Christian Discussion Thread III

[Taoju]

Yeah! Why do a lot of Christians say the Old Testament is unimportant? I'm not trying to sound paranoid, but is it to justify their own antisemitism?

From what I'm being taught, the OT is disregarded because the NT is a more refined version.

OT is to be read and understood, not followed?

[Menassa]

From what I'm being taught, the OT is disregarded because the NT is a more refined version.

OT is to be read and understood, not followed?

Galatians.

[Aeken]

From what I'm being taught, the OT is disregarded because the NT is a more refined version.

That's dumb. Without the old testament, there is no new testament!

Not necessarily to not follow what it says, but the NT is used more.

From what I'm being taught, the OT is disregarded because the NT is a more refined version.

OT is to be read and understood, not followed?

Don't ask me.

[Taoju]

OT is to be read and understood, not followed?

Galatians.

... And.

[Bundesdeutschland]

I attend church weekly.

Me too.

Of, course!

From what I'm being taught, the OT is disregarded because the NT is a more refined version.

That's dumb. Without the old testament, there is no new testament!

My church studies both the OT and NT.

[Menassa]

Galatians.

... And.

That's the answer to your question.

[Menassa]

That's dumb. Without the old testament, there is no new testament!

My church studies both the OT and NT.

Through the Lens of the NT of course?

[Benuty]

From what I'm being taught, the OT is disregarded because the NT is a more refined version.

OT is to be read and understood, not followed?

That in itself is clearly absurd given that without the prophecies from the Tanach (OT for you lot) then the later scriptural sources would lack support.

[Leningrad Union]

Me too.

Of, course!

That's dumb. Without the old testament, there is no new testament!

My church studies both the OT and NT.

That's great!

[Athartha]

Might've been asked before but how many people here attend church regularly? (more than twice a month)

EDIT:
Despite being Christian, I haven't been in 9 months.

I attend church daily.

[Taoju]

... And.

That's the answer to your question.

Oh.

Ohhhhh.

kbai im useless

OT is to be read and understood, not followed?

That in itself is clearly absurd given that without the prophecies from the Tanach (OT for you lot) then the later scriptural sources would lack support.

Menassa just told me, thanks.

[Benuty]

OT is to be read and understood, not followed?

Galatians.

You kind of have to be a 2nd temple sect (specifically the Sadducees and certain unfavorable factions in the Pharisees) for that to have actual meaning of offense. It does serve a useful purpose today (mainly as a reminder to be careful).

[Menassa]

Galatians.

You kind of have to be a 2nd temple sect (specifically the Sadducees and certain unfavorable factions in the Pharisees) for that to have actual meaning of offense. It does serve a useful purpose today (mainly as a reminder to be careful).

Unless you take a specific evangelical interpretation of the work.

[Southern Arkansas]

Main reason I never could have seen myself committing to the RCC back in the day. Everything seemed to be getting more liberal, and the only people near by who seemed to be willing to say "No" to things was the SSPX parish. Schismatics.

The RCC didn't seem at all similar to what I was expecting. It was actually less ritualistic than the Anglican church I went to for a bit.

Woah now, I share your worries about SSPX, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them "schismatics"! It is true that they weren't in good standing with the Holy See for most of their history and most of their services still have no canonical status, but their lay members are all still technically full members in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and the society's founders recently had their excommunications lifted by HH Pope Benedict XVI so to call them "schismatics" is a definitely step too far, especially as of 2009 when the Holy Father chose to forgive some of their aggressive actions.

I only use the term "schismatic" for protestants in a historical context along with actual sedevacantists which the SSPX most certainly are not even though they are traditionalists. I myself am a traditionalist who prefers to attend the Latin Mass and I am strongly opposed to the Vatican II reforms so I can certainly understand the appeal of the society. I have personally avoided the SSPX and similar groups simply because I didn't want to join an organisation that formally opposes the Holy Father and I wish to attend services with traditional clergy who are still recognised by Rome. Instead of following SSPX methods of protest and refusal to accept papal authority on many issues, I prefer to voice my disapproval as an individual Catholic wherever possible.

With all of that said, I can definitely understand your concerns about the current state of the Catholic Church. Its sudden swing towards liberalism and an abandonment of the traditions for which it once bravely fought, both in terms of morality and Christian teachings, has caused in me a very real crisis of faith from which I don't know if I'll be able to emerge with my support for the Holy See intact. Perhaps there is something to the Prophecy of the Popes and the unprecedented political liberalism of the recently in augurated Holy Father is indicative of him being the Petrus Romanus and final Pope of which the prophecy speaks. I was never one to believe in such things before but, right now, as I find myself moving closer and closer to the edge that will leave me no choice but to jump over to the East or fall into petty sedevacantism, I cannot deny that something is very wrong with the Church today. Whatever you do and wherever you end up, I hope that you feel at peace with your choice. God bless you and good luck in these difficult times.

I liked the SSPX folks. Their Priest and Parishioners were extremely nice people. Schismatic is just the term I was given by the RCIA folks to describe them. Forgive me if it's wrong.

[Benuty]

You kind of have to be a 2nd temple sect (specifically the Sadducees and certain unfavorable factions in the Pharisees) for that to have actual meaning of offense. It does serve a useful purpose today (mainly as a reminder to be careful).

Unless you take a specific evangelical interpretation of the work.

I suppose if one were to believe in the futility of Jewish faith (because they view it as a "works" based faith). Of-course we know this to be inherently false.

[Menassa]

Unless you take a specific evangelical interpretation of the work.

I suppose if one were to believe in the futility of Jewish faith (because they view it as a "works" based faith). Of-course we know this to be inherently false.

Or as a defective one without The Sacrifice, and a potentiality for atonement due to Total Depravity.

[Vazdania]

Not the Orthodox. To completely disregard the OT is sad and wrong. I

Yeah! Why do a lot of Christians say the Old Testament is unimportant? I'm not trying to sound paranoid, but is it to justify their own antisemitism?

...Well when I was Christian, it was HIGHLY important.

[Vazdania]

Might've been asked before but how many people here attend church regularly? (more than twice a month)

EDIT:
Despite being Christian, I haven't been in 9 months.

I attend church daily.

I'm only able to attend 3 days of the week.

[Leningrad Union]

I attend church daily.

I'm only able to attend 3 days of the week.

why the hell do you go to church

[Nuverikstan]

I'm only able to attend 3 days of the week.

why the hell do you go to church

Is he Christian or Jewish?

[Menassa]

why the hell do you go to church

Is he Christian or Jewish?

Neither.

[Benuty]

I'm only able to attend 3 days of the week.

why the hell do you go to church

If I recall correctly not all of his family shares his view on religion.

[Libertechie]

I sorta believe in the OT, but what annoys me is when people only read through the lens of it, and don't factor in the changes that came to the world when Jesus was crucified. It seems as if a lot of evangelicals do this.

BTW CONGRATULATIONS CHRISTIAN DISCUSSION THREAD, THIS FEELS LIKE THE NICEST, MOST RESPECTFUL FORUM I'VE EVER BEEN ON.

[Nuverikstan]

Main reason I never could have seen myself committing to the RCC back in the day. Everything seemed to be getting more liberal, and the only people near by who seemed to be willing to say "No" to things was the SSPX parish. Schismatics.

The RCC didn't seem at all similar to what I was expecting. It was actually less ritualistic than the Anglican church I went to for a bit.

Woah now, I share your worries about SSPX, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them "schismatics"! It is true that they weren't in good standing with the Holy See for most of their history and most of their services still have no canonical status, but their lay members are all still technically full members in communion with the Roman Catholic Church and the society's founders recently had their excommunications lifted by HH Pope Benedict XVI so to call them "schismatics" is a definitely step too far, especially as of 2009 when the Holy Father chose to forgive some of their aggressive actions.

I only use the term "schismatic" for protestants in a historical context along with actual sedevacantists which the SSPX most certainly are not even though they are traditionalists. I myself am a traditionalist who prefers to attend the Latin Mass and I am strongly opposed to the Vatican II reforms so I can certainly understand the appeal of the society. I have personally avoided the SSPX and similar groups simply because I didn't want to join an organisation that formally opposes the Holy Father and I wish to attend services with traditional clergy who are still recognised by Rome. Instead of following SSPX methods of protest and refusal to accept papal authority on many issues, I prefer to voice my disapproval as an individual Catholic wherever possible.

With all of that said, I can definitely understand your concerns about the current state of the Catholic Church. Its sudden swing towards liberalism and an abandonment of the traditions for which it once bravely fought, both in terms of morality and Christian teachings, has caused in me a very real crisis of faith from which I don't know if I'll be able to emerge with my support for the Holy See intact. Perhaps there is something to the Prophecy of the Popes and the unprecedented political liberalism of the recently in augurated Holy Father is indicative of him being the Petrus Romanus and final Pope of which the prophecy speaks. I was never one to believe in such things before but, right now, as I find myself moving closer and closer to the edge that will leave me no choice but to jump over to the East or fall into petty sedevacantism, I cannot deny that something is very wrong with the Church today. Whatever you do and wherever you end up, I hope that you feel at peace with your choice. God bless you and good luck in these difficult times.

I being a Baptist actually believe in the prophecy of the Popes because it has been correct so far and this might be the last Pope if Malachi was right.

[Irredento]

I too hope to see the reunification of the Church under the successor of Peter someday.

I'm constantly following all new developments in the Eastern and Anglican churches in particular as I feel that those are the most likely denominations to someday come back into union with Rome, given how similar we all are in terms of doctrine and dogmas.

That said, despite its obvious ecumenical aims, I fear that the more liberal direction the Catholic Church has been taking since Vatican II onward is actually having a negative effect on the chances of Christians ever reuniting due to the fact that most of the changes made focus not on our Orthodox and Anglican brothers but instead attempt to appease those denominations that will almost certainly never accept Roman Catholicism or the authority of the Holy Father ever again. We should bring back the Latin Mass in the West and Greek Mass in the East rather than holding them in local languages in some misguided attempt to win over Protestants by being more like them.

I was raised as a Presbyterian and never felt the presence of God in their churches which is why I spent years as an atheist before finally becoming a Roman Catholic in my early adulthood. Those of us who convert from Protestantism to Catholicism are not seeking something familiar but something new, deeply spiritual, beautiful, and holy. That is what I found in the Latin Mass and therefore became a Traditionalist Catholic but I am deeply worried by where the modern church is headed and can honestly see myself making the jump to Russian or Greek Orthodoxy sometime in future if Rome continues to wander down the path to its own destruction.

I've actually thought that the Catholic Church was returning to (obviously from an Orthodox perspective) Orthodoxy.

What makes you think that? They've abandoned the traditional Latin Mass in the West and Greek Mass in the East (Divine Liturgy as you call it) along with many of the old Catholic dogmas that we shared with our Orthodox and Anglican brothers while attempting to be more like Protestants in an attempt to win them over. In these attempts at appeasement, we are losing what it means to be Catholic, what it once meant to be a member of the Church that was founded by Christ down through Peter and his successors.

The new Pope's endorsement of the welfare state and his tolerance of homosexuality and so on are just the beginning of a whole new sort of decline that will end in complete irrelevancy for the Church.