Christian disscussion thread

[Coherent Imbeciles]

I joined an Apostolic church to escape the hypocrisy of life in a western democratic society and to find a more meaningful purpose in life. As much as the reaching out to others went I agree in the concept of saving souls but to do that in a Christian sense meant condemnation for those who weren't willing to be saved that day. Fly s in the face of free will doesn't it? Anyway I left. I cant say too much about Islam as I know next to nothing about Islam except to say that my children know that Christianity and Islam have one thing in common. War.

Jesus didn't go to war as far as I know? Can anyone else tell me if Jesus went to war?

*reads entire Bible* Nope, nothing about Jesus marching his armies on Rome.

Would have been much more interesting, though.

[SanctusEmpire]

*reads entire Bible* Nope, nothing about Jesus marching his armies on Rome.

I'm fairly sure he waged war against Rome and it's culture, though.

Also, that of legalistic Jews.

Not with killing in mind though I prefer Jesus's version of Christianty

[Forster Keys]

Calvinism? WTF?

Wha?

Discuss? It freaks me out.

[Forster Keys]

Calvinism? WTF?

Tulip.

P is predestination? T is total depravity? I dunno.

[SanctusEmpire]

Tulip.

P is predestination? T is total depravity? I dunno.

I like your quote

"The more you consume, the less you live. Commodities are the opium of the people."

[Forster Keys]

P is predestination? T is total depravity? I dunno.

I like your quote

"The more you consume, the less you live. Commodities are the opium of the people."

Thanks, it's from the protests of Paris 1968. Sums up a lot of my philosophy.

[SanctusEmpire]

I like your quote

"The more you consume, the less you live. Commodities are the opium of the people."

Thanks, it's from the protests of Paris 1968. Sums up a lot of my philosophy.[/q

I remember a Christian friend of mine telling me about how he took his 10 year old daughter fishing one time. She caught a fish and he proceeded to get it ready to cook. She wouldn't have a bar of it he said she called him cruel and cried and put on a performance before he had a chance to put knife to fish so he threw it back, still alive of course. She then went on to tell him that if he wanted to eat fish do what what everyone else does and buy it from the shop.

[Forster Keys]

I remember a Christian friend of mine telling me about how he took his 10 year old daughter fishing one time. She caught a fish and he proceeded to get it ready to cook. She wouldn't have a bar of it he said she called him cruel and cried and put on a performance before he had a chance to put knife to fish so he threw it back, still alive of course. She then went on to tell him that if he wanted to eat fish do what what everyone else does and buy it from the shop.

That is quite an amusing story.

But tell me, where precisely is the barb?

[Distruzio]

Alright why not, please Distruzio, clarify these things with set us apart in greater detail.

What is confusing about it?

The atheist construes the Christian position to be a position presuming authority over the atheist (and often, in the case of protestantism, that is the tendency) and rejects that position, rightfully so. The "persecution" that is being pointed at is not actual "persecution" but the attempt, by atheists, to structure arguments rejecting christianity in a manner in which the atheist position is authoritative for christians - which is no different in structure than what the atheist fears from bible thumpers. Those christians lamenting persecution are actually complaining and giving voice to the very same complaints atheists have and both sides, when making these complaints, are fomenting fear from hyperbole.

We christians are set apart b/c that is what our faith calls us to do. Be in the world but not of it. So that is the advice I offered in my response you question me about. To participate in discussions with atheists while refusing to be constrained by the boundaries that they attempt to construct around us. I would offer the same advice to the atheist in his discussions with us.

[Distruzio]

I don't know if you've realized that I responded to you, Nansurium.

Of course I believe that Jesus is God, part of the trinity.

Good. Do you believe that Christ ascended into heaven body, mind and spirit? Also, do you believe that He is the head of the Church?

You never provided specific verses from the Bible that authorize the activities of your church, no.

How about the entire book of acts?

I assume you are referring to First Timothy 3:15, yes? This verse states that the Church is the pillar and foundation of our faith. Its ashame he never used the word Catholic or Orthodox isn't it? If we view that verse in context, we find that Timothy goes into great detail about the nature and structure of God's church.

My questions above relating to your beliefs about Jesus will bring us to this particular verse in due time. When you answer next, all will be clear.

So a few things to note from this passage: First of all, we see the explicit use of the term "deacon" in this text. Yet I am not aware of the use of deacons within the Orthodox or Catholic churches.

Then you do not know much of anything about the Church from which the Bible sprang. The Deacon is the third and lowest degree of the major orders of clergy in the Orthodox Church, following the bishop and the presbyter.

Furthermore, this text clearly permits marriage and children for deacons. Yet in the catholic and orthodox church, members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy are not permitted to take wives (the Bible also explicitly permits this for Elders as well) or have children.

Once more, you are absolutely incorrect. Members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy are, indeed, permitted and encouraged to marry and reproduce.

In case you missed it.

[The Realm of God]

Wha?

Discuss? It freaks me out.

Calvinism really doesnt make all that sense. If some people are elected and others not. Why do the Calvinist churches still preach. Unless the election is your reaction too the preaching?

Worth thinking about.

[Forntag]

Zen Buddhist here, and with a question nonetheless.
My Christian friend and I were debating the other day, and I pointed out some of the socially backwards laws in the Old Testament, and she said "The Covenant changed when Jesus came, so we don't have to follow those laws anymore." And went on about different kinds of laws in the Bible. My other Christian friends, however, believe we should follow all of the Bible to the letter.
Can you elaborate on all this? What does she mean we don't have to follow those laws anymore? I thought you couldn't just pick and choose what to follow. I'm just curious.

[The Realm of God]

Zen Buddhist here, and with a question nonetheless.
My Christian friend and I were debating the other day, and I pointed out some of the socially backwards laws in the Old Testament, and she said "The Covenant changed when Jesus came, so we don't have to follow those laws anymore." And went on about different kinds of laws in the Bible. My other Christian friends, however, believe we should follow all of the Bible to the letter.
Can you elaborate on all this? What does she mean we don't have to follow those laws anymore? I thought you couldn't just pick and choose what to follow. I'm just curious.

Depends what theology you follow. New convenent states that we should only follow the laws uttered by Jesus in the New Testement. This is my school of theology. Followed by most Orthodox, Catholics and Mainline Protestants.

Then you have some Fundementalist schools which state that the Old Jewish Law still applies but Jesus took the punishment we would be given on the cross.

Did that help?

[Forntag]

Zen Buddhist here, and with a question nonetheless.
My Christian friend and I were debating the other day, and I pointed out some of the socially backwards laws in the Old Testament, and she said "The Covenant changed when Jesus came, so we don't have to follow those laws anymore." And went on about different kinds of laws in the Bible. My other Christian friends, however, believe we should follow all of the Bible to the letter.
Can you elaborate on all this? What does she mean we don't have to follow those laws anymore? I thought you couldn't just pick and choose what to follow. I'm just curious.

Depends what theology you follow. New convenent states that we should only follow the laws uttered by Jesus in the New Testement. This is my school of theology. Followed by most Orthodox, Catholics and Mainline Protestants.

Then you have some Fundementalist schools which state that the Old Jewish Law still applies but Jesus took the punishment we would be given on the cross.

Did that help?

A bit, thanks. She's a relatively liberal Protestant, but in my area there are a lot of Fundamentalists.
Another quick question: Why don't many Christians accept the "lost books of the Bible", like the Gospel of Judas? Do they have any more or less relevance just because the Church deemed that they shouldn't be in the Bible?

[The Realm of God]

Depends what theology you follow. New convenent states that we should only follow the laws uttered by Jesus in the New Testement. This is my school of theology. Followed by most Orthodox, Catholics and Mainline Protestants.

Then you have some Fundementalist schools which state that the Old Jewish Law still applies but Jesus took the punishment we would be given on the cross.

Did that help?

A bit, thanks. She's a relatively liberal Protestant, but in my area there are a lot of Fundamentalists.
Another quick question: Why don't many Christians accept the "lost books of the Bible", like the Gospel of Judas? Do they have any more or less relevance just because the Church deemed that they shouldn't be in the Bible?

Mostly for political reasons. The Church was split between the Trinitarians, The Arians who believed that God was superior too Jesus and the Gnostics who where mystics who bealived Jesus was the perfect Guru type charactor who's words they said could help them understand the cosmos through his hidden Gnosis.

The Emperor of Rome at the time was a Trinitarian and he wanted the church division to stop in order too stabalise the Empire. So he called a council at Nicaea in order too come up with a canon which backed up the Trinarian bealief and exculded that of the Gnostocs and Arians.

Most of the hidden gospels are Gnostic and therefore not traditionaly used. However Gnosticism seems to be making a comeback. They had there first council in a hundred years. The 1966 conference on gnosticism in Messina.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

[An Slanaitheoir]

A bit, thanks. She's a relatively liberal Protestant, but in my area there are a lot of Fundamentalists.
Another quick question: Why don't many Christians accept the "lost books of the Bible", like the Gospel of Judas? Do they have any more or less relevance just because the Church deemed that they shouldn't be in the Bible?

Mostly for political reasons. The Church was split between the Trinitarians, The Arians who believed that God was superior too Jesus and the Gnostics who where mystics who bealived Jesus was the perfect Guru type charactor who's words they said could help them understand the cosmos through his hidden Gnosis.

The Emperor of Rome at the time was a Trinitarian and he wanted the church division to stop in order too stabalise the Empire. So he called a council at Nicaea in order too come up with a canon which backed up the Trinarian bealief and exculded that of the Gnostocs and Arians.

Most of the hidden gospels are Gnostic and therefore not traditionaly used. However Gnosticism seems to be making a comeback. They had there first council in a hundred years. The 1966 conference on gnosticism in Messina.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

I am so happy you just made those religious decisions to be the workings of trying to get more power over the other "denominations".

[The Merchant Republics]

I wouldn't cast it entirely as political.

Other significant issues were the lack of verified authorship and congruence with the traditional and earlier gospels.

The Council of Nicea had political elements, but they did their homework too. The Gospel of Judas for instance, spends an inordinate amount of time constructing a picture of Judas not being taken over by the devil but rather acting under orders of Christ to betray him.

It's not completely unfuctional to the traditional account, but it lacked any good sourcing or tradition. Most of the apocraphyra have similar stories, they came about too late, were followed by too few churches and had too many conflicting accounts to be brought into the canon.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Calvinism? WTF?

You got that wrong. It's CALVINISM FTW!

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Discuss? It freaks me out.

Calvinism really doesnt make all that sense. If some people are elected and others not. Why do the Calvinist churches still preach. Unless the election is your reaction too the preaching?

Worth thinking about.

You are really comparing God to a shirt?

[The Realm of God]

Calvinism really doesnt make all that sense. If some people are elected and others not. Why do the Calvinist churches still preach. Unless the election is your reaction too the preaching?

Worth thinking about.

You are really comparing God to a shirt?

Calvinism really doesnt make any sense what so ever. Why would God punish someone for unbelief if he made them unbelieve.

[Farnhamia]

You are really comparing God to a shirt?

Calvinism really doesnt make any sense what so ever. Why would God punish someone for unbelief if he made them unbelieve.

Because he moves in mysterious ways and it is not for us to understand.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

You are really comparing God to a shirt?

Calvinism really doesnt make any sense what so ever. Why would God punish someone for unbelief if he made them unbelieve.

For fun?

[Farnhamia]

Calvinism really doesnt make any sense what so ever. Why would God punish someone for unbelief if he made them unbelieve.

For fun?

Because he can.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

For fun?

Because he can.

I must admit playing games where you play God and can shoot lighting bolts or generate storms are really fun. When is it not fun to smite random people?

[Stovokor]

*reads entire Bible* Nope, nothing about Jesus marching his armies on Rome.

I'm fairly sure he waged war against Rome and it's culture, though.

Also, that of legalistic Jews.

Actually Jesus did no such thing at least as much as it says in the Bible