Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Vamenlac]

Hey I am looking for a bible verse it goes something like "He asks for mercy and he gets none." If you know it please telegram me.

[Constantinopolis]

That's why I, and so many other Protestants, feel unwelcome here. As a matter of Christian principle, I feel required to censor myself in a way that many here clearly do not. That impulse to self-censorship is a product of the way that most of us in mainline Protestant churches were raised: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Now, I realize that those are our norms, and I'm not necessarily asking you folks to abide by them: different traditions have different forms of etiquette, and that's okay. I'm just letting y'all know that this phenomenon is why it's so hard for many Protestants to participate comfortably on this thread, and it's why this discussion feels so hostile to us. What you do with that information is up to you.

Norv, I understand what you're saying, and I really am sorry that we make you feel unwelcome. Please believe me that this is absolutely not in any way my intention. But look, this is a debate forum. When we agree, we don't have much to talk about. Every once in a while, this thread lies dormant for a day or two, with no new posts. And what is the thing that always jolts it back to life? Some argument about something.

When we don't argue, that doesn't make the discussion in this thread better, it makes the discussion stop.

Sometimes it stops for days at a time, and, like I said, it's never a friendly sharing of the things that unite us which brings discussion back. And of course it wouldn't - because people are not going to post when all they have to say is "Yes, I agree".

I do agree with you a lot of the time, and with Tarsonis, and with Pasong Tirad and others. But when I agree, that means I don't have anything to add, so I don't post anything.

[Salus Maior]

That's why I, and so many other Protestants, feel unwelcome here. As a matter of Christian principle, I feel required to censor myself in a way that many here clearly do not. That impulse to self-censorship is a product of the way that most of us in mainline Protestant churches were raised: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Now, I realize that those are our norms, and I'm not necessarily asking you folks to abide by them: different traditions have different forms of etiquette, and that's okay. I'm just letting y'all know that this phenomenon is why it's so hard for many Protestants to participate comfortably on this thread, and it's why this discussion feels so hostile to us. What you do with that information is up to you.

Norv, I understand what you're saying, and I really am sorry that we make you feel unwelcome. Please believe me that this is absolutely not in any way my intention. But look, this is a debate forum. When we agree, we don't have much to talk about. Every once in a while, this thread lies dormant for a day or two, with no new posts. And what is the thing that always jolts it back to life? Some argument about something.

When we don't argue, that doesn't make the discussion in this thread better, it makes the discussion stop.

Sometimes it stops for days at a time, and, like I said, it's never a friendly sharing of the things that unite us which brings discussion back. And of course it wouldn't - because people are not going to post when all they have to say is "Yes, I agree".

I do agree with you a lot of the time, and with Tarsonis, and with Pasong Tirad and others. But when I agree, that means I don't have anything to add, so I don't post anything.

Which is probably why the JDT is never active. Nobody debates there.

[Pasong Tirad]

Norv, I understand what you're saying, and I really am sorry that we make you feel unwelcome. Please believe me that this is absolutely not in any way my intention. But look, this is a debate forum. When we agree, we don't have much to talk about. Every once in a while, this thread lies dormant for a day or two, with no new posts. And what is the thing that always jolts it back to life? Some argument about something.

When we don't argue, that doesn't make the discussion in this thread better, it makes the discussion stop.

Sometimes it stops for days at a time, and, like I said, it's never a friendly sharing of the things that unite us which brings discussion back. And of course it wouldn't - because people are not going to post when all they have to say is "Yes, I agree".

I do agree with you a lot of the time, and with Tarsonis, and with Pasong Tirad and others. But when I agree, that means I don't have anything to add, so I don't post anything.

Which is probably why the JDT is never active. Nobody debates there.

Sorry, JDT?

[Salus Maior]

Which is probably why the JDT is never active. Nobody debates there.

Sorry, JDT?

Exactly


jk, that's the Jewish Discussion Thread.

[Constantinopolis]

The problem is that, rather than viewing Protestant theology as being on the same level as Catholic/Orthodox theology, it's being waived off.

Because Protestant theology is wrong. That is what I believe, and I am going to keep saying it because I also believe that this wrongness can result in some people who believe in Protestant theology going to hell - not really because of the beliefs themselves, but because of some of their consequences (for example: if you do not believe you need to go to a priest for sacramental Confession every once in a while, you may end up never examining your sins and never trying to figure out which are the most common sins that you commit and that you should struggle against).

Protestants are free to debate me on this, and I love debating them and I have done so many times, with absolutely no hard feelings of any kind. But to say "we shouldn't be debating this, because it's divisive and makes people uncomfortable" doesn't make any sense to me. As I said to Norv, the fact of the matter is that when we don't debate "divisive" things, we just stop posting altogether. And not just me, but you and Norv and Nordengrund and the other Protestants too.

It's not like we just argue in this thread all the time. Sometimes nothing new is posted for a couple of days. If our Protestant brothers and sisters are repelled by our debates, why don't they take advantage of those periods of calm to start non-divisive discussions? Well, they have tried, and the result is typically that nobody posts much in response (including the other Protestants) and the friendly discussion quickly fizzles out.

Face it: Agreement does not make for active internet threads.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The problem is that, rather than viewing Protestant theology as being on the same level as Catholic/Orthodox theology, it's being waived off.

Because Protestant theology is wrong. That is what I believe, and I am going to keep saying it because I also believe that this wrongness can result in some people who believe in Protestant theology going to hell - not really because of the beliefs themselves, but because of some of their consequences (for example: if you do not believe you need to go to a priest for sacramental Confession every once in a while, you may end up never examining your sins and never trying to figure out which are the most common sins that you commit and that you should struggle against).

Protestants are free to debate me on this, and I love debating them and I have done so many times, with absolutely no hard feelings of any kind. But to say "we shouldn't be debating this, because it's divisive and makes people uncomfortable" doesn't make any sense to me. As I said to Norv, the fact of the matter is that when we don't debate "divisive" things, we just stop posting altogether. And not just me, but you and Norv and Nordengrund and the other Protestants too.

It's not like we just argue in this thread all the time. Sometimes nothing new is posted for a couple of days. If our Protestant brothers and sisters are repelled by our debates, why don't they take advantage of those periods of calm to start non-divisive discussions? Well, they have tried, and the result is typically that nobody posts much in response (including the other Protestants) and the friendly discussion quickly fizzles out.

Face it: Agreement does not make for active internet threads.

I personally just don't see the point on having only one person telling you what your flaws are and what you should struggle against.

While I agree with you that a priest should also tell you which sins you're failing at and you should struggle against, the path of a Christian is a personal one. The priest is not carrying your cross, and when the time of judgement comes he won't be judged for your sins, you're going to. So you should do some introspection and look at what you are failing in an honest way, as well as going to confession. One can't function without the other.

As a protestant, I don't go because I am not a member of a congregation where I can go and confess my sins, but I won't say that other people are not important to the process of pointing out flaws of character and sins you're not struggling hard enough against.

I mean, what you're saying is that people are wrong for believing in this, but in reality nobody has argued that you shouldn't try to point out flaws in character even among protestants. That's your spin, and while I'm not necessarily a Catholic or an Orthodox, I don't think you'll find anyone who says you don't need people pointing out your flaws who are more learned in the faith than you.

[Luminesa]

The problem is that, rather than viewing Protestant theology as being on the same level as Catholic/Orthodox theology, it's being waived off.

Because Protestant theology is wrong. That is what I believe, and I am going to keep saying it because I also believe that this wrongness can result in some people who believe in Protestant theology going to hell - not really because of the beliefs themselves, but because of some of their consequences (for example: if you do not believe you need to go to a priest for sacramental Confession every once in a while, you may end up never examining your sins and never trying to figure out which are the most common sins that you commit and that you should struggle against).

Protestants are free to debate me on this, and I love debating them and I have done so many times, with absolutely no hard feelings of any kind. But to say "we shouldn't be debating this, because it's divisive and makes people uncomfortable" doesn't make any sense to me. As I said to Norv, the fact of the matter is that when we don't debate "divisive" things, we just stop posting altogether. And not just me, but you and Norv and Nordengrund and the other Protestants too.

It's not like we just argue in this thread all the time. Sometimes nothing new is posted for a couple of days. If our Protestant brothers and sisters are repelled by our debates, why don't they take advantage of those periods of calm to start non-divisive discussions? Well, they have tried, and the result is typically that nobody posts much in response (including the other Protestants) and the friendly discussion quickly fizzles out.

Face it: Agreement does not make for active internet threads.

I mean...Const...I could say that Orthodoxy is wrong in some aspects...Perhaps Protestantism does not stem historically from the same branch that Catholicism and Orthodoxy do, but people's Protestant beliefs are still...valid.

[Pasong Tirad]

Because Protestant theology is wrong. That is what I believe, and I am going to keep saying it because I also believe that this wrongness can result in some people who believe in Protestant theology going to hell - not really because of the beliefs themselves, but because of some of their consequences (for example: if you do not believe you need to go to a priest for sacramental Confession every once in a while, you may end up never examining your sins and never trying to figure out which are the most common sins that you commit and that you should struggle against).

Protestants are free to debate me on this, and I love debating them and I have done so many times, with absolutely no hard feelings of any kind. But to say "we shouldn't be debating this, because it's divisive and makes people uncomfortable" doesn't make any sense to me. As I said to Norv, the fact of the matter is that when we don't debate "divisive" things, we just stop posting altogether. And not just me, but you and Norv and Nordengrund and the other Protestants too.

It's not like we just argue in this thread all the time. Sometimes nothing new is posted for a couple of days. If our Protestant brothers and sisters are repelled by our debates, why don't they take advantage of those periods of calm to start non-divisive discussions? Well, they have tried, and the result is typically that nobody posts much in response (including the other Protestants) and the friendly discussion quickly fizzles out.

Face it: Agreement does not make for active internet threads.

I mean...Const...I could say that Orthodoxy is wrong in some aspects...Perhaps Protestantism does not stem historically from the same branch that Catholicism and Orthodoxy do, but people's Protestant beliefs are still...valid.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Because Protestant theology is wrong. That is what I believe, and I am going to keep saying it because I also believe that this wrongness can result in some people who believe in Protestant theology going to hell - not really because of the beliefs themselves, but because of some of their consequences (for example: if you do not believe you need to go to a priest for sacramental Confession every once in a while, you may end up never examining your sins and never trying to figure out which are the most common sins that you commit and that you should struggle against).

Protestants are free to debate me on this, and I love debating them and I have done so many times, with absolutely no hard feelings of any kind. But to say "we shouldn't be debating this, because it's divisive and makes people uncomfortable" doesn't make any sense to me. As I said to Norv, the fact of the matter is that when we don't debate "divisive" things, we just stop posting altogether. And not just me, but you and Norv and Nordengrund and the other Protestants too.

It's not like we just argue in this thread all the time. Sometimes nothing new is posted for a couple of days. If our Protestant brothers and sisters are repelled by our debates, why don't they take advantage of those periods of calm to start non-divisive discussions? Well, they have tried, and the result is typically that nobody posts much in response (including the other Protestants) and the friendly discussion quickly fizzles out.

Face it: Agreement does not make for active internet threads.

I mean...Const...I could say that Orthodoxy is wrong in some aspects...Perhaps Protestantism does not stem historically from the same branch that Catholicism and Orthodoxy do, but people's Protestant beliefs are still...valid.

Then why aren't you one? If Protestantism is right, then we should be Protestant; the fact that we aren't proves that we think it is wrong.

[Pasong Tirad]

I mean...Const...I could say that Orthodoxy is wrong in some aspects...Perhaps Protestantism does not stem historically from the same branch that Catholicism and Orthodoxy do, but people's Protestant beliefs are still...valid.

Then why aren't you one? If Protestantism is right, then we should be Protestant; the fact that we aren't proves that we think it is wrong.

The fact that we aren't Protestant proves more about what our parents believed in than prove its falsehood. Pretty sure I wouldn't be Catholic if my parents weren't or if I were born in, say, Zamboanga, which has a large population of Filipinos who believe in Islam.

Lumi believes that there's a validity in Protestant belief, like how Catholics belief there is some truth to Islamic, Hindu and Buddhist beliefs. It's different from saying they're the "correct" belief.

[Constantinopolis]

Being called heretical does carry negative connotations. Now, sure, the definition is the one you provided, but I don't think being called heretical is particularly done as a form of definition sometimes.

Actually, the reason why I keep using the terms "heresy" and "heretical" is precisely because I'm trying to fight against their extreme and incorrect negative connotations. I'm trying to reclaim them.

"You are a heretic" is not an insult, and it does NOT mean "you are going to hell". What it actually means is "you hold false beliefs which are serious enough that they may endanger your salvation". Heresy is, basically, "major wrongness" on theological matters, as opposed to "minor wrongness" that does not endanger one's salvation. That is the technical definition and I'm sticking to it, precisely because, like I said, I am trying to reclaim the words with their original meanings.

Calling Protestant belief heretical isn't being used as an argument, it's being used as a trump card to put down their belief because, really, there's no way to argue around somebody saying "You're a heretic"

Sure there is. The argument would be, "No, my beliefs are not false, they are correct. Here is why they are correct." Actual people accused of heresy in real life have actually argued for decades trying to prove that their beliefs were correct. Literally every single major Christian theological dispute of the ancient world involved accusations of heresy, and no one ever just gave up talking to the other side simply because they were getting called heretical.

Of course, people may have no desire to bother with such debates on an internet forum, and that's perfectly understandable. I'm not saying we have to talk about such things all the time. Or any of the time. But these tend to be the topics that actually get people posting. That's why we keep coming back to them.

Wait, so the problem is with me because there's only so many times in a day that I want to be told that I am probably going to burn in Hell for all eternity?

Norv, please forgive me if I have ever given you the impression that I think you are going to hell. I mean it. I'm sorry. You know that is not what I believe, right?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I mean...Const...I could say that Orthodoxy is wrong in some aspects...Perhaps Protestantism does not stem historically from the same branch that Catholicism and Orthodoxy do, but people's Protestant beliefs are still...valid.

Then why aren't you one? If Protestantism is right, then we should be Protestant; the fact that we aren't proves that we think it is wrong.

I'm a protestant who goes to Catholic and Orthodox churches, too.

The reason for me to declare myself a non-denominational Christian has nothing to do with thinking protestantism is wrong, or that Catholicism or Orthodoxy is wrong, but because I like to learn about everyone, and take knowledge and advice I can apply to my life from all denominations I can possibly get answers from.

I mean, in the end neither the Catholics, or the Protestants, or the Orthodox are going to tell me to do evil things like be a cheat, a crook, a robber, or a mass murderer, so it doesn't hurt to learn from others and admit that you might be wrong in my opinion. Might not be the way you look at it, but again I don't identify as an Orthodox, or a Catholic, so I am perfectly capable of thinking on my own what the course of my life in the faith is going to be.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Being called heretical does carry negative connotations. Now, sure, the definition is the one you provided, but I don't think being called heretical is particularly done as a form of definition sometimes.

Actually, the reason why I keep using the terms "heresy" and "heretical" is precisely because I'm trying to fight against their extreme and incorrect negative connotations. I'm trying to reclaim them.

"You are a heretic" is not an insult, and it does NOT mean "you are going to hell". What it actually means is "you hold false beliefs which are serious enough that they may endanger your salvation". Heresy is, basically, "major wrongness" on theological matters, as opposed to "minor wrongness" that does not endanger one's salvation. That is the technical definition and I'm sticking to it, precisely because, like I said, I am trying to reclaim the words with their original meanings.

"You are a heretic" can be an insult.

It's all a matter in how you say it. When you tell someone you're a heretic, I trust you do it with tact, Const. So I don't mean you, which is why I said "sometimes". But there are people who do use it as an insult.

[Constantinopolis]

(for example: if you do not believe you need to go to a priest for sacramental Confession every once in a while, you may end up never examining your sins and never trying to figure out which are the most common sins that you commit and that you should struggle against)

I personally just don't see the point on having only one person telling you what your flaws are and what you should struggle against.

While I agree with you that a priest should also tell you which sins you're failing at and you should struggle against, the path of a Christian is a personal one. The priest is not carrying your cross, and when the time of judgement comes he won't be judged for your sins, you're going to. So you should do some introspection and look at what you are failing in an honest way, as well as going to confession. One can't function without the other.

Oh yes, absolutely! In fact that's precisely the point of Confession!

Christians who have never been to Confession may not realize this, but often, the main thing isn't what the priest says. Some priests don't say much at all. The most important thing is that the practice of Confession forces you to take some time to figure out what you are going to say to the priest.

"What am I going to confess? What sins have I committed recently? I need to think about this... And there's no point holding things back because I am ashamed of them. There's no way to hide things from God. I need to be brutally honest with myself and figure out what I did wrong." - that is the main benefit of Confession.

[Pasong Tirad]

I personally just don't see the point on having only one person telling you what your flaws are and what you should struggle against.

While I agree with you that a priest should also tell you which sins you're failing at and you should struggle against, the path of a Christian is a personal one. The priest is not carrying your cross, and when the time of judgement comes he won't be judged for your sins, you're going to. So you should do some introspection and look at what you are failing in an honest way, as well as going to confession. One can't function without the other.

Christians who have never been to Confession may not realize this, but often, the main thing isn't what the priest says. Some priests don't say much at all. The most important thing is that the practice of Confession forces you to take some time to figure out what you are going to say to the priest.

I hate going to confession to a priest that doesn't say anything, though. They're like therapists without a time limit that you don't have to pay.

[Luminesa]

I mean...Const...I could say that Orthodoxy is wrong in some aspects...Perhaps Protestantism does not stem historically from the same branch that Catholicism and Orthodoxy do, but people's Protestant beliefs are still...valid.

Then why aren't you one? If Protestantism is right, then we should be Protestant; the fact that we aren't proves that we think it is wrong.

I'm not saying I agree with its beliefs, but that does not make Protestants automatically invalid and closed-off from constructive conversation about Christ and His Church. There are things that can be discussed fairly with our Protestant brothers and sisters, and while we Catholics have some MASSIVE disagreements with them, their views are not invalidated by the disagreements.

I don't like the Falcons, for example, they're not invalidated as a team because I happen to be a rabid Saints fan. We have things in common, and while we beat the pulp out of each other for three hours two Sundays a year, we can still come together to do things like this:



Because we are people playing a game, and while we have our rivalries and our differences, that's what matters in the end. We as Christians, then, on a much higher level, should be seeking common ground, love, and trust under the grace of Jesus Christ. We should seek to reach each other, and even if the gap cannot be filled by human hands at this time, we have faith that Christ's grace works to bring all people together, through the hands of those who cooperate with His grace and seek to love as He does.

I can learn new things about my Faith from a Protestant (and have in the past before, many times). You could learn new things about your faith from a Catholic. Things like this. So we should be open to conversations with our Protestant brothers and sisters, not pushing them away because of disagreements on Church doctrine.

[Constantinopolis]

Christians who have never been to Confession may not realize this, but often, the main thing isn't what the priest says. Some priests don't say much at all. The most important thing is that the practice of Confession forces you to take some time to figure out what you are going to say to the priest.

I hate going to confession to a priest that doesn't say anything, though. They're like therapists without a time limit that you don't have to pay.

I know what you mean. I feel that my current father confessor is, in some ways, too nice. He is very good at listening, and gives advice, but never criticizes me for falling into the same sin again and again. I feel like I am not spiritually mature enough for this approach. I wish he would be stricter with me. But that is not his way.

[Constantinopolis]

Because we are people playing a game, and while we have our rivalries and our differences, that's what matters in the end.

But, Lumi, salvation is not a game. The stakes are much higher.

I can learn new things about my Faith from a Protestant (and have in the past before, many times). You could learn new things about your faith from a Catholic. Things like this. So we should be open to conversations with our Protestant brothers and sisters, not pushing them away because of disagreements on Church doctrine.

Agreed. But not if being open to conversation means sweeping the disagreements under the rug and pretending they don't exist. Unfortunately, that is often what happens in practice.

[Pasong Tirad]

I hate going to confession to a priest that doesn't say anything, though. They're like therapists without a time limit that you don't have to pay.

I know what you mean. I feel that my current father confessor is, in some ways, too nice. He is very good at listening, and gives advice, but never criticizes me for falling into the same sin again and again. I feel like I am not spiritually mature enough for this approach. I wish he would be stricter with me. But that is not his way.

I'm lucky with my priest, to be honest (well, he's not my priest but ja know wha mean?). He's a Jesuit and we argue a lot (outside of confession, of course), not to mention the fact that he's very involved in social organizations and often invites me to join him.

[Luminesa]

Because we are people playing a game, and while we have our rivalries and our differences, that's what matters in the end.

But, Lumi, salvation is not a game. The stakes are much higher.

I can learn new things about my Faith from a Protestant (and have in the past before, many times). You could learn new things about your faith from a Catholic. Things like this. So we should be open to conversations with our Protestant brothers and sisters, not pushing them away because of disagreements on Church doctrine.

Agreed. But not if being open to conversation means sweeping the disagreements under the rug and pretending they don't exist. Unfortunately, that is often what happens in practice.

I am aware. I just grabbed the first comparison off the top of my head...which was NFL football.

I mean, I am aware of what I believe, and the gaps between what I believe and what Norv might believe. It doesn't make him any less of a Christian brother to me. I dunno how other people feel, but that's me.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I hate going to confession to a priest that doesn't say anything, though. They're like therapists without a time limit that you don't have to pay.

I know what you mean. I feel that my current father confessor is, in some ways, too nice. He is very good at listening, and gives advice, but never criticizes me for falling into the same sin again and again. I feel like I am not spiritually mature enough for this approach. I wish he would be stricter with me. But that is not his way.

I feel he's doing exactly what he thinks Jesus wants us to do, and I cannot blame him. If I was a father confessor, I'd think the same way. And when people come to me with their problems, I act the same way, as well.

You're coming with a contrite heart to confess or tell me your problems. I, as a humble servant of God or as a friend who you're confiding these things to, cannot tell you that you're wrong, but I'd be willing to give advice and listen with an open heart and with understanding. It's a non-judgemental approach that puts my opinions and my criticisms of your approaches aside and I focus on you, as an individual, and how I can help you see that you might be wrong on your own by making you consider optional solutions to your worries.

[Constantinopolis]

I know what you mean. I feel that my current father confessor is, in some ways, too nice. He is very good at listening, and gives advice, but never criticizes me for falling into the same sin again and again. I feel like I am not spiritually mature enough for this approach. I wish he would be stricter with me. But that is not his way.

I'm lucky with my priest, to be honest (well, he's not my priest but ja know wha mean?). He's a Jesuit and we argue a lot (outside of confession, of course), not to mention the fact that he's very involved in social organizations and often invites me to join him.

Oh, I love my father confessor and I am very lucky to have him and he has helped me enormously. He truly is a blessing.

But I really don't deserve his niceness, which is why I wish he would be stricter.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because we are people playing a game, and while we have our rivalries and our differences, that's what matters in the end.

But, Lumi, salvation is not a game. The stakes are much higher.

I can learn new things about my Faith from a Protestant (and have in the past before, many times). You could learn new things about your faith from a Catholic. Things like this. So we should be open to conversations with our Protestant brothers and sisters, not pushing them away because of disagreements on Church doctrine.

Agreed. But not if being open to conversation means sweeping the disagreements under the rug and pretending they don't exist. Unfortunately, that is often what happens in practice.

I know you said once that's what non-denominational Christians do. Although I am a non-denominational Christian, I understand I might be wrong and that I need to expose myself to disagreements to think about my own beliefs and testing them. I just don't feel that a commitment to one, and only one, view of the faith helps me, though, and I prefer to be exposed to multiple perspectives and be open to adapt aspects of them that I think are the right ones.

You might never know this if I never tell you, but I've taken some of your approaches towards being a Christian since we've met. I know you're Orthodox, and I am simply a non-denominational, but if you are right, and I am wrong, I am willing to admit that I am wrong and rectify my beliefs. I've also learned from Luminesa many things that I am grateful for and I have also recified myself from my prior ways of thinking, and from my own Protestant/Catholic upbringing.

So our disagreements and more agreeable discussions have helped me grow as a Christian, even if I don't feel that being an Orthodox Christian is for me.

[Pasong Tirad]

How about some great (the best) Christian hip-hop to lighten the mood?