The Christian Discussion Thread VI

[Herskerstad]

There is a statement appertaining to this specific instance? Could you share it or is this in the context of a . . . frequently occurring miracle that happens in many churches?

All I found was a quote from a Jesuit priest describing the same things the poster's grandma described. I can't give you a context because there is none. I've never heard of any similar miracles, not the miracles are a frequent occurrence in the church.

As for the Virgin Mary appearing monthly like clockwork to six people, it's not unheard of to receive visions form the Blessed Virgin or other saints but I've never heard of it with such frequency.

I should also point out that in extremely skeptical of "witnessed miracles."

I was referring in this case to the context of the posters Grandma and her instance, are the local priests or the Jesuit related to that specific situation? Given that I am not clairvoyant I know that I at least cannot say if it is a surface alteration, temporal or permanent, or a material one, temporal or permanent. Either scenario would merit a different set of questions. And of course, it would be easier if Grandma is still around so that questions could be asked in regards to it, or certainly more interesting if an actual golden rosary would be in someone's possession.

[Grave_n_idle]

Your experience doesn't match mine at all.

In my experience, and I've been to a lot of churches of different denominations on more than one continent - every sect is dismissive of every other sect and teaches that every other sect has somehow fallen away from god, or lacks true understanding of the scripture, etc.

I've even heard various Christian sects that say that other Christian sects are anti-christ, because of their obviously wrong teachings. I've heard Baptists sat that Catholics are followers of Satan, and I've heard pretty much the same from Catholics about Baptists.

Now wonder the anabaptists are my favourites. They're about the only group not talking shit about everyone else.

The problem with Baptists is there's no uniform structure or doctrine one can call strictly baptists. while there are some large Baptist groups (SBC, etc), Baptist also serves as a catch all for a lot of independent churches. For instance the last Protestant Church I was a member of, was a part of the NCBA. It also was right across the street from the Catholic Church, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone with a negative word to say about Catholics in that church. So much so that the Pastor refered to them as "our catholic brothers and sisters" from the pulpit. But these Baptist get over shadowed by the "synogogue of Satan" baptists.

That's a problem with Baptists. I don;t know if I'd say it's the problem with Baptists.

(The idea that you only have to believe once, and it don't matter what happens after that - that's probably the problem with Baptists).

But I think that even your friendly anecdotal Baptists were just hiding it better. If they really didn't have a major problem with Catholicism, they'd be Catholics.

[Jamzmania]

The problem with Baptists is there's no uniform structure or doctrine one can call strictly baptists. while there are some large Baptist groups (SBC, etc), Baptist also serves as a catch all for a lot of independent churches. For instance the last Protestant Church I was a member of, was a part of the NCBA. It also was right across the street from the Catholic Church, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone with a negative word to say about Catholics in that church. So much so that the Pastor refered to them as "our catholic brothers and sisters" from the pulpit. But these Baptist get over shadowed by the "synogogue of Satan" baptists.

That's a problem with Baptists. I don;t know if I'd say it's the problem with Baptists.

(The idea that you only have to believe once, and it don't matter what happens after that - that's probably the problem with Baptists).

I've never heard of that before, could you send me a link on that?

[Galloism]

That's a problem with Baptists. I don;t know if I'd say it's the problem with Baptists.

(The idea that you only have to believe once, and it don't matter what happens after that - that's probably the problem with Baptists).

I've never heard of that before, could you send me a link on that?

A google search revealed this.

[Nordengrund]

The problem with Baptists is there's no uniform structure or doctrine one can call strictly baptists. while there are some large Baptist groups (SBC, etc), Baptist also serves as a catch all for a lot of independent churches. For instance the last Protestant Church I was a member of, was a part of the NCBA. It also was right across the street from the Catholic Church, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone with a negative word to say about Catholics in that church. So much so that the Pastor refered to them as "our catholic brothers and sisters" from the pulpit. But these Baptist get over shadowed by the "synogogue of Satan" baptists.

That's a problem with Baptists. I don;t know if I'd say it's the problem with Baptists.

(The idea that you only have to believe once, and it don't matter what happens after that - that's probably the problem with Baptists).

But I think that even your friendly anecdotal Baptists were just hiding it better. If they really didn't have a major problem with Catholicism, they'd be Catholics.

I wouldn't say that is the case with all Baptists. There are Free Will Baptists and they believe you can lose your salvation and therefore have to maintain it with good works. It's true that eternal security is the popular view among Baptists though.

Even the Southern Baptists who don't believe you can lose your salvation still think good works are important as "evidence" that's someone's salvation is genuine and that works are the result of salvation. Most agree that a person who claims to be saved but does nothing with it is not really saved or that his conversion was not genuine. Of course, there are some who take eternal security to the extreme.

[Salus Maior]

But I think that even your friendly anecdotal Baptists were just hiding it better. If they really didn't have a major problem with Catholicism, they'd be Catholics.

People can disagree theologically and still be amicable.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The problem with Baptists is there's no uniform structure or doctrine one can call strictly baptists. while there are some large Baptist groups (SBC, etc), Baptist also serves as a catch all for a lot of independent churches. For instance the last Protestant Church I was a member of, was a part of the NCBA. It also was right across the street from the Catholic Church, and you'd be hard pressed to find someone with a negative word to say about Catholics in that church. So much so that the Pastor refered to them as "our catholic brothers and sisters" from the pulpit. But these Baptist get over shadowed by the "synogogue of Satan" baptists.

That's a problem with Baptists. I don;t know if I'd say it's the problem with Baptists.

(The idea that you only have to believe once, and it don't matter what happens after that - that's probably the problem with Baptists).

But I think that even your friendly anecdotal Baptists were just hiding it better. If they really didn't have a major problem with Catholicism, they'd be Catholics.

Just because you hate everyone who doesn't share your exact world view, doesn't mean others do

[Grave_n_idle]

That's a problem with Baptists. I don;t know if I'd say it's the problem with Baptists.

(The idea that you only have to believe once, and it don't matter what happens after that - that's probably the problem with Baptists).

But I think that even your friendly anecdotal Baptists were just hiding it better. If they really didn't have a major problem with Catholicism, they'd be Catholics.

Just because you hate everyone who doesn't share your exact world view, doesn't mean others do

Do you mean me?

I don't hate anyone. I'm equally accepting of all religions.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Just because you hate everyone who doesn't share your exact world view, doesn't mean others do

Do you mean me?

I don't hate anyone. I'm equally accepting of all
religions.

Equally unaccepting is still technically equally accepting

[Mishpat and Tzedek]

(The idea that you only have to believe once, and it don't matter what happens after that - that's probably the problem with Baptists).

I've heard of that before, but I'm pretty sure it's a pretty recent idea that's been popular with a significant part of baptists in the US for a bit. It's by no means a fundamental doctrine of baptists to my knowledge.....

It's more like a caricature of the doctrine of "perseverance of the saints", which might actually be considered a traditional baptists doctrine. It's a traditional reformed doctrine and historically a lot of baptists have held to reformed teachings about grace, including "perseverance of the saints". If you combine the idea that the elect of God will definitely be saved, thus implying that if a person at one point has truly converted he will persevere believing in the end. He can struggle, backslid or whatever, but in the end, if he was truly converted he will keep on believing and be saved. If you combine this idea with a very poor idea of conversion you have a problem and I've heard about some baptists in America ending up with that. They'll focus on having potential converts making their decision, and then if he backslides and he remains in his sin they're like "oh well, perseverance of the saints, once saved always saved, he chose for God, so he'll go to heaven anyway." A more proper interpretation of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints would suggest said person has never truly converted.

Now, you can disagree with the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, there are some passages in Scripture that seem to contradict this doctrine, but a traditional reformed or baptist appropriation of the perseverance of the saints, or 'once saved always saved -' or whatever you want to call it - certainly doesn't imply that it doesn't matter how you live your life after you believed at some point.

[Grave_n_idle]

Do you mean me?

I don't hate anyone. I'm equally accepting of all
religions.

Equally unaccepting is still technically equally accepting

I don't know where you're getting that from. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else?

My post history is searchable, anyone can review tens of thousands of posts - I'm pretty consistently pro-religion.

[Grave_n_idle]

(The idea that you only have to believe once, and it don't matter what happens after that - that's probably the problem with Baptists).

I've heard of that before, but I'm pretty sure it's a pretty recent idea that's been popular with a significant part of baptists in the US for a bit. It's by no means a fundamental doctrine of baptists to my knowledge.....

It's more like a caricature of the doctrine of "perseverance of the saints", which might actually be considered a traditional baptists doctrine. It's a traditional reformed doctrine and historically a lot of baptists have held to reformed teachings about grace, including "perseverance of the saints". If you combine the idea that the elect of God will definitely be saved, thus implying that if a person at one point has truly converted he will persevere believing in the end. He can struggle, backslid or whatever, but in the end, if he was truly converted he will keep on believing and be saved. If you combine this idea with a very poor idea of conversion you have a problem and I've heard about some baptists in America ending up with that. They'll focus on having potential converts making their decision, and then if he backslides and he remains in his sin they're like "oh well, perseverance of the saints, once saved always saved, he chose for God, so he'll go to heaven anyway." A more proper interpretation of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints would suggest said person has never truly converted.

Now, you can disagree with the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, there are some passages in Scripture that seem to contradict this doctrine, but a traditional reformed or baptist appropriation of the perseverance of the saints, or 'once saved always saved -' or whatever you want to call it - certainly doesn't imply that it doesn't matter how you live your life after you believed at some point.

"Once saved, always saved" is certainly a familiar refrain. Personally, I've always found the perseverance of the saints doctrine flawed. I don't find it consistent with Jesus' ministry.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I've heard of that before, but I'm pretty sure it's a pretty recent idea that's been popular with a significant part of baptists in the US for a bit. It's by no means a fundamental doctrine of baptists to my knowledge.....

It's more like a caricature of the doctrine of "perseverance of the saints", which might actually be considered a traditional baptists doctrine. It's a traditional reformed doctrine and historically a lot of baptists have held to reformed teachings about grace, including "perseverance of the saints". If you combine the idea that the elect of God will definitely be saved, thus implying that if a person at one point has truly converted he will persevere believing in the end. He can struggle, backslid or whatever, but in the end, if he was truly converted he will keep on believing and be saved. If you combine this idea with a very poor idea of conversion you have a problem and I've heard about some baptists in America ending up with that. They'll focus on having potential converts making their decision, and then if he backslides and he remains in his sin they're like "oh well, perseverance of the saints, once saved always saved, he chose for God, so he'll go to heaven anyway." A more proper interpretation of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints would suggest said person has never truly converted.

Now, you can disagree with the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, there are some passages in Scripture that seem to contradict this doctrine, but a traditional reformed or baptist appropriation of the perseverance of the saints, or 'once saved always saved -' or whatever you want to call it - certainly doesn't imply that it doesn't matter how you live your life after you believed at some point.

"Once saved, always saved" is certainly a familiar refrain. Personally, I've always found the perseverance of the saints doctrine flawed. I don't find it consistent with Jesus' ministry.

It's actually quite antithetical

[Schiltzberg]

So does this golden rosary still exist? Or did it transform back into the wood or whichever material it was prior?

From what I can tell, according to the local priests, they change color, not material... if you believe in such things.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it changed back, but I'm not sure. I have never seen it, that is for sure.

So I'm curious. I'd like to take kind of a survey if possible.

How much would you say religion influence each of your lives?

And do you bring religion into other aspects of your lives such as work or your voting preferences?

How devout would you rank yourselves on a scale of 1 to 10?

A final note: Please don't feel compelled to answer these questions if you don't want to.

]

1. I'd say a solid 8/10
2. Definitely in voting. I try to live out my faith in a subtle way, without really calling attention to it, because I think that all of the "Jesus people" are basically only acting the way they act for attention, kind of like what Jesus condemns in Matthew 4. I could do better at living my faith, like we all could, but I am pretty content with myself.
3. Maybe an 8/10. I go to church every week, pray every day, read the Bible, and things like that, so I would like to say that I am pretty devout.

[Salus Maior]

Oh Trinity, you can be a hard thing to grasp...

[Salus Maior]

It's actually quite antithetical

Indeed. Are Baptists the only ones associated with it?

[Menassa]

(Image)

Oh Trinity, you can be a hard thing to grasp...

*Shrug*

Only if you say it's Monotheism as well.

[Grave_n_idle]

(Image)

Oh Trinity, you can be a hard thing to grasp...

It's really not.

To be honest, I've never really understood why Christians attach such significance to a concept present in so many other, much earlier, non-Abrahamic religions.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

(Image)

Oh Trinity, you can be a hard thing to grasp...

It's really not.

To be honest, I've never really understood why Christians attach such significance to a concept present in so many other, much earlier, non-Abrahamic religions.

Well what concept do you put your weight behind?

[Tarsonis Survivors]

(Image)

Oh Trinity, you can be a hard thing to grasp...

*Shrug*

Only if you say it's Monotheism as well.

Well it is.

[The Flutterlands]

(Image)

Oh Trinity, you can be a hard thing to grasp...

The image, while making me laugh a bit, is a misrepresentation of the Holy Trinity, due to this:

[Grave_n_idle]

It's really not.

To be honest, I've never really understood why Christians attach such significance to a concept present in so many other, much earlier, non-Abrahamic religions.

Well what concept do you put your weight behind?

Which Christian concept?

I'd say the single most vital Christian concept is the evolution of the passover ritual, the propitiatory blood of Calvary.

[Efraim-Judah]

(Image)

Oh Trinity, you can be a hard thing to grasp...

The image, while making me laugh a bit, is a misrepresentation of the Holy Trinity, due to this:

Christians call this Monotheism?

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

The image, while making me laugh a bit, is a misrepresentation of the Holy Trinity, due to this:

Christians call this Monotheism?

I call it a perfectly valid concept in terms of Christianity.

Judaism, Islam, Bahai, Samaritanism, and various other Abrahamic religions not so much however.

Of course before we go about this dance again what do you say it is instead of monotheism?

[The Alexanderians]

The image, while making me laugh a bit, is a misrepresentation of the Holy Trinity, due to this:

(Image)

Christians call this Monotheism?

>.>
I though you believed in the Messiah