Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Belhorizon]

Highly speculative interpretation.

"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved"

"Repent and and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"

"Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord"

Shall I go on?

I think you are taking this way too literally.
As a Middle Eastern Catholic, now observing the growing threat of ISIS in our national north, we hear stories that make you think.

Does it not say that God loves all of his Children?
Does it not say we are to love the other like God loves us all?

Do you think God would take away the Kingdom of heaven from people who led good, faithful lives, as lets say Muslims, but since they didnt get baptized, they stay out?

A recent example that comes to mind, that is, yes, extreme; but,
During the first ISIS attack at a military base in the North, in August, a muslim soldier sent a picture of himself on whatsapp, saying goodbye to his family, before he climbed on the abandoned tank to cover his Christian comrades' retreat.

When later interrogated by the press, one of his brother in arms said that the martyr stated to him, months before ISIS reached Lebanon, that he would die to save the nation's Christians from persecution.

The church teaches us that a death dedicated to saving another person's life is an act worthy of heaven. Shall this soldier be deprived of it, because his circumstance at birth prevented his baptism?

Is that equal love to all of God's children?

[The Flood]

Yes.

Was there ablution of the water by physical contact through either infusion (i.e., pouring it on your head) or immersion (i.e., dunking you into the water)?

It was applied to my forehead with a finger, in sufficient quantities for it to run

[The Union of the West]

"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved"

"Repent and and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"

"Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord"

Shall I go on?

I think you are taking this way too literally.
As a Middle Eastern Catholic, now observing the growing threat of ISIS in our national north, we hear stories that make you think.

Does it not say that God loves all of his Children?
Does it not say we are to love the other like God loves us all?

Do you think God would take away the Kingdom of heaven from people who led good, faithful lives, as lets say Muslims, but since they didnt get baptized, they stay out?

A recent example that comes to mind, that is, yes, extreme; but,
During the first ISIS attack at a military base in the North, in August, a muslim soldier sent a picture of himself on whatsapp, saying goodbye to his family, before he climbed on the abandoned tank to cover his Christian comrades' retreat.

When later interrogated by the press, one of his brother in arms said that the martyr stated to him, months before ISIS reached Lebanon, that he would die to save the nation's Christians from persecution.

The church teaches us that a death dedicated to saving another person's life is an act worthy of heaven. Shall this soldier be deprived of it, because his circumstance at birth prevented his baptism?

Is that equal love to all of God's children?

I am not Catholic, so I can't say for sure what the Church teaches. However, if I remember correctly, there is a concept called baptism of blood. Baptism of Blood is martyrdom in the case of a person who died for the Christian faith before he or she could receive the sacrament. This would in effect, act as that person's baptism. So through this, the soldier would enter the kingdom of Heaven. There is also Baptism of Desire, which is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church explaining that those who desire baptism, but are not baptized with water through the Christian ritual because of death, nevertheless receive the fruits of Baptism if their grace of conversion included an internal act of perfect love and contrition by which their soul was cleansed of all sin.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_desire

[Coscoba]

I think you are taking this way too literally.
As a Middle Eastern Catholic, now observing the growing threat of ISIS in our national north, we hear stories that make you think.

Does it not say that God loves all of his Children?
Does it not say we are to love the other like God loves us all?

Do you think God would take away the Kingdom of heaven from people who led good, faithful lives, as lets say Muslims, but since they didnt get baptized, they stay out?

A recent example that comes to mind, that is, yes, extreme; but,
During the first ISIS attack at a military base in the North, in August, a muslim soldier sent a picture of himself on whatsapp, saying goodbye to his family, before he climbed on the abandoned tank to cover his Christian comrades' retreat.

When later interrogated by the press, one of his brother in arms said that the martyr stated to him, months before ISIS reached Lebanon, that he would die to save the nation's Christians from persecution.

The church teaches us that a death dedicated to saving another person's life is an act worthy of heaven. Shall this soldier be deprived of it, because his circumstance at birth prevented his baptism?

Is that equal love to all of God's children?

Amen to that.

[Distruzio]

No. Not "bad". It'd simply be better if you were. Then again, if you're not religious then I wouldn't worry about it.

Or just a Christian belonging to a demonination that doesn't think of baptism as a necessary passport to Heaven.

Baptism is kind of required by Christian dogma.

[Distruzio]

"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved"

"Repent and and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"

"Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord"

Shall I go on?

I think you are taking this way too literally.
As a Middle Eastern Catholic, now observing the growing threat of ISIS in our national north, we hear stories that make you think.

Does it not say that God loves all of his Children?
Does it not say we are to love the other like God loves us all?

Do you think God would take away the Kingdom of heaven from people who led good, faithful lives, as lets say Muslims, but since they didnt get baptized, they stay out?

A recent example that comes to mind, that is, yes, extreme; but,
During the first ISIS attack at a military base in the North, in August, a muslim soldier sent a picture of himself on whatsapp, saying goodbye to his family, before he climbed on the abandoned tank to cover his Christian comrades' retreat.

When later interrogated by the press, one of his brother in arms said that the martyr stated to him, months before ISIS reached Lebanon, that he would die to save the nation's Christians from persecution.

The church teaches us that a death dedicated to saving another person's life is an act worthy of heaven. Shall this soldier be deprived of it, because his circumstance at birth prevented his baptism?

Is that equal love to all of God's children?

Instances like that are left to the Will of God. Baptism, however, is necessary for Christian salvation. Non-Christian faiths need not apply.

[Sun Wukong]

And this has what to do with Jesus being a Diva? If anything you're just confirming what I said.

But no. A perfect god does not create life just to kneel to him. You're thinking of Ming the Merciless.

Your opinion of perfect is utterly worthless

Shall I add Ming to the trinity then?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Your opinion of perfect is utterly worthless

Shall I add Ming to the trinity then?

Do what ever you want, it has nothing to do with the theology Christianity.

[Mineness]

Christianity was only a relevant truth in the epoch of the modernist paradigm of logic, explicability, and causality. The advancements of the scientific paradigm in the Kuhnian sense, from general relativity, to quantum mechanics, to chemistry, have required us to recognize that a fundamental acausality is embedded within reality. We must therefore cast away the modernist paradigm, and with it, the ontological assumptions and core of Christian thought.

[Distruzio]

Christianity was only a relevant truth in the epoch of the modernist paradigm of logic, explicability, and causality. The advancements of the scientific paradigm in the Kuhnian sense, from general relativity, to quantum mechanics, to chemistry, have required us to recognize that a fundamental acausality is embedded within reality. We must therefore cast away the modernist paradigm, and with it, the ontological assumptions and core of Christian thought.

Must we though? Has Christianity proven herself unable (unwilling, at times, I'll admit) to adapt and incorporate these new disciplines that shed such light on creation?

[Mineness]

Christianity was only a relevant truth in the epoch of the modernist paradigm of logic, explicability, and causality. The advancements of the scientific paradigm in the Kuhnian sense, from general relativity, to quantum mechanics, to chemistry, have required us to recognize that a fundamental acausality is embedded within reality. We must therefore cast away the modernist paradigm, and with it, the ontological assumptions and core of Christian thought.

Must we though? Has Christianity proven herself unable (unwilling, at times, I'll admit) to adapt and incorporate these new disciplines that shed such light on creation?

One would be casting away the core of Christianity's ontological assumptions in order to reconcile it with the new scientific paradigm. The Christian worldview, at its core, is a worldview of explicability, truth, causality, and logic. Should we find ourselves in a world which manifests itself as the antithesis of such ontological assumptions, as we have, then the core of what one means discursively by "Christianity" has been falsified. I am open to the possibility that within the discourse, we may present a "new" Christianity that is a synthesis of the scientific paradigm and the core of Christianity, but such an idea would not be *Christianity*, but a new idea synthesized out of Hegelian dialectic (out of the opposition between the thesis and antithesis).

[Distruzio]

Must we though? Has Christianity proven herself unable (unwilling, at times, I'll admit) to adapt and incorporate these new disciplines that shed such light on creation?

One would be casting away the core of Christianity's ontological assumptions in order to reconcile it with the new scientific paradigm.

Please forgive any assumptions I might be making about your premise here but, I'm Eastern Orthodox. We, alongside the Catholics, vaaaastly outnumber the Protestants. Ours is a hermeneutic that runs contrary to the evangelical attempt at scientific repudiation. Ours is an ontological perspective that maintains greater founding and fewer opportunities for collapse than the average Protestant johnny-come-lately. We simply don't dismiss these disciplines you acknowledge....

My assumption is, of course, that by "Christianity" you mean the minority of Christians - the Protestants. If you don't, please elaborate.

The Christian worldview, at its core, is a worldview of explicability, truth, causality, and logic. Should we find ourselves in a world which

manifests itself as the antithesis of such ontological assumptions, as we have, then the core of what one means discursively by "Christianity" has been falsified.

In what way has the modern world shown itself thus?

I am open to the possibility that within the discourse, we may present a "new" Christianity that is a synthesis of the scientific paradigm and the core of Christianity, but such an idea would not be *Christianity*, but a new idea synthesized out of Hegelian dialectic (out of the opposition between the thesis and antithesis).

I rather think the "old" is quite capable of handling herself.

But I may be jumping ahead of you here.

[Mineness]

By "Christianity', I mean the regional ontology formed by every sect and denomination of Christianity--that is, the ontological assumptions common to all sects and denominations of Christianity, and indeed, the Abrahamic paradigm in its totality.

[Distruzio]

By "Christianity', I mean the regional ontology formed by every sect and denomination of Christianity--that is, the ontological assumptions common to all sects and denominations of Christianity, and indeed, the Abrahamic paradigm in its totality.

Ah. Neither the Catholic (Anglican and Roman) nor the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) restrict themselves along regional perspectives about the nature of being. That is a wholly Protestant approach. Ours is a perspective laid down more than 2000 years ago and has remained unchanged and, more than that, evidenced by the nurturing of the scientific revolution and renaissance itself proven itself quite resilient to innovative and creative disciplines that challenged traditional interpretations.

I may be defaulting to a more stubborn position however as I can't yet discern how historical Christianity can fail to adapt to the inevitable evolution of human society that you see.

[Bari]

Was there ablution of the water by physical contact through either infusion (i.e., pouring it on your head) or immersion (i.e., dunking you into the water)?

I was baptized in the ocean, it was pretty cool actually.

It's not wrong to be baptized in sea water or salt water. It's simply preferred.

Highly speculative interpretation.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

How so?

It isn't.

"Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

"He who believes and is baptized shall be saved"

"Repent and and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins"

"Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord"

Shall I go on?

I think you are taking this way too literally.
As a Middle Eastern Catholic, now observing the growing threat of ISIS in our national north, we hear stories that make you think.

Does it not say that God loves all of his Children?
Does it not say we are to love the other like God loves us all?

Do you think God would take away the Kingdom of heaven from people who led good, faithful lives, as lets say Muslims, but since they didnt get baptized, they stay out?

A recent example that comes to mind, that is, yes, extreme; but,
During the first ISIS attack at a military base in the North, in August, a muslim soldier sent a picture of himself on whatsapp, saying goodbye to his family, before he climbed on the abandoned tank to cover his Christian comrades' retreat.

When later interrogated by the press, one of his brother in arms said that the martyr stated to him, months before ISIS reached Lebanon, that he would die to save the nation's Christians from persecution.

The church teaches us that a death dedicated to saving another person's life is an act worthy of heaven. Shall this soldier be deprived of it, because his circumstance at birth prevented his baptism?

Is that equal love to all of God's children?

Where does the Church teach that? (The emboldened part, that is.) I'm not saying you're wrong; I simply would like to see the document.

Anyways, the Church has always teached faith is necessary for salvation. Without faith, it is taught, one cannot reach Heaven. The Lord said that the only way to the Father is through Him.

Was there ablution of the water by physical contact through either infusion (i.e., pouring it on your head) or immersion (i.e., dunking you into the water)?

It was applied to my forehead with a finger, in sufficient quantities for it to run

Was it done three times, one for each Person of the Holy Trinity?

I think you are taking this way too literally.
As a Middle Eastern Catholic, now observing the growing threat of ISIS in our national north, we hear stories that make you think.

Does it not say that God loves all of his Children?
Does it not say we are to love the other like God loves us all?

Do you think God would take away the Kingdom of heaven from people who led good, faithful lives, as lets say Muslims, but since they didnt get baptized, they stay out?

A recent example that comes to mind, that is, yes, extreme; but,
During the first ISIS attack at a military base in the North, in August, a muslim soldier sent a picture of himself on whatsapp, saying goodbye to his family, before he climbed on the abandoned tank to cover his Christian comrades' retreat.

When later interrogated by the press, one of his brother in arms said that the martyr stated to him, months before ISIS reached Lebanon, that he would die to save the nation's Christians from persecution.

The church teaches us that a death dedicated to saving another person's life is an act worthy of heaven. Shall this soldier be deprived of it, because his circumstance at birth prevented his baptism?

Is that equal love to all of God's children?

I am not Catholic, so I can't say for sure what the Church teaches. However, if I remember correctly, there is a concept called baptism of blood. Baptism of Blood is martyrdom in the case of a person who died for the Christian faith before he or she could receive the sacrament. This would in effect, act as that person's baptism. So through this, the soldier would enter the kingdom of Heaven. There is also Baptism of Desire, which is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church explaining that those who desire baptism, but are not baptized with water through the Christian ritual because of death, nevertheless receive the fruits of Baptism if their grace of conversion included an internal act of perfect love and contrition by which their soul was cleansed of all sin.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_of_desire

Yes, the Church teaches baptism by blood, but that is not simply dying for a Christian. It means you die for Christ with the belief in Christ. A Muslim is lacking that belief, and it is arguable whether he died for Christ or not.

Baptism by desire is for people who desire to be members of the Church, who desire to be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. This Muslim, from what has been told, did not have that desire.

I think you are taking this way too literally.
As a Middle Eastern Catholic, now observing the growing threat of ISIS in our national north, we hear stories that make you think.

Does it not say that God loves all of his Children?
Does it not say we are to love the other like God loves us all?

Do you think God would take away the Kingdom of heaven from people who led good, faithful lives, as lets say Muslims, but since they didnt get baptized, they stay out?

A recent example that comes to mind, that is, yes, extreme; but,
During the first ISIS attack at a military base in the North, in August, a muslim soldier sent a picture of himself on whatsapp, saying goodbye to his family, before he climbed on the abandoned tank to cover his Christian comrades' retreat.

When later interrogated by the press, one of his brother in arms said that the martyr stated to him, months before ISIS reached Lebanon, that he would die to save the nation's Christians from persecution.

The church teaches us that a death dedicated to saving another person's life is an act worthy of heaven. Shall this soldier be deprived of it, because his circumstance at birth prevented his baptism?

Is that equal love to all of God's children?

Instances like that are left to the Will of God. Baptism, however, is necessary for Christian salvation. Non-Christian faiths need not apply.

I agree that, ultimately, it is up to God. However, I do not agree with your religious indifferentism. It applies to everyone, otherwise, our faith is meaningless. Jesus said explicitly that the only way to Heaven is through Him. Whether Jesus was right or not is something else, but, according to the Christian faith, there is no salvation outside of the Church. Non-Christians are not members of the Church by definition. Therefore, there is, under ordinary circumstances, no salvation for non-Christians.

[Lalaki]

What made you guys choose your faith?

[Distruzio]

What made you guys choose your faith?

The Orthodox worship God for all the reasons I hated Him. Where I emphasized my own ego at His expense they submitted theirs for His benefit. That's rather beautiful to me.

[Angleter]

I think you are taking this way too literally.
As a Middle Eastern Catholic, now observing the growing threat of ISIS in our national north, we hear stories that make you think.

Does it not say that God loves all of his Children?
Does it not say we are to love the other like God loves us all?

Do you think God would take away the Kingdom of heaven from people who led good, faithful lives, as lets say Muslims, but since they didnt get baptized, they stay out?

A recent example that comes to mind, that is, yes, extreme; but,
During the first ISIS attack at a military base in the North, in August, a muslim soldier sent a picture of himself on whatsapp, saying goodbye to his family, before he climbed on the abandoned tank to cover his Christian comrades' retreat.

When later interrogated by the press, one of his brother in arms said that the martyr stated to him, months before ISIS reached Lebanon, that he would die to save the nation's Christians from persecution.

The church teaches us that a death dedicated to saving another person's life is an act worthy of heaven. Shall this soldier be deprived of it, because his circumstance at birth prevented his baptism?

Is that equal love to all of God's children?

Where does the Church teach that? (The emboldened part, that is.) I'm not saying you're wrong; I simply would like to see the document.

Anyways, the Church has always reached faith is necessary for salvation. Without faith, it is taught, one cannot reach Heaven. The Lord said that the only way to the Father is through Him.

I think he's referring to baptism of blood. Ish.

[Benuty]

What made you guys choose your faith?

The Orthodox worship God for all the reasons I hated Him. Where I emphasized my own ego at His expense they submitted theirs for His benefit. That's rather beautiful to me.

I am not sure a being of such cosmic vastness has to worry about expanse.

[Distruzio]

The Orthodox worship God for all the reasons I hated Him. Where I emphasized my own ego at His expense they submitted theirs for His benefit. That's rather beautiful to me.

I am not sure a being of such cosmic vastness has to worry about expanse.

True. But mah ego, brother. It was hella opinionated. The Orthodox showed me a way to calm down.

[The Union of the West]

What made you guys choose your faith?

I chose Christianity because I felt it was right.

Still looking for a denomination though. I attended a Lutheran Church today, it reminded me a lot of the Catholic Mass I attended with my grandmother when I was younger.

[Bari]

Where does the Church teach that? (The emboldened part, that is.) I'm not saying you're wrong; I simply would like to see the document.

Anyways, the Church has always reached faith is necessary for salvation. Without faith, it is taught, one cannot reach Heaven. The Lord said that the only way to the Father is through Him.

I think he's referring to baptism of blood. Ish.

Well, I addressed that also in another part of my post.

What made you guys choose your faith?

I chose Christianity because I felt it was right.

Still looking for a denomination though. I attended a Lutheran Church today, it reminded me a lot of the Catholic Mass I attended with my grandmother when I was younger.

You should join Catholicism. Do not join Protestantism. Jesus made His Church on Pope St. Peter, the first Pope. That's St. Peter, the same Apostle in the Holy Bible. It simply doesn't get any clearer than that.

[The Union of the West]

I think he's referring to baptism of blood. Ish.

Well, I addressed that also in another part of my post.

I chose Christianity because I felt it was right.

Still looking for a denomination though. I attended a Lutheran Church today, it reminded me a lot of the Catholic Mass I attended with my grandmother when I was younger.

You should join Catholicism. Do not join Protestantism. Jesus made His Church on Pope St. Peter, the first Pope. That's St. Peter, the same Apostle in the Holy Bible. It simply doesn't get any clearer than that.

But Papal Infallibility. I'm willing to recognize that the Pope has real authority, but not infallibility.

[Bari]

Well, I addressed that also in another part of my post.


You should join Catholicism. Do not join Protestantism. Jesus made His Church on Pope St. Peter, the first Pope. That's St. Peter, the same Apostle in the Holy Bible. It simply doesn't get any clearer than that.

But Papal Infallibility. I'm willing to recognize that the Pope has real authority, but not infallibility.

Many people misunderstand papal infallibility. "Infallible" simply means incapable of committing a wrong. The Pope is only credited with papal infallibility under very rare circumstances; he is not always infallible. He must meet several conditions before he can invoke it. It is always about doctrine and dogma of faith. It doesn't mean he can't sin. He is a sinner, just as we all are. In fact, he goes to confession just as anyone else would. It doesn't mean he doesn't make normal mistakes.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Vicar is a fancy word for representative. So when he meets those rare circumstances I mentioned earlier, he is fulfilling his role as Vicar. Jesus is incapable of wrong, and this incapability extends to the Pope as Jesus' delegate. But it doesn't extend absolutely or entirely. Only partially under very specific circumstances.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

By "Christianity', I mean the regional ontology formed by every sect and denomination of Christianity--that is, the ontological assumptions common to all sects and denominations of Christianity, and indeed, the Abrahamic paradigm in its totality.

Really we have seen no such disprovement of the ontological assumptions as you claim. What we've seem is a radical abandonment of high philosophy in favor of low philosophy in the form of radical adherence to empiricism. Yet, there is no proof such perspective is any less valid than the regional ontological assumptions.