Christian disscussion thread

[Seperates]

Meh, that's because they are too fantastic. Your miracle stories have to be believable for any religion to truely set itself up for the larger massses. *nods*

A man is born of a virgin is believable? A man dies and resurrects is believable? When we eat bread and wine we are cannibals is believable?

Penn and Teller can turn clay pigeons into live pigeons every day and three times on Sundays.

More believable to the people of 325 A.D.

And the bread and wine thing only occurs after transubstantiation... and even then it is only the literal if you are Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

[Idealismania]

non-denominational christian here!

[Bordurian]

One thing I don't understand. As a devout Catholic I have one question, is purgatory mentioned in the Bible? I've read it cover to cover many times but never found anything.

, just because you've read the Bible, that isn't enough for you to understand the more deep meanings and relationships with God and the truest nature of the afterlife.

I don't think anybody understands it.

[Terraius]

One thing I don't understand. As a devout Catholic I have one question, is purgatory mentioned in the Bible? I've read it cover to cover many times but never found anything.

Not really. It is more of a historical trend based more apon Church rituals and doctrine rather than on the Bible. Especially if you are Catholic (which I was) you should already know that only Church ordained ministers and priests is the only ones who are allowed to interpret the text, with a standard being set by the Pope and other religious officials in the Vatican. So in essence, just because you've read the Bible, that isn't enough for you to understand the more deep meanings and relationships with God and the truest nature of the afterlife.

Of course, as an atheist I think that is all a load of bullshit... but to each their own, no?

That is partially incorrect and a perpetuated myth that the Catholic church tries to censer the laity from reading the bible. Commentary and instruction is provided in Catholic bibles and studies so that deeper meanings can be extracted, yes. If everyone interpreted the bible they way they wanted, it would be a mad, chaotic, disorganized mess, and my point can be proven at the 30,000+ protestant/evangelical denominations who split over theological nick-knacks, versus Catholic/Orthodox/High Anglican traditions which are severed on a more ecclesiastical basis then theological one.

[Seperates]

non-denominational christian here!

So basically, your belief is "I <3 Jesus + God", without any other speculation or insight into the nature of the divine, believing that being a member of a religion should be as easy as becoming a follower on Twitter?

That's cool, I guess.

[An Slanaitheoir]

, just because you've read the Bible, that isn't enough for you to understand the more deep meanings and relationships with God and the truest nature of the afterlife.

I don't think anybody understands it.

That is half the point of them being one to rely on when interpretating the Bible. The have spent more time focusing on religious things that the Laity does, and so have more knowledge in those areas.

[Idealismania]

, just because you've read the Bible, that isn't enough for you to understand the more deep meanings and relationships with God and the truest nature of the afterlife.

I don't think anybody understands it.

I would imagine it would take eternity to understand the nature of a being that created and is all of existance.

[Terraius]

non-denominational christian here!

So basically, your belief is "I <3 Jesus + God", without any other speculation or insight into the nature of the divine, believing that being a member of a religion should be as easy as becoming a follower on Twitter?

That's cool, I guess.

As much as I hate the concept of heretical non-denominational 'Christians', that is borderline insulting which is not needed

[Seperates]

Not really. It is more of a historical trend based more apon Church rituals and doctrine rather than on the Bible. Especially if you are Catholic (which I was) you should already know that only Church ordained ministers and priests is the only ones who are allowed to interpret the text, with a standard being set by the Pope and other religious officials in the Vatican. So in essence, just because you've read the Bible, that isn't enough for you to understand the more deep meanings and relationships with God and the truest nature of the afterlife.

Of course, as an atheist I think that is all a load of bullshit... but to each their own, no?

That is partially incorrect and a perpetuated myth that the Catholic church tries to censer the laity from reading the bible. Commentary and instruction is provided in Catholic bibles and studies so that deeper meanings can be extracted, yes. If everyone interpreted the bible they way they wanted, it would be a mad, chaotic, disorganized mess, and my point can be proven at the 30,000+ protestant/evangelical denominations who split over theological nick-knacks, versus Catholic/Orthodox/High Anglican traditions which are severed on a more ecclesiastical basis then theological one.

They don't censor it. They just don't consider them true Catholics/true Christians (because most Catholics and other denominations are under the impression that theirs is the only correct interpretation) if they interpret it differently. Don't believe in indulgences? Then you are a Lutheran. Pre-destination? Calvinism. etc. etc. etc.

I never said they censored it. They just discourage it if you want to stay a part of the Catholic community.

[Seperates]

, just because you've read the Bible, that isn't enough for you to understand the more deep meanings and relationships with God and the truest nature of the afterlife.

I don't think anybody understands it.

That's the point.

[Seperates]

So basically, your belief is "I <3 Jesus + God", without any other speculation or insight into the nature of the divine, believing that being a member of a religion should be as easy as becoming a follower on Twitter?

That's cool, I guess.

As much as I hate the concept of heretical non-denominational 'Christians', that is borderline insulting which is not needed

I take religious ideas very seriously. It is part of the reason I am an atheist.

[Terraius]

That is partially incorrect and a perpetuated myth that the Catholic church tries to censer the laity from reading the bible. Commentary and instruction is provided in Catholic bibles and studies so that deeper meanings can be extracted, yes. If everyone interpreted the bible they way they wanted, it would be a mad, chaotic, disorganized mess, and my point can be proven at the 30,000+ protestant/evangelical denominations who split over theological nick-knacks, versus Catholic/Orthodox/High Anglican traditions which are severed on a more ecclesiastical basis then theological one.

They don't censor it. They just don't consider them true Catholics/true Christians (because most Catholics and other denominations are under the impression that theirs is the only correct interpretation) if they interpret it differently. Don't believe in indulgences? Then you are a Lutheran. Pre-destination? Calvinism. etc. etc. etc.

I never said they censored it. They just discourage it if you want to stay a part of the Catholic community.

I think that goes without saying. If you dont believe/agree with X tenant of Y organization, what is the point of belonging to them in the first place?

[Terraius]

Also the Church does not consider non-Catholics as not being apart of the Christian tradition. Orthodox and High Anglicans are considered in an ecclesiastical schism, i.e., a non theological separation which stems over administrative and practical aspects of church governance than anything else.

Outside of that, Nicene Creed professing/Trinitarian Protestants are considered 'Christians in Ecclesiastical communities outside of the Church', moreless a half step above full-blown heresy, but nonetheless recognizes that they are in their own right Christians

[Seperates]

I don't think anybody understands it.

That is half the point of them being one to rely on when interpretating the Bible. The have spent more time focusing on religious things that the Laity does, and so have more knowledge in those areas.

Really? You would think that they would try to apply the fundemental aspects of the natural world to their reading habits, but then again... they don't study the physical.

[Seperates]

They don't censor it. They just don't consider them true Catholics/true Christians (because most Catholics and other denominations are under the impression that theirs is the only correct interpretation) if they interpret it differently. Don't believe in indulgences? Then you are a Lutheran. Pre-destination? Calvinism. etc. etc. etc.

I never said they censored it. They just discourage it if you want to stay a part of the Catholic community.

I think that goes without saying. If you dont believe/agree with X tenant of Y organization, what is the point of belonging to them in the first place?

But that is exactly what I said in the first place.

[Seperates]

Also the Church does not consider non-Catholics as not being apart of the Christian tradition. Orthodox and High Anglicans are considered in an ecclesiastical schism, i.e., a non theological separation which stems over administrative and practical aspects of church governance than anything else.

Outside of that, Nicene Creed professing/Trinitarian Protestants are considered 'Christians in Ecclesiastical communities outside of the Church', moreless a half step above full-blown heresy, but nonetheless recognizes that they are in their own right Christians

Oh certaintly... They are just "misguided" in their faith. I am well aware of how the congregation and Church thinks. As well, Jehovah's Witnesses, while believing in many things contrary to Catholic doctrine, are not considered heretical, but a part of the Catholic Church.

[Terraius]

That is half the point of them being one to rely on when interpretating the Bible. The have spent more time focusing on religious things that the Laity does, and so have more knowledge in those areas.

Really? You would think that they would try to apply the fundemental aspects of the natural world to their reading habits, but then again... they don't study the physical.

Well they do, the Church isnt confined to only interpreting the bible

[Terraius]

Also the Church does not consider non-Catholics as not being apart of the Christian tradition. Orthodox and High Anglicans are considered in an ecclesiastical schism, i.e., a non theological separation which stems over administrative and practical aspects of church governance than anything else.

Outside of that, Nicene Creed professing/Trinitarian Protestants are considered 'Christians in Ecclesiastical communities outside of the Church', moreless a half step above full-blown heresy, but nonetheless recognizes that they are in their own right Christians

Oh certaintly... They are just "misguided" in their faith. I am well aware of how the congregation and Church thinks. As well, Jehovah's Witnesses, while believing in many things contrary to Catholic doctrine, are not considered heretical, but a part of the Catholic Church.

That is false, Jehovah's Witnesses are not Catholic as they do not profess the Nicene-Constantinoplian creed and are considered non-Trinitarian and therefore, heretical and outside of the Church's grace/sphere

[Birkinghamia]

Alright, but shouldn't Christian truth be based on the Bible so that we do know is for sure correct?

If we can use the logic that you provided, couldn't I come up with a new denomination that has rituals not ascribed in the Bible?

Besides, doesn't the Catholic Church still sell indulgences?

Still sell indulgences? Where did you hear that. I saw an indulgence crucifix recently, and I think that might the furthest extent of selling indulgences now a days (as it was being sold in a gift store for the Mary, Queen of the Universe Basilica down here).

I did not say anything about rituals not in the bible, you did (or the person who first asked the question).

I thought you were trying to justify the position of the Catholic Church...but I guess not...so never mind

[Seperates]

Oh certaintly... They are just "misguided" in their faith. I am well aware of how the congregation and Church thinks. As well, Jehovah's Witnesses, while believing in many things contrary to Catholic doctrine, are not considered heretical, but a part of the Catholic Church.

That is false, Jehovah's Witnesses are not Catholic as they do not profess the Nicene-Constantinoplian creed and are considered non-Trinitarian and therefore, heretical and outside of the Church's grace/sphere

Wait a tick... Never mind, I was thinking of another group whose name I can no longer recall. I withdraw my comment.

[Birkinghamia]

One thing I don't understand. As a devout Catholic I have one question, is purgatory mentioned in the Bible? I've read it cover to cover many times but never found anything.

90% of what is held within the Catholic faith is not found in the bible, the Catholic church does not operate under 'Sola Scriptora' (Only Scripture), it takes into account Apostolic tradition (Things which the apostles and successors practiced) and Magisterial teaching/interpretation (Synod/Councils of Bishops and the Pontiffs)

Alright, but shouldn't Christian truth be based on the Bible so that we do know is for sure correct?

If we can use the logic that you provided, couldn't I come up with a new denomination that has rituals not ascribed in the Bible?

Besides, doesn't the Catholic Church still sell indulgences?

Sola Scriptora is a Protestant concept that agrees with using only the Bible as source of truth, whereas the Catholic, Orthodox, and some Anglican churches do not follow that concept and incorporate apostolic tradition.

Funnily enough- the Bible is never mentioned in the Bible itself. Weird how things work out, eh

Well, the Bible is God's word, right? So:

John 5:24 (NIV), "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

There are other ones that mention the Word, too. That's just one example.

[Baekche]

I was "raised" a Christian, in particular non-denomination. I use the term raised loosely, because my parents never talked about it. I only started going to church when I was 11, after my grandma died my dad started taking us weekly. I started to go to a Catholic Church weekly with my friend, because I didn't like the church my dad was taking us too. I loved it, and wanted to convert... But skip forward a few years, and I stopped practising and became a Buddhist, which I still practice.

[Terraius]

John 5:24 (NIV), "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

Well yes, to the Protestant ear that gratifies the need to only believe in the bible/faith only, but the Catholic intellectual tradition is not satisfied with such a conclusion, and would ask the following;

What is it to truly 'Believe'? To simply say one believes in Christ, or to actually apply good works to good faith?

To hear the 'word', in and of itself is fine, but not applying the word to life and religious practices? I.e, the mass, corporal acts of mercy, etc., ontop of professing the creed of faith? Would faith not be dead if one only 'heard the word' but did nothing to change his life to apply the word to good works and be a beacon of light to others?

[Seperates]

90% of what is held within the Catholic faith is not found in the bible, the Catholic church does not operate under 'Sola Scriptora' (Only Scripture), it takes into account Apostolic tradition (Things which the apostles and successors practiced) and Magisterial teaching/interpretation (Synod/Councils of Bishops and the Pontiffs)



Sola Scriptora is a Protestant concept that agrees with using only the Bible as source of truth, whereas the Catholic, Orthodox, and some Anglican churches do not follow that concept and incorporate apostolic tradition.

Funnily enough- the Bible is never mentioned in the Bible itself. Weird how things work out, eh

Well, the Bible is God's word, right? So:

John 5:24 (NIV), "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

There are other ones that mention the Word, too. That's just one example.

Of course, that begs the question of whether I should believe Jesus or John merely on their insistance that "Well, if you don't believe in me you will be condemned, so there."

[Seperates]

John 5:24 (NIV), "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life."

Well yes, to the Protestant ear that gratifies the need to only believe in the bible/faith only, but the Catholic intellectual tradition is not satisfied with such a conclusion, and would ask the following;

What is it to truly 'Believe'? To simply say one believes in Christ, or to actually apply good works to good faith?

To hear the 'word', in and of itself is fine, but not applying the word to life and religious practices? I.e, the mass, corporal acts of mercy, etc., ontop of professing the creed of faith? Would faith not be dead if one only 'heard the word' but did nothing to change his life to apply the word to good works and be a beacon of light to others?

Well, of course. But then why not just do good works without belief?