The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Minachia]

You can't just say "X Catholic did Y horrible thing" and then refuse to prove it.

Good thing I didn't say that then.

"Isn't this the mindset Mother Teresa used to justified letting her patients suffer?"
Teresa is X Catholic, letting her patients suffer is Y horrible thing, you are saying that X did Y, and now are refusing to back it up.

[Minachia]

You can't just say "X Catholic did Y horrible thing" and then refuse to prove it.

Not sure why you're bringing up her Catholicism either. It's totally irrelevant.

Not sure why you're bringing up Mother Teresa either. She's totally irrelevant.

[Tarsonis]

And I have no obligation to. Because what you “knew” was presented “without any evidence”

Except I didn't state it as if it was a fact;

Bullshit

whereas you did. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.

No, I denied your claim.

The fact you continue to avoid providing said proof by making up excuses is either evidence of it's non-existence, or evidence of your lack of possession of it.

No, it’s only evidence that I refuse to meaningfully engage with a bad faith poster

[Tarsonis]

Not sure why you're bringing up her Catholicism either. It's totally irrelevant.

Not sure why you're bringing up Mother Teresa either. She's totally irrelevant.

To try and be snarky

[Tarsonis]

No.

I asked a question based on what I presumed was the truth. You claimed that what I 'knew' was in fact wrong, to which I asked you to provide evidence. You have yet to do so.

You can't just make the wild assertion that a Catholic saint allowed their patients to suffer without citing something to back up what you assume to be truth.
I should know. I did that here before.
Well, not exactly that, but you get the point.

^{(wow, me, defending the Catholics!?! how strange and ironic.)}

Just wait, in a year you’ll be singing novenas and going through RCIA. I know, it happened to me

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Good thing I didn't say that then.

"Isn't this the mindset Mother Teresa used to justified letting her patients suffer?"
Teresa is X Catholic, letting her patients suffer is Y horrible thing, you are saying that X did Y, and now are refusing to back it up.

Oh, okay. I see what happened now.

I phrased it rather accusative, didn't I? My mistake. Reading again it does sound that way. That was not my intention, honest.

Not sure why you're bringing up Mother Teresa either. She's totally irrelevant.

To try and be snarky

It wasn't, honest. I have a tendency to post blindly without thinking about what I'm typing sometimes.

I accept that I was in the wrong here.

[Minachia]

You can't just make the wild assertion that a Catholic saint allowed their patients to suffer without citing something to back up what you assume to be truth.
I should know. I did that here before.
Well, not exactly that, but you get the point.

^{(wow, me, defending the Catholics!?! how strange and ironic.)}

Just wait, in a year you’ll be singing novenas and going through RCIA. I know, it happened to me

Yeah, I doubt that.
Augsburg Confession best Confession.

[Tarsonis]

"Isn't this the mindset Mother Teresa used to justified letting her patients suffer?"
Teresa is X Catholic, letting her patients suffer is Y horrible thing, you are saying that X did Y, and now are refusing to back it up.

Oh, okay. I see what happened now.

I phrased it rather accusative, didn't I? My mistake. Reading again it does sound that way. That was not my intention, honest.

To try and be snarky

It wasn't, honest. I have a tendency to post blindly without thinking about what I'm typing sometimes.

I accept that I was in the wrong here.

Very well. Let’s try this again then.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Oh, okay. I see what happened now.

I phrased it rather accusative, didn't I? My mistake. Reading again it does sound that way. That was not my intention, honest.



It wasn't, honest. I have a tendency to post blindly without thinking about what I'm typing sometimes.

I accept that I was in the wrong here.

Very well. Let’s try this again then.

Okay, let's try again:

You claimed that those who suffer most are closest to God. I heard that this was the alleged belief of Mother Teresa, who allegedly allowed her patients to suffer as a result.

Is this true?

[Tarsonis]

Just wait, in a year you’ll be singing novenas and going through RCIA. I know, it happened to me

Yeah, I doubt that.
Augsburg Confession best Confession.

I dunno, articles 18 and 19 are contradictory

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Yeah, I doubt that.
Augsburg Confession best Confession.

I dunno, articles 18 and 19 are contradictory

He's got a point here, actually.

[Minachia]

Yeah, I doubt that.
Augsburg Confession best Confession.

I dunno, articles 18 and 19 are contradictory

But... the Roman Confutation accepted both of those articles, "although they add some testimonies not at all adapted to this case," as Article 18 of the Apology says.

[United Muscovite Nations]

You can't just make the wild assertion that a Catholic saint allowed their patients to suffer without citing something to back up what you assume to be truth.
I should know. I did that here before.
Well, not exactly that, but you get the point.

^{(wow, me, defending the Catholics!?! how strange and ironic.)}

I didn't make an assertion, I asked a question based what I knew of the subject. You can't just say "you're wrong" and then refuse to prove it.

That's like saying the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" doesn't assert that the person being asked has beaten their wife in the past.

[Minachia]

This is unrelated, but when Thread XI rolls around, can someone remember to have separate options for Lutherans and Reformed in the denomination poll? Thanks.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

I didn't make an assertion, I asked a question based what I knew of the subject. You can't just say "you're wrong" and then refuse to prove it.

That's like saying the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" doesn't assert that the person being asked has beaten their wife in the past.

It's already been established that I phrased my question poorly, thank you.

[Tarsonis]

Very well. Let’s try this again then.

Okay, let's try again:

You claimed that those who suffer most are closest to God. I heard that this was the alleged belief of Mother Teresa, who allegedly allowed her patients to suffer as a result.

Is this true?

Not quite. This criticism comes mainly from anti-Catholic academics out of Montreal, who slandered Saint Teresa mainly because of her views on contraception, abortion and divorce, which were no to all three. That she glorified the suffering of the dying and allowed them to suffer needlessly, is an extreme exaggeration based on the fact that her “clinic” didn’t have strong painkillers. And she once said that seeing people embrace their fate, was emblematic of Christ.

The problem is that these criticisms adopt a perspective of that she as running modern hospice care, in which strict medical standards are kept and symptom treated, and if this were the case then St Teresa’s operation would be horrific. This was not what St. Teresa was involved in. St. Teresa’s order facilitated houses of the dying. These were places that the discarded people of disparate Calcutta could die in relative dignity, rather than on the streets. Her houses were places of mercy and compassion not healing.

If you want further reading on the subject I’d suggest Bill Donohue’s book on her, or some other writings from local sources https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/m ... erent-job/
https://newint.org/blog/2016/09/14/crit ... her-teresa
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/t ... 058894.ece


https

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Okay, let's try again:

You claimed that those who suffer most are closest to God. I heard that this was the alleged belief of Mother Teresa, who allegedly allowed her patients to suffer as a result.

Is this true?

Not quite. This criticism comes mainly from anti-Catholic academics out of Montreal, who slandered Saint Teresa mainly because of her views on contraception, abortion and divorce, which were no to all three. That she glorified the suffering of the dying and allowed them to suffer needlessly, is an extreme exaggeration based on the fact that her “clinic” didn’t have strong painkillers. And she once said that seeing people embrace their fate, was emblematic of Christ.

The problem is that these criticisms adopt a perspective of that she as running modern hospice care, in which strict medical standards are kept and symptom treated, and if this were the case then St Teresa’s operation would be horrific. This was not what St. Teresa was involved in. St. Teresa’s order facilitated houses of the dying. These were places that the discarded people of disparate Calcutta could die in relative dignity, rather than on the streets. Her houses were places of mercy and compassion not healing.

If you want further reading on the subject I’d suggest Bill Donohue’s book on her, or some other writings from local sources https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/m ... erent-job/
https://newint.org/blog/2016/09/14/crit ... her-teresa
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/t ... 058894.ece


https

Alright then, thank you. Apologies for the misunderstanding before.

[Tarsonis]

Not quite. This criticism comes mainly from anti-Catholic academics out of Montreal, who slandered Saint Teresa mainly because of her views on contraception, abortion and divorce, which were no to all three. That she glorified the suffering of the dying and allowed them to suffer needlessly, is an extreme exaggeration based on the fact that her “clinic” didn’t have strong painkillers. And she once said that seeing people embrace their fate, was emblematic of Christ.

The problem is that these criticisms adopt a perspective of that she as running modern hospice care, in which strict medical standards are kept and symptom treated, and if this were the case then St Teresa’s operation would be horrific. This was not what St. Teresa was involved in. St. Teresa’s order facilitated houses of the dying. These were places that the discarded people of disparate Calcutta could die in relative dignity, rather than on the streets. Her houses were places of mercy and compassion not healing.

If you want further reading on the subject I’d suggest Bill Donohue’s book on her, or some other writings from local sources https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/m ... erent-job/
https://newint.org/blog/2016/09/14/crit ... her-teresa
https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/t ... 058894.ece


https

Alright then, thank you. Apologies for the misunderstanding before.

And I’m sorry I wasn’t charitable in my response . I have a bad habit of flying off the handle in situations like that

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Alright then, thank you. Apologies for the misunderstanding before.

And I’m sorry I wasn’t charitable in my response . I have a bad habit of flying off the handle in situations like that

As do I, tbh.

[Disciples of YHWH]

I finally got through Exodus and went through the boring details of the construction of the Tabernacle. It seems to be overly complicated and complex to build or construct, but I guess people in that story couldn't question the Lord. I'd want to say bollocks to that.

It just seems so outrageously expensive in terms of time and materials to try to construct a real Tabernacle or life size replica. (Less so today than back then, but would still be quite expensive to source the talent and materials needed)

Pure gold, silver, brass, fine/dyed linens/furs of various types, and one specific wood all crafted in specific ways?

It was a shadow of the Lord's sanctuary in heaven, and it was to be his dwelling place on earth(which was very important). The Important part is that it was the Lord's will that it be constructed after the pattern that was in heaven and be the type on earth for sacrifice for the anti-type to be fulfilled by Christ in heaven.

[Tarsonis]

I finally got through Exodus and went through the boring details of the construction of the Tabernacle. It seems to be overly complicated and complex to build or construct, but I guess people in that story couldn't question the Lord. I'd want to say bollocks to that.

It just seems so outrageously expensive in terms of time and materials to try to construct a real Tabernacle or life size replica. (Less so today than back then, but would still be quite expensive to source the talent and materials needed)

Pure gold, silver, brass, fine/dyed linens/furs of various types, and one specific wood all crafted in specific ways?

It was a shadow of the Lord's sanctuary in heaven, and it was to be his dwelling place on earth(which was very important). The Important part is that it was the Lord's will that it be constructed after the pattern that was in heaven and be the type on earth for sacrifice for the anti-type to be fulfilled by Christ in heaven.

....what?

[Tarsonis]

I dunno, articles 18 and 19 are contradictory

But... the Roman Confutation accepted both of those articles, "although they add some testimonies not at all adapted to this case," as Article 18 of the Apology says.

And the Apology is wrong. The Confutation accepted that the Holy Spirit aids free will, but rejects the severity to with which the lutherans profess. Lutheran severity runs afoul of double predestination. If no man cannot come to God of his own free will, but requires intercession of the Holy Spirit in order to believe in God, then that means God chooses who will be saved and who will not be by virtue of granting or not granting the intercession of the Holy Spirit. In this paradigm, God then becomes the architect of mans sin, not by forcing them to sin, but by withholding the antidote to their poison. Therefore those who live in iniquity and reject the name of Christ, are innocent in their rebellion for their creator actively withheld the necessary requirement for them to be obedient. The fault of their iniquity would then rest on God, not the creature.

This is why it's contradictory with Article 19, because it in fact does make God into the architect of Sin.

Where as the orthodox Christian teaching is that humans must come to God in their own free will. The Holy Spirit aids the faith, but proceeds universally. Ultimately it is up to the individual to turn to God, not an overriding of the free will by God.

[Disciples of YHWH]

....what?

Correction *The important part is that it was the Lord's will that it be constructed after the pattern that was in heaven and would serve as the type on earth for the place of Sacrifice for sin. For which Christ would come(and already has) to be the Anti-typical fulfillment of sacrifice for sin within the Heavenly Sanctuary.

That is why it had to be constructed in a very specific pattern/manner.

[Minachia]

But... the Roman Confutation accepted both of those articles, "although they add some testimonies not at all adapted to this case," as Article 18 of the Apology says.

And the Apology is wrong. The Confutation accepted that the Holy Spirit aids free will, but rejects the severity to with which the lutherans profess. Lutheran severity runs afoul of double predestination. If no man cannot come to God of his own free will, but requires intercession of the Holy Spirit in order to believe in God, then that means God chooses who will be saved and who will not be by virtue of granting or not granting the intercession of the Holy Spirit. In this paradigm, God then becomes the architect of mans sin, not by forcing them to sin, but by withholding the antidote to their poison. Therefore those who live in iniquity and reject the name of Christ, are innocent in their rebellion for their creator actively withheld the necessary requirement for them to be obedient. The fault of their iniquity would then rest on God, not the creature.

This is why it's contradictory with Article 19, because it in fact does make God into the architect of Sin.

Where as the orthodox Christian teaching is that humans must come to God in their own free will. The Holy Spirit aids the faith, but proceeds universally. Ultimately it is up to the individual to turn to God, not an overriding of the free will by God.

The Apology says that we do have free will to not sin outwardly, however, without the Holy Spirit we can never truly trust and believe in God, accept His gifts, and reject our sinful desires (1 Cor. 2:14). This is because our sinful minds are naturally against God (Rom. 8:7). And, of course, Article 19 states that the cause of sin is the wicked, i.e. the devil and the ungodly. Therefore, it is not God's fault that not everyone will choose Him through the Holy Spirit. However, since the Holy Spirit is imparted by faith, and faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17), and it is our duty as Christians to preach the word of Christ, it is, at least partially, our fault.
Might I add, as well, that Lutherans do not believe in predestination to Hell, in compliance with 1 Timothy 2.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Hey guys I see this devolving rapidly into "my religion is objectively right so f u," I might suggest dropping it regarding which version of the abrahamic God is better.

Cussing is a sin so I would never cuss at someone.

Cussing is a sin in Christianity? Where in the Bible is that said?