have of an Omniscient (granted, no arguments), Omnipotent (problematic) and Omnipresent (indefensible) God. I know that you're dumbing it down for somebody of simplistic views there but to shackle God within spacetime and causality, carefully watching things transpire chronologically with regards to this feeble human perception of time that we have, and being "in advance" of anything which this being c̶a̶n̶'̶t̶ shouldn't be answerable to doesn't even satisfy my fallible need for logical consistency. This being created Time.

"τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω" / "I am the Alpha and Omega." Revelation 1:8

SonLight wrote:

Some believe there is no free will in the matter, others believe that each person will make a real choice one way or the other.


It's the exact same thing. You can't believe in no-free-will without... *gasp*....

...Because not only is it an entirely a ridiculous and illogical proposition, you can't even make it without proving... *gasp*

Give me strength!
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
SonLight wrote:
We are assured that God knows the end from the beginning, so God is able to know in advance who is in each group.


This is an incredibly simplistic view to have of an Omniscient (granted, no arguments), Omnipotent (problematic) and Omnipresent (indefensible) God. I know that you're dumbing it down for somebody of simplistic views there but to shackle God within spacetime and causality, carefully watching things transpire chronologically with regards to this feeble human perception of time that we have, and being "in advance" of anything which this being c̶a̶n̶'̶t̶ shouldn't be answerable to doesn't even satisfy my fallible need for logical consistency. This being created Time.

"τὸ Α καὶ τὸ Ω" / "I am the Alpha and Omega." Revelation 1:8

SonLight wrote:

Some believe there is no free will in the matter, others believe that each person will make a real choice one way or the other.


It's the exact same thing. You can't believe in no-free-will without... *gasp*....

...Because not only is it an entirely a ridiculous and illogical proposition, you can't even make it without proving... *gasp*

Give me strength!



There is the strict reformed position which teaches that because God is sovereign he controls everything including the thoughts of man so while he thinks he is making a freewill decision it is God who has put that thought into his head.
Dialogist
Which I don't for one second doubt. I just wholly doubt the logic that assesses it. I doubt ANY human attribution or restriction or logic-bound assembly of "God". I doubt that God is physically doing this over and over, and furthermore, I doubt God to be accountable by this or any other earthly logic. I guess what I'm trying to say that I can't conceive of God waiting going, "Now think this, now this, wait...yeah, now this, oops that was mean, I take that back, this, this, now this and now something bitter mean, yeah, that'll teach him, even though he'll never find out, now this, now a memory, now a fear, now a song lyric, now a hope, now you're peckish, now you're tired, now you're horny..." blah blah blah blah... There's no now or then or for my next trick with a being that exists independent of

a) spacetime
b) logic
c) human tangibility.

For HIM to create any.

If you don't believe this, I'm sorry, but you don't believe such a being exists.

While I realise that I cannot understand God either, as a fellow fallible logic-caged human, I still would presume that if x then y and if Creator then no Two-Step, knuckle dragging God, I'm afraid. The proposition just doesn't work. This is same being of the same ability that began Time. So if it doesn't work with my logic, which has clearly laboured of His nature in a far deeper depth than yours apparently has, then tell me, if this cannot satisfy my crappy logic, how in the hell is going to be adequate in satisfying God's? And obviously, as it goes without saying, how can it ever satisfy yours? With your overly simplistic fortune-teller-in-the-sky rhetoric.

I really worry about the future of Christianity sometimes. Is this all we have? Mystic Meg?
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Which I don't for one second doubt. I just wholly doubt the logic that assesses it. I doubt ANY human attribution or restriction or logic-bound assembly of "God". I doubt that God is physically doing this over and over, and furthermore, I doubt God to be accountable by this or any other earthly logic. I guess what I'm trying to say that I can't conceive of God waiting going, "Now think this, now this, wait...yeah, now this, oops that was mean, I take that back, this, this, now this and now something bitter mean, yeah, that'll teach him, even though he'll never find out, now this, now a memory, now a fear, now a song lyric, now a hope, now you're peckish, now you're tired, now you're horny..." blah blah blah blah... There's no now or then or for my next trick with a being that exists independent of

a) spacetime
b) logic
c) human tangibility.

For HIM to create any.

If you don't believe this, I'm sorry, but you don't believe such a being exists.

While I realise that I cannot understand God either, as a fellow fallible logic-caged human, I still would presume that if x then y and if Creator then no Two-Step, knuckle dragging God, I'm afraid. The proposition just doesn't work. This is same being of the same ability that began Time. So if it doesn't work with my logic, which has clearly laboured of His nature in a far deeper depth than yours apparently has, then tell me, if this cannot satisfy my crappy logic, how in the hell is going to be adequate in satisfying God's? And obviously, as it goes without saying, how can it ever satisfy yours? With your overly simplistic fortune-teller-in-the-sky rhetoric.

I really worry about the future of Christianity sometimes. Is this all we have? Mystic Meg?



What if it has all been done by God before he even created anything. It would be a mammoth task, but then, how big is God.
loveandormoney
Quote:

No one can 'see' the two groups of people as different. The Bible says that man sees the outward, but God sees the inner man. While the distinction can not be seen with the natural eye, it is true that humans who are at peace with God and know it tend to act differently.

There are two ways of grouping people accorting to salvation. One way is to distinguish those who are 'elect', and will ultimately be saved, whether or not they currently have a saving knowledge of Christ and His sacrifice, from 'non-elect', who will never come to saving knowledge. We are assured that God knows the end from the beginning, so God is able to know in advance who is in each group. Another way is to distinguish those who currently have saving knowledge of Christ and His sacrifice from those who don't.

Some Christians emphasize elect vs non-elect, others emphasize currently saved vs unsaved. Some believe there is no free will in the matter, others believe that each person will make a real choice one way or the other.



Good morning.
"No one can 'see' the two groups of people as different."
Interesting.
It sounds like an inside imagination.

"The Bible says that man sees the outward, but God sees the inner man."
God and blind people? Why are people blind?

"While the distinction can not be seen with the natural eye, it is true that humans who are at peace with God and know it tend to act differently.
While the distinction can not be seen with the natural eye, it is true that humans who are at peace with God and know it tend to act differently. "

It sounds very strange.

"There are two ways of grouping people accorting to salvation. One way is to distinguish those who are 'elect', and will ultimately be saved, whether or not they currently have a saving knowledge of Christ and His sacrifice, from 'non-elect', who will never come to saving knowledge. "
This has nothing to do with the bible?
Did You create communities like this?

"Some Christians emphasize elect vs non-elect, others emphasize currently saved vs unsaved."
Is jesus a sudoku game?

It sounds like a thinking cocktail.

Regards
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
Which I don't for one second doubt. I just wholly doubt the logic that assesses it. I doubt ANY human attribution or restriction or logic-bound assembly of "God". I doubt that God is physically doing this over and over, and furthermore, I doubt God to be accountable by this or any other earthly logic. I guess what I'm trying to say that I can't conceive of God waiting going, "Now think this, now this, wait...yeah, now this, oops that was mean, I take that back, this, this, now this and now something bitter mean, yeah, that'll teach him, even though he'll never find out, now this, now a memory, now a fear, now a song lyric, now a hope, now you're peckish, now you're tired, now you're horny..." blah blah blah blah... There's no now or then or for my next trick with a being that exists independent of

a) spacetime
b) logic
c) human tangibility.

For HIM to create any.

If you don't believe this, I'm sorry, but you don't believe such a being exists.

While I realise that I cannot understand God either, as a fellow fallible logic-caged human, I still would presume that if x then y and if Creator then no Two-Step, knuckle dragging God, I'm afraid. The proposition just doesn't work. This is same being of the same ability that began Time. So if it doesn't work with my logic, which has clearly laboured of His nature in a far deeper depth than yours apparently has, then tell me, if this cannot satisfy my crappy logic, how in the hell is going to be adequate in satisfying God's? And obviously, as it goes without saying, how can it ever satisfy yours? With your overly simplistic fortune-teller-in-the-sky rhetoric.

I really worry about the future of Christianity sometimes. Is this all we have? Mystic Meg?



What if it has all been done by God before he even created anything. It would be a mammoth task, but then, how big is God.


Incredibly small, simple and basic with no moving parts, dependencies or complexities. As I say, I doubt my own logic too, just less than I doubt yours. What the Pandeists do is suggest that God is dead. Most find this repugnant, but let's go down this looney tunes lane for a just a small second. Do you think that a 'person' could get so stupid that they could actually die from stupidity? Like if they eventually lost all ability to function as an 'intelligible' human being, they'd be comatose, right? And eventually cease to exist. I'm not sure that a thing can die/expire/cease to be mortal without this breakdown in intellect. Losing all cognitive faculties and eventually hopping this mortal coil. But to where? ...Bear with me. If a god isn't mortal, and is just a mind, not cognitive and is (in human terms of mortality) "Dead" (I stress, in a non-dependent, non-mortal, non-aging, infallible 'existence' or manifestation), then that being is pure Spirit. It's always been my belief that God is (As currently being attested to in the arguments of William Lane Craig and Dr Lennox among others) simple. Incredibly simple. Does that infer stupidity? I wouldn't see why not, you need to lose all intellect to pass on and the "hubris" as famously written about is usually pertaining to BIG (usually, "intellect" itself, but always capability, power and control). So if the opposite to invincible (which isn't really invincible, it's just human invincibility, which will die) must be vulnerability. Fragility until death. I guess what I'm trying to say that the opposite of supreme earthly intellect is God. It is a dead body, complete soul and transcended spirit. And what is more simple than that? You don't get into the Kingdom of Heaven unless you return to a childlike state, as Matthew taught us. So basically in envisaging God as this master-intellect, beyond all human knowledge, all powerful, controlling, dominant, Greek colossus, intimidating awe and spectacle, I would suggest... Perhaps, you are speeding in entirely the wrong direction.

But as I say, I doubt my own reading too. It's just more compatible with all major religions' viewpoint on a God. Its the size that fits all. In enables God to be more simple than his Creation. It enables the dead human brain to transcend mortality. It compliments the soul belief. It encapsulates the Holy Spirit and it does a beautiful job of putting the Problem of Evil directly in its box, for all of eternity because it defines God as the exact and pure pole-opposite of all that is haughty, overpowering, controlling, condescending, vicious and nasty.

God is PERFECTLY stupid and dead I'm afraid. And you'll never reach them heights because you're incapable of not going in the wrong direction - until you die.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
Which I don't for one second doubt. I just wholly doubt the logic that assesses it. I doubt ANY human attribution or restriction or logic-bound assembly of "God". I doubt that God is physically doing this over and over, and furthermore, I doubt God to be accountable by this or any other earthly logic. I guess what I'm trying to say that I can't conceive of God waiting going, "Now think this, now this, wait...yeah, now this, oops that was mean, I take that back, this, this, now this and now something bitter mean, yeah, that'll teach him, even though he'll never find out, now this, now a memory, now a fear, now a song lyric, now a hope, now you're peckish, now you're tired, now you're horny..." blah blah blah blah... There's no now or then or for my next trick with a being that exists independent of

a) spacetime
b) logic
c) human tangibility.

For HIM to create any.

If you don't believe this, I'm sorry, but you don't believe such a being exists.

While I realise that I cannot understand God either, as a fellow fallible logic-caged human, I still would presume that if x then y and if Creator then no Two-Step, knuckle dragging God, I'm afraid. The proposition just doesn't work. This is same being of the same ability that began Time. So if it doesn't work with my logic, which has clearly laboured of His nature in a far deeper depth than yours apparently has, then tell me, if this cannot satisfy my crappy logic, how in the hell is going to be adequate in satisfying God's? And obviously, as it goes without saying, how can it ever satisfy yours? With your overly simplistic fortune-teller-in-the-sky rhetoric.

I really worry about the future of Christianity sometimes. Is this all we have? Mystic Meg?



What if it has all been done by God before he even created anything. It would be a mammoth task, but then, how big is God.


Incredibly small, simple and basic with no moving parts, dependencies or complexities. As I say, I doubt my own logic too, just less than I doubt yours. What the Pandeists do is suggest that God is dead. Most find this repugnant, but let's go down this looney tunes lane for a just a small second. Do you think that a 'person' could get so stupid that they could actually die from stupidity? Like if they eventually lost all ability to function as an 'intelligible' human being, they'd be comatose, right? And eventually cease to exist. I'm not sure that a thing can die/expire/cease to be mortal without this breakdown in intellect. Losing all cognitive faculties and eventually hopping this mortal coil. But to where? ...Bear with me. If a god isn't mortal, and is just a mind, not cognitive and is (in human terms of mortality) "Dead" (I stress, in a non-dependent, non-mortal, non-aging, infallible 'existence' or manifestation), then that being is pure Spirit. It's always been my belief that God is (As currently being attested to in the arguments of William Lane Craig and Dr Lennox among others) simple. Incredibly simple. Does that infer stupidity? I wouldn't see why not, you need to lose all intellect to pass on and the "hubris" as famously written about is usually pertaining to BIG (usually, "intellect" itself, but always capability, power and control). So if the opposite to invincible (which isn't really invincible, it's just human invincibility, which will die) must be vulnerability. Fragility until death. I guess what I'm trying to say that the opposite of supreme earthly intellect is God. It is a dead body, complete soul and transcended spirit. And what is more simple than that? You don't get into the Kingdom of Heaven unless you return to a childlike state, as Matthew taught us. So basically in envisaging God as this master-intellect, beyond all human knowledge, all powerful, controlling, dominant, Greek colossus, intimidating awe and spectacle, I would suggest... Perhaps, you are speeding in entirely the wrong direction.

But as I say, I doubt my own reading too. It's just more compatible with all major religions' viewpoint on a God. Its the size that fits all. In enables God to be more simple than his Creation. It enables the dead human brain to transcend mortality. It compliments the soul belief. It encapsulates the Holy Spirit and it does a beautiful job of putting the Problem of Evil directly in its box, for all of eternity because it defines God as the exact and pure pole-opposite of all that is haughty, overpowering, controlling, condescending, vicious and nasty.

God is PERFECTLY stupid and dead I'm afraid. And you'll never reach them heights because you're incapable of not going in the wrong direction - until you die.



Interesting hypotheses. We are supposed to be made in the image of God's mind which means the greatest of our intellects are a reflection of God's intellect.

That great intellect of ours is the biggest hindrance in understanding God. We don't have to become like little children but we have to have the faith of little children to comprehend God.

Which basically means that the smarter we are, the higher our IQ, the more educated, the more intellectual we are, all the harder to understand God.

So God is not to be understood with intellect but the faith of a small child.
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:


So God is not to be understood with intellect but the faith of a small child.


Bang on!


"And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 18:3

As for this reverence we place on intellect, I think we overestimate it. Part of becoming a child is losing the lust of superiority. I'm not appealing to ignorance, as Matthew himself was a colossal genius, wit and intellect. Perhaps it took one to know one when he wrote that. I recently watched an entertaining documentary by Karl Pilkington called, "Satisfied Fool" in which he asked "Are intelligent people happy?" and after interviewing some of them, all claiming to be so, it became pretty obvious to everyone that they weren't. They were all tragically miserable sods.

Nickfyoung wrote:

We are supposed to be made in the image of God's mind which means the greatest of our intellects are a reflection of God's intellect.


I honestly just think it's a sport to amuse some of us who perhaps won't make it. What was it Socrates said, "I know that I know nothing"? And what about Shakespeare, "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."?

So maybe it's me that's going backwards trying to become dumber and only becoming wiser through my acknowledgment of my goal of incremental stupidity?

Classic Biblical appeal to ignorance:

"Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." - Luke 23:34

Funny how God Himself saw the ignorance of these devils as the only thing that could possibly redeem them? I'm not barking up the wrong tree on this one. Most really smart people are absolute bell-ends.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
nickfyoung wrote:


So God is not to be understood with intellect but the faith of a small child.


Bang on!


"And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 18:3

As for this reverence we place on intellect, I think we overestimate it. Part of becoming a child is losing the lust of superiority. I'm not appealing to ignorance, as Matthew himself was a colossal genius, wit and intellect. Perhaps it took one to know one when he wrote that. I recently watched an entertaining documentary by Karl Pilkington called, "Satisfied Fool" in which he asked "Are intelligent people happy?" and after interviewing some of them, all claiming to be so, it became pretty obvious to everyone that they weren't. They were all tragically miserable sods.

Nickfyoung wrote:

We are supposed to be made in the image of God's mind which means the greatest of our intellects are a reflection of God's intellect.


I honestly just think it's a sport to amuse some of us who perhaps won't make it. What was it Socrates said, "I know that I know nothing"? And what about Shakespeare, "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."?

So maybe it's me that's going backwards trying to become dumber and only becoming wiser through my acknowledgment of my goal of incremental stupidity?

Classic Biblical appeal to ignorance:

"Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." - Luke 23:34

Funny how God Himself saw the ignorance of these devils as the only thing that could possibly redeem them? I'm not barking up the wrong tree on this one. Most really smart people are absolute bell-ends.



Which is why some say religion is just a crutch for many people. Most tend to be at the end of their tether before committing, there is usually nowhere else to go.

Probably why there is a huge level of commitments in third world countries.
Dialogist
Oh, we're done with Harris and we're on to Hitchens now. Great. Only one H left...

Everyone needs a crutch, just as everyone needs a whip. Whatever you call those things just be sure you're using the same source to perform both functions, as not only is it more economic, it has longevity and respectability. What you live for should be worth dying for, etc.

Appeal to ignorance shouldn't necessarily be conflated with an appeal to poverty though, as, from judging what Socrates, Shakespeare and Matthew inferred above, ignorance can be b?l?i?s?s? a certain kind of envisaged wealth. If you desperately wanted it to be an appeal to poverty, in terms of pure simplicity, I'd really have no qualms with that. As all "The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least." did was change the attribute for the same desired sentiment. Ironic how that latter quote is attributed to Anonymous too. I guess he/she practiced what they preached.

Are the third world so poor-off? Wasn't Janis Joplin right when she said, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose"? How free are you? Are you God-free? You sound "God-free".

In presuming that theism is popular in deprived or desperate states due to psyche, we'd do well to check our scales and see that we're not simply drawing this conclusion based upon the stark comparative differences of the vulnerability of those places - with the over-entitled greed and haughtiness of certain god-lite civilizations which made them impoverished and destitute in the first place, and then ask ourselves, which one has the God thing sussed out.
darthrevan
I know some Christians don't believe in the trinity, saying that they aren't as one. Though in truth they are the same. Jesus is God incarnated as a human, which I thought was weird at first, so I re-read it and I did read it correctly. I always thought they were separate but they aren't. Their as one God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost is the same, atleast in part of each other.
nickfyoung
darthrevan wrote:
I know some Christians don't believe in the trinity, saying that they aren't as one. Though in truth they are the same. Jesus is God incarnated as a human, which I thought was weird at first, so I re-read it and I did read it correctly. I always thought they were separate but they aren't. Their as one God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost is the same, atleast in part of each other.



I like the analogy of the hot blue berry pie. You cut it into 3 slices and you have three slices but try to lift one off the plate and you find that although you have cut them up they are still one as the blue berries flow between them.
nickfyoung
Dialogist wrote:
Oh, we're done with Harris and we're on to Hitchens now. Great. Only one H left...

Everyone needs a crutch, just as everyone needs a whip. Whatever you call those things just be sure you're using the same source to perform both functions, as not only is it more economic, it has longevity and respectability. What you live for should be worth dying for, etc.

Appeal to ignorance shouldn't necessarily be conflated with an appeal to poverty though, as, from judging what Socrates, Shakespeare and Matthew inferred above, ignorance can be b?l?i?s?s? a certain kind of envisaged wealth. If you desperately wanted it to be an appeal to poverty, in terms of pure simplicity, I'd really have no qualms with that. As all "The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least." did was change the attribute for the same desired sentiment. Ironic how that latter quote is attributed to Anonymous too. I guess he/she practiced what they preached.

Are the third world so poor-off? Wasn't Janis Joplin right when she said, "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to loose"? How free are you? Are you God-free? You sound "God-free".

In presuming that theism is popular in deprived or desperate states due to psyche, we'd do well to check our scales and see that we're not simply drawing this conclusion based upon the stark comparative differences of the vulnerability of those places - with the over-entitled greed and haughtiness of certain god-lite civilizations which made them impoverished and destitute in the first place, and then ask ourselves, which one has the God thing sussed out.



Quote:
Are the third world so poor-off



Only familiar with the Philippines as my wife is from there.The average man in the street has a much lower standard of living than we are accustomed to in the west and yet they are incredibly happy and accepting of it.
I guess they are just used to how it is and don't desire any more.
At the same time their religion is foremost in their lives and they are very open about it. No qualms at all and accept being religious as normal. I guess too that is probably that they are mostly all the same so everyone else is doing it to.
loveandormoney
Quote:

Incredibly small, simple and basic with no moving parts, dependencies or complexities. As I say, I doubt my own logic too, just less than I doubt yours. What the Pandeists do is suggest that God is dead. Most find this repugnant, but let's go down this looney tunes lane for a just a small second. Do you think that a 'person' could get so stupid that they could actually die from stupidity? Like if they eventually lost all ability to function as an 'intelligible' human being, they'd be comatose, right? And eventually cease to exist. I'm not sure that a thing can die/expire/cease to be mortal without this breakdown in intellect. Losing all cognitive faculties and eventually hopping this mortal coil. But to where? ...Bear with me. If a god isn't mortal, and is just a mind, not cognitive and is (in human terms of mortality) "Dead" (I stress, in a non-dependent, non-mortal, non-aging, infallible 'existence' or manifestation), then that being is pure Spirit. It's always been my belief that God is (As currently being attested to in the arguments of William Lane Craig and Dr Lennox among others) simple. Incredibly simple. Does that infer stupidity? I wouldn't see why not, you need to lose all intellect to pass on and the "hubris" as famously written about is usually pertaining to BIG (usually, "intellect" itself, but always capability, power and control). So if the opposite to invincible (which isn't really invincible, it's just human invincibility, which will die) must be vulnerability. Fragility until death. I guess what I'm trying to say that the opposite of supreme earthly intellect is God. It is a dead body, complete soul and transcended spirit. And what is more simple than that? You don't get into the Kingdom of Heaven unless you return to a childlike state, as Matthew taught us. So basically in envisaging God as this master-intellect, beyond all human knowledge, all powerful, controlling, dominant, Greek colossus, intimidating awe and spectacle, I would suggest... Perhaps, you are speeding in entirely the wrong direction.

But as I say, I doubt my own reading too. It's just more compatible with all major religions' viewpoint on a God. Its the size that fits all. In enables God to be more simple than his Creation. It enables the dead human brain to transcend mortality. It compliments the soul belief. It encapsulates the Holy Spirit and it does a beautiful job of putting the Problem of Evil directly in its box, for all of eternity because it defines God as the exact and pure pole-opposite of all that is haughty, overpowering, controlling, condescending, vicious and nasty.

God is PERFECTLY stupid and dead I'm afraid. And you'll never reach them heights because you're incapable of not going in the wrong direction - until you die.



Good morning.

Did You visit the funeral:"What the Pandeists do is suggest that God is dead."
Did god have bad health?
Did he have an accident?

"then that being is pure Spirit."
Do You invite pure spirits for Your parties?


"And what is more simple than that? You don't get into the Kingdom of Heaven unless you return to a childlike state, as Matthew taught us"
WOW, Matthew should teach, be stupid, let Your wife and Your children entertain You and give You money and then god is happy?
Who did tell You this?

"God is PERFECTLY stupid and dead I'm afraid. "
I think
You wanted to write:

My teachers are PERFECTLY stupid and dead I'm afraid.


Regards
Dialogist
nickfyoung wrote:
darthrevan wrote:
I know some Christians don't believe in the trinity, saying that they aren't as one. Though in truth they are the same. Jesus is God incarnated as a human, which I thought was weird at first, so I re-read it and I did read it correctly. I always thought they were separate but they aren't. Their as one God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost is the same, atleast in part of each other.



I like the analogy of the hot blue berry pie. You cut it into 3 slices and you have three slices but try to lift one off the plate and you find that although you have cut them up they are still one as the blue berries flow between them.



Code:

<God>
<Father>I'm The Father</Father>
<Son>I'm The Son</Son>
<HolySpirit>I'm The Holy Spirit</HolySpirt>
</God>
loveandormoney
Quote:


<God>
<Father>I'm The Father</Father>
<Son>I'm The Son</Son>
<HolySpirit>I'm The Holy Spirit</HolySpirt>
</God>






Code:

<God>
<Father>I'm The Father</Father>
<Son>I'm The Son</Son>
<HolySpirit>I'm The Holy Spirit</HolySpirt>
</God>




Jesus Christ Superstar II ?[/code]
Dialogist
How do you know the Jesus Christ Superstar was an actual event? Why do you believe these stories? I met Andrew Lloyd Webber once when I worked in Burger King. He came in and said, "Right, give me 2 Whoopers." I said, "Okay, your musicals are fantastic and you're incredibly good looking". HAHA. "Whooper" get it? = Lie. I told a joke to make you feel better about believing that I had worked at Burger King. Are you cured, loveandormoney?
mgeek
This thread is becoming interesting. Keep it up guys.
loveandormoney
Dialogist wrote:
How do you know the Jesus Christ Superstar was an actual event? Why do you believe these stories? I met Andrew Lloyd Webber once when I worked in Burger King. He came in and said, "Right, give me 2 Whoopers." I said, "Okay, your musicals are fantastic and you're incredibly good looking". HAHA. "Whooper" get it? = Lie. I told a joke to make you feel better about believing that I had worked at Burger King. Are you cured, loveandormoney?


Good morning.
Because there is merchandising. Do You also eat Chinese soup?
Regards
LxGoodies
loveandormoney wrote:
Do You also eat Chinese soup?
Regards

probably not
Dialogist wrote:
I met Andrew Lloyd Webber once when I worked in Burger King.

Explains a lot..

Lx
loveandormoney
LxGoodies wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Do You also eat Chinese soup?
Regards

probably not
Dialogist wrote:
I met Andrew Lloyd Webber once when I worked in Burger King.

Explains a lot..

Lx


Good morning.
I understood, You met Webber and You sold him a hamburger.
Regards
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
LxGoodies wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Do You also eat Chinese soup?
Regards

probably not
Dialogist wrote:
I met Andrew Lloyd Webber once when I worked in Burger King.

Explains a lot..

Lx


Good morning.
I understood, You met Webber and You sold him a hamburger.
Regards


lol, I take it back about you being unfunny. You have your moments. It's more in a "Borat", broken English, kind of way though. I would really like to hear an audio version of some of these posts. "Thank you for the many words post. Niiiiiiiice."
loveandormoney
Is Jesus serious or honest?
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
Is Jesus serious or honest?


Seriously, they honestly aren't mutually exclusive.
loveandormoney
Dialogist wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Is Jesus serious or honest?


Seriously, they honestly aren't mutually exclusive.


Was this answer serious?
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
Dialogist wrote:
loveandormoney wrote:
Is Jesus serious or honest?


Seriously, they honestly aren't mutually exclusive.


Was this answer serious?


The paradox of honesty requires admitting that you are dishonest and the paradox of seriousness is that seriousness is death. So you tell me. Am I being dishonest about honesty or deadly serious about seriousness?
loveandormoney
Oh,
I am very sorry.
I learnt in school, dishonest ist death.

Regards
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
I learnt in school, dishonest ist death.


Hitlerjugend?
loveandormoney
Using marijuana during lessons.
Did Your group also do this?
Dialogist
loveandormoney wrote:
Using marijuana during lessons.
Did Your group also do this?


They sit you in chemistry with a bunsen burner and a plastic bic biro.
loveandormoney
Today I am cooking Thai food.
Enjoy it
I do it too.
Related topics
Another really funny christian Joke/s
Love is Love
Classic Music, Do you like it?
was Hitler a Christian?
Any pagans in here?
Bush’s Openly Religious Language
islam is...
science vs. religion
Elton and partner 'tie the knot'
Pro's and Con's of Being a Christian
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
In Search of Non-Corrupt Politicians
how many of the four cardinal virtues do you practice?
Proof god exists
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Faith

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.