NationStates

Distruzio wrote:

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:So, you don't believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God? Do you believe that the Church is infallible?

The Bible is infallible. The Church is infallible. The person reading the Bible, however.... is NOT infallible. Which is why the Church is needed.

I must admit, believing that the bible, a book written down by fallible men (even if it were dictated by god), and an organization of fallible men being infallible scares me. If any decision by the church is infallible, than anything can be justified.

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:

Cill Airne wrote:Distruzio has already covered that, however. Authority was given to Peter and he built God's Church. Peter's successors had his authority passed down to them.

Illegitimately. Jesus never granted authority to Peter's successors.

The Fathers show that the bishop of Rome continued to serve in Peter’s role in subsequent generations of the Church after St. Peter was martyred.

Distruzio wrote:

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:Ficks'd.

Also, he gave trust to them to spread the Word of God, not to appoint successors to spread the Word in their stead. He never states that their successors should spread the Word of God, just the disciples themselves.

Like I said in my threads, there is nothing in the Bible about worship. Therefore, the Church is needed to show people how to worship appropriately. The very limitations of Jesus' instructions that you point out here are the very reasons for Holy Tradition, the Patriarchal Consensus, and the Bible. All three are necessary to worship correctly. Otherwise, one falls into heresy.

The limitations of Jesus' instructions surely demonstrate the fault of Jesus, rather than providing the authority of as a consequence of the authority. Therefore, although the Church may be "needed" for Christianity's success, it doesn't give it the authority of infallibility from Jesus.

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
Like I said in my threads, there is nothing in the Bible about worship. Therefore, the Church is needed to show people how to worship appropriately. The very limitations of Jesus' instructions that you point out here are the very reasons for Holy Tradition, the Patriarchal Consensus, and the Bible. All three are necessary to worship correctly. Otherwise, one falls into heresy.

The limitations of Jesus' instructions surely demonstrate the fault of Jesus, rather than providing the authority of as a consequence of the authority. Therefore, although the Church may be "needed" for Christianity's success, it doesn't give it the authority of infallibility from Jesus.

I'd say that the limitations demonstrate the faith and trust of Jesus in the men He authorized. Then again, I'm not an antitheist, like you are.

believe as you please

the wages of in are death, eh? it doesn't say that it Is an eternal life of everlasting torment.

Cill Airne wrote:

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:Illegitimately. Jesus never granted authority to Peter's successors.

The Fathers show that the bishop of Rome continued to serve in Peter’s role in subsequent generations of the Church after St. Peter was martyred.

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of
the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

"His is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

*please note that Linus is the second Pope, and Bishop of Rome after St. Peter's death.

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

Served in Peter's role, which wasn't authorised by Jesus after the death of Peter himself.

Distruzio wrote:

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:The limitations of Jesus' instructions surely demonstrate the fault of Jesus, rather than providing the authority of as a consequence of the authority. Therefore, although the Church may be "needed" for Christianity's success, it doesn't give it the authority of infallibility from Jesus.

I'd say that the limitations demonstrate the faith and trust of Jesus in the men He authorized. Then again, I'm not an antitheist, like you are.

It seems that this has become a matter of belief rather than logic. As far as I am concerned, unless Jesus directly authorised Peter's successors, they were illegitimate. Therefore, as a consequence, the Church's authority is illegitimate, which means that only men can interpret the Bible, thus rendering your entire argument invalid and my OP wholly valid.

DogDoo 7 wrote:

Desperate Measures wrote:Guilty of blasphemy and probably sexual immorality.

You've never eaten live sweet shrimp at a sushi restaurant?

Oh yes... and that.

For centuries the Hebrews believed only in Sheol "the Pit", a grey half-life without joy or hope, home for all the dead, good and bad alike.

During the exile in Babylon they picked up the idea of Paradise from their captors.

Jesus talked mostly about outer darkness, where there was weeping, and gnashing of teeth. The one instance where he talked about flames in Hell was in the parable about poor Lazarus and the rich man, and I think that was poetic license to dramatize the contrast between the comfort and consolation given to the dead poor man and the punishment justly imposed on the rich man who had abused him.

Pope Joan wrote:For centuries the Hebrews believed only in Sheol "the Pit", a grey half-life without joy or hope, home for all the dead, good and bad alike.

Sounds very much like Coventry.

L Ron Cupboard wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:For centuries the Hebrews believed only in Sheol "the Pit", a grey half-life without joy or hope, home for all the dead, good and bad alike.

Sounds very much like Coventry.

Hell as the Orthodox understand it is being outside of the presence of God, fire and flames came later under Augustinian influance in the Western Church. The Origenist strain of Orthodoxy turns the Catholic maxim 'Salvandorum paucitas, damnandorum multitudo' on it's head.

Origenist thought hinges around the Apocatastasis, meaning a return to the original state. As it was the wish of God for people to be gathered to him and God is omnipresent than God cannot fail. It's the Orthodox hope that only the unrepentantly evil will be punished eternally. It's not universal salvation but it's close.



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocatastasis#section_3

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

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_ ... #section_5

Jer. 31:38-40, Ezek. 16:53, Mat. 19:28, Acts 3:21 (John 12:32, Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 15:22,28, Col. 1:20, Rev. 21:3-5). I

Neutraligon wrote:

Distruzio wrote:

The Bible is infallible. The Church is infallible. The person reading the Bible, however.... is NOT infallible. Which is why the Church is needed.

I must admit, believing that the bible, a book written down by fallible men (even if it were dictated by god), and an organization of fallible men being infallible scares me. If any decision by the church is infallible, than anything can be justified.

Organized religion is an affront to God in my opinion, understanding of, with connection, and discovery of God should be a matter of the self, not a religious authority.

Zweite Alaje wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
I must admit, believing that the bible, a book written down by fallible men (even if it were dictated by god), and an organization of fallible men being infallible scares me. If any decision by the church is infallible, than anything can be justified.

Organized religion is an affront to God in my opinion, understanding of, with connection, and discovery of God should be a matter of the self, not a religious authority.

I am Jewish, a part of organized religion. We are encouraged to debate interpretations of the torah and other literature. In my Hebrew school we got into shouting matches over the meaning of certain lines in the torah (it was fun). My issue is not with organized religion, but with the belief that the organization is infallible, and that questioning that organization is heresy. I am a very big believer that the torah as written by the hands of man is fallible, since in order to write it down, people had to use words, those words might be only an approximation of Gods desires, since there might not have been any word that exactly represents what god was trying to "say"

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:

L Ron Cupboard wrote:
Sounds very much like Coventry.

Yeah, that was pretty good.

For me, the best description of that kind of non-world was written by Ursula K. LeGuin in The Farthest Shore. "Those who had died for love passed each other in the street."

FTF!

Pope Joan wrote:

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:

Yeah, that was pretty good.

For me, the best description of that kind of non-world was written by Ursula K. LeGuin in The Farthest Shore. "Those who had died for love passed each other in the street."

Hull, a place in which hope is passed out in an ally. Progress advances as the pace of a lethargic slug and unemployed NEETS trudge about for lack of any better to do. The housing is dilapidated and the council can't cope. That's a sad non-world, felt like the dementors from Harry Potter had made their HQ there or something.

Neutraligon wrote:

Zweite Alaje wrote:Organized religion is an affront to God in my opinion, understanding of, with connection, and discovery of God should be a matter of the self, not a religious authority.

I am Jewish, a part of organized religion. We are encouraged to debate interpretations of the torah and other literature. In my Hebrew school we got into shouting matches over the meaning of certain lines in the torah (it was fun). My issue is not with organized religion, but with the belief that the organization is infallible, and that questioning that organization is heresy. I am a very big believer that the torah as written by the hands of man is fallible, since in order to write it down, people had to use words, those words might be only an approximation of Gods desires, since there might not have been any word that exactly represents what god was trying to "say"

As a Jew... you would know of the infallibility of our sages... and the 'closed generation' rule... as it pertains to the Oral Law.

Menassa wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
I am Jewish, a part of organized religion. We are encouraged to debate interpretations of the torah and other literature. In my Hebrew school we got into shouting matches over the meaning of certain lines in the torah (it was fun). My issue is not with organized religion, but with the belief that the organization is infallible, and that questioning that organization is heresy. I am a very big believer that the torah as written by the hands of man is fallible, since in order to write it down, people had to use words, those words might be only an approximation of Gods desires, since there might not have been any word that exactly represents what god was trying to "say"

As a Jew... you would know of the infallibility of our sages... and the 'closed generation' rule... as it pertains to the Oral Law.

He would know that such beliefs exist, among fallible humans.

Distruzio wrote:

Nationalist State of Knox wrote:So, you don't believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God? Do you believe that the Church is infallible?

The Bible is infallible. The Church is infallible. The person reading the Bible, however.... is NOT infallible. Which is why the Church is needed.

Oh I needed that laugh.

Tmutarakhan wrote:

Menassa wrote:As a Jew... you would know of the infallibility of our sages... and the 'closed generation' rule... as it pertains to the Oral Law.

He would know that such beliefs exist, among fallible humans.

She... would also know that Daniel kept Rabbinic commandments....

Come, atheists of NSG! Let us conquer this thread that is rightfully ours, and let the cold iron fist of logic smash the pathetic dogma you see before you!
In all seriousness though, saying that anything at all is infallible is just plain unintelligent. After all, the claim of infallibility is coming from a fallible human who can be and is often wrong.

Well, unless you consider the lake of molten sulfur that the devil and all who are not saved get thrown into in the book of Revelations...

Neutraligon wrote:

Zweite Alaje wrote:Organized religion is an affront to God in my opinion, understanding of, with connection, and discovery of God should be a matter of the self, not a religious authority.

I am Jewish, a part of organized religion. We are encouraged to debate interpretations of the torah and other literature. In my Hebrew school we got into shouting matches over the meaning of certain lines in the torah (it was fun). My issue is not with organized religion, but with the belief that the organization is infallible, and that questioning that organization is heresy. I am a very big believer that the torah as written by the hands of man is fallible, since in order to write it down, people had to use words, those words might be only an approximation of Gods desires, since there might not have been any word that exactly represents what god was trying to "say"

I have the same view about all religious texts, they all are either mere approximations, or at times deliberate corruptions of God's message.

I believe one such corruption is the notion of a heaven and hell, I do not believe they exist. Infact I believe the only thing that exists is God itself.

Zweite Alaje wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:
I am Jewish, a part of organized religion. We are encouraged to debate interpretations of the torah and other literature. In my Hebrew school we got into shouting matches over the meaning of certain lines in the torah (it was fun). My issue is not with organized religion, but with the belief that the organization is infallible, and that questioning that organization is heresy. I am a very big believer that the torah as written by the hands of man is fallible, since in order to write it down, people had to use words, those words might be only an approximation of Gods desires, since there might not have been any word that exactly represents what god was trying to "say"

I have the same view about all religious texts, they all are either mere approximations, or at times deliberate corruptions of God's message.

Unless of course you believe... God wrote the Text....

Menassa wrote:

Zweite Alaje wrote:
I have the same view about all religious texts, they all are either mere approximations, or at times deliberate corruptions of God's message.

Unless of course you believe... God wrote the Text....

I don't.