You're no Christian

[viole]

Good points, all. Paul was a human. While I agree with him I know he made a mistake or two. I have discussed this with two women who were pastors. I clearly demonstrated from the Bible that they should not be pastors but agreed that women have a big role in the church. I think it is fine for women Evangelists but not pastors. I hope I didn't say otherwise earlier. if I did it was by mistake- fingers outran brain.

Agreed. A pastor woman sounds funny.

Can we settle for pastress instead?

Bc people can be saved if they aren't Christian, even tho the Bible says not to go there bc of possible/probable hardships later on in marriage. The Bible is specific on certain issues, homosexuality is one of them. But don't forget that God can save anyone no matter what they've done or where they've been. Sin does not disqualify anyone from being saved- no matter the sin, else no one would ever be saved.

Well, I was a born again Christian who married an atheist. That means I did not give Paul much credit. And I was right. No hardship whatsoever. We spent great years together despite our different metaphysical position. We decided to let the kids decide for themselves. Alas, they turned atheists too, as it is often the case when you think for yourself. Bummer. I did not see it coming then.

But what you say is good news. Especially for the ones who never heard of Jesus nor the Bible.

Ciao

- viole

 

[metis]

I'm sorry, but that is absurd. I think everyone will admit that no one ate Jesus' body- either before or after His death. It's called symbolic for a reason.

Have you ever read anything from Plato? Do you know how he used the word "essence"? Are you aware of the heavy Hellenization that was found in eretz Israel at the time of Jesus? Now put these altogether.

Yes, it's symbolic, but in a way that Catholics believe also involves the real essence of Jesus' body and blood, as is found in John's gospel. Now you believe in John''s gospel doncha?

There is no sign their powers were handed down thru the millennia since then. Some think so but they are mistaken.

And exactly how do you know they're "mistaken"? I would say that's rather presumptuous on your part. The early church (2nd century plus) thought these were handed down, but you claim that you know more than they?

My approach is that if there's a doubt about a particular interpretation, then look at how people reacted to it to try and get clarification. Confession was done in the very early church (again, 2nd century plus), and at first it was a public confession with a period of penance afterword (the person could stay for the first part of the service but then had to leave at the dictates of the bishop). Later it was moved to private confession-- I believe sometime in the 3rd century.

Then why not simply go straight to God?

One can, but that does not mend the healing that may be needed within the community itself. Most people are not hermits, so damage can be done to the community. If I really screw up, do you honestly think that in every case this only involves God and I?

Church ("ecclesia") means "community", and aren't you aware that sin just doesn't affect the individual but can also affect the community as a whole? God can forgive our person sins, but that doesn't make up for the hurt we may have caused others.
IOW, it's not just you and God that's involved.

Right. Read it again, please. It doesn't say we can't, it says we must have the proof/truth (to keep it short) before we judge others.

We can evaluate others, but it is unethical to judge others.

It seems that you are not willing to accept Jesus for what he says on this, but that's your choice. Lots of people make excuses to ignore what's written or to just pooh-pooh the teachings away.

And Jesus did not teach in a vacuum, and he well knew that it was not just the individual that was involved with sin, much like is found in Torah. As a Jew, I have an obligation to try and correct any damage that I may have done to someone else, so just seeking God's forgiveness by itself often is not enough. The steps that the CC took is sort of an in-between process, but it can be justified through what Jesus told the apostles about the binding and loosening of sins.

 

[metis]

And, it only takes one disgruntled member to wreak havoc on an otherwise good church.

Now. put what you said here into the context of what I just wrote above. Sin affects the community and not just the individual.

 

[Sonny]

What makes you think I haven't?



I don't think you have the first clue about what sort of investigations I've done.

You're right. It was a carpet statement.

 

[metis]

Humans cannot 'forgive' sins, only God can do that.

Absolutely false, and all you are doing is inventing your own "theology".

I can forgive sins against me. So can you forgive sins against you. So can a priest or minister or rabbi in the context of the community that (s)he represents. It's unfortunate that you only see the issue of sin as being between the individual person and God when clearly more is at stake.

 

[Sonny]

For the record, Mormonism does teach, not only that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but that He is himself God. They also preach that there is both a Heaven and a Hell and that there are most definitely sins. They teach that Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of all who will accept Him and who repent of their sins and follow Him.

yes, but...Mormonism teaches that each of them, Father, Son and Holy Spirit/Ghost are 3 separate, individual Gods.
Yes, they teach heaven and hell. But they have 3 major heavens, called kingdoms (with possibly hundreds more within these main 3)- Celestial, Terrestrial and (and a word that is unknown to world history) Telestial.* But to the LDS hell is not eternal or everlasting (both words are self-explanatory).
Actually, one must accept/embrace Mormonism or they are lost, damned. To the LDS the church is the way. What its leaders say are God's word to man...but one must obey the church leaders every edict.

*The LDS church has other words no one has ever heard of/known, seen before- Curlom and Cumon (spelling may be off). These were/are animals. And, there are coins with names no one has ever heard of or used.

 

[Sonny]

Absolutely false, and all you are doing is inventing your own "theology".

I can forgive sins against me. So can you forgive sins against you. So can a priest or minister or rabbi in the context of the community that (s)he represents. It's unfortunate that you only see the issue of sin as being between the individual person and God when clearly more is at stake.

Ok. Provide some proof from the Bible. See, this is how we verify what is and isn't a Christian church, by their teachings. If it's in the Bible, Voila, we're good. if not, well.....
Only God can forgive sins, the Bible says. Are you God?

 

[Sonny]

No, I mean blasphemous.

There are Christians who believe that the Trinity is a blasphemy.

Christians? Who?

 

[Sonny]

I'm very concerned with the impact of religion on society, which makes me interested in religion.

I'm only interested in whether a particular teaching is in a religion's scriptures:

- to give me insight into the mindset of religious people.
- occasionally, to help me understand the issues behind some historical event.
- to help me point out hypocrisy, if I think pointing it out might convince a believer to stop harming someone else in the name of their religion.

I don't think that the Bible is valid support for a position, so I usually don't care about the distinction between "this guy just made up what he's saying" and "this guy got his position from the Bible."

Good. Those are things we can discuss and, hopefully, resolve.
The Bible does pertain to all of life bc there are people alive. But, beyond that the Bible is for those seeking to know, serve and love God. And, the only way to know 'the right from the wrong', if you will, is by comparing/referencing the Bible's teachings and/or, if that is not enough or sufficient, following the evidence/facts. Even if the Bible is a non-issue the facts will be. For ex. If my church prophesies that our god will destroy America and her wicked and evil Govt, is that a good church? One that wants to see America gone? [I firmly believe that 'when' America goes (under liberal rule or bc of them) the world will revert to another Dark Ages]. But if a church has that much hatred for other people and its own gov't then WOW. If it issues an edict to kill men, women, little children and complete towns, then what? Is it really a Christian church? And, if it never apologizes for or admits it was wrong on any of that stuff, it is not a Christian church. The Catholic church came out years back and apologized for the Inquisition. That was awesome! It made me change my thinking about them. We all make mistakes. But when one is willing to own up to it, well, that is incredible and deserves some credit.

 

[Sonny]

Except for all the changes... like the Comma Johanneum and the long ending of Mark.

Actually, no. Christians readily admit these types of mistakes. We don't try to hide them. We are truthful. There are a couple/few of them. But they do not affect the message of the Cross or the meaning of the Bible's doctrines and teachings. They are, in fact, inline with them. That is what we believe-whether added or original, it is true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Christians? Who?

Some Pentecostals, for instance.

Mormons have different views on the Trinity/Godhead than most other denominations, though I'm not sure if they call Trinitarianism "blasphemy" or not. @Katzpur ?

 

[Sonny]

Your reasoning skills need some work..
What you just said makes no sense.

I reread it to see. I can't improve on it. I'm sorry you didn't understand it. I did my best.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, no. Christians readily admit these types of mistakes. We don't try to hide them. We are truthful. There are a couple/few of them.

I think this varies. Some Christians get very defensive at the suggestion that these parts were added.

But they do not affect the message of the Cross or the meaning of the Bible's doctrines and teachings. They are, in fact, inline with them. That is what we believe-whether added or original, it is true.

They have huge effects on the message of the Bible:

- the long ending of Mark changes the story from one that ends with everyone being confused and afraid at the empty tomb to one that ends with a resurrected Jesus appearing to people (and all that snake-handling stuff that some denominations take very seriously).

- the Comma Johanneum is the only passage in the Bible that clearly expresses the idea of the Trinity.

These two additions have huge ramifications for the message of the Bible.

 

[Sonny]

So the 2000yr old dispute over the proper interpretation is over nothing?

Yes, mostly. Churches have been created to do all sorts of things. The main reason is to draw people back to God (Christianity). But some have done that for selfish reasons, money, fame, power. It is a good thing there are tests to verify them. Most fail miserably. men cannot think as God does- His ways are beyond our abilities. But it isn't stopping people from starting them or preventing people from joining them. if they knew the truth, they wouldn't join most of these groups.

 

[allfoak]

if they knew the truth, they wouldn't join most of these groups.

It is a good thing you know the truth.

 

[Katzpur]

Some Pentecostals, for instance.

Mormons have different views on the Trinity/Godhead than most other denominations, though I'm not sure if they call Trinitarianism "blasphemy" or not. @Katzpur ?

We tend not to put labels of that sort of other denominations' doctrines, but we do not accept the Nicene Creed's explanation of the nature of God. The Book of Mormon is pretty clear in teaching that there is only one "God," as the following verses from it illustrate:

2 Nephi 31:21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end.

Mormon 7:7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

We believe that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in will, purpose, mind and heart, but that they are three distinct personages, whereas the creeds suggest they are all part of a single substance.

We disagree with the wording of the traditional Christian creeds and statements of faith, and do not believe them to be inspired. That said, we would never say that if someone does accept those creeds, etc., he is not a Christian.

 

[Sonny]

So, isn't the entire Bible the word of god?

Seems to me that if one is going to claim god is speaking through the Bible, there's the implication that everything that's said in the book is correct. I mean, didn't he direct or inspire men to write down his exact message? So what should we make of the errors? If what was written contained errors why wouldn't god have seen that they were corrected? Or did he simply walk away from the project and leave the writers on their own?


.

Yes, absolutely, the entire Bible is the very word of Almighty God. BUT (I really do hate 'buts' but they are useful-haha), not all of the Bible (mainly OT) is important or applies to Christians. There is a lot of God's words aimed directly at and for the Jewish people. or ex.- none of us (except Jews) celebrate the Jewish holy days/feasts, except for the Passover, which, to us, is Jesus, not animals. Things like that. However, there is one group that has lots of temples but they don't use them as a temple was designed, by God, to be used- splattering blood and guts all over the place. This group lets people get married and such in their temples. The Bible never uses a temple (there is only one temple for the Jews. They've had two but only one at a time) for anything but mankind's sin and the horrific price it costs, thus the blood everywhere in it.

Everything God said is correct. men make mistakes but never when speaking what God has told them or when God is directly speaking to them. God did inspire men to write His word. he allowed them to write it in their own style. That's why we can tell who wrote which books. If a mistake doesn't affect anything why change it? That is how God does it. IDK why He chose that way. I wish I did. Mistakes, even slight ones, should not be in the Bible, to my way of thinking. But I am not God. Plus, God does not interject Himself into life in that way. He didn't speak to Israel for 400 years. They had the Law and the Prophets to live by. It is the same today-until He returns the next 2 times.

 

[Sonny]

So, isn't the entire Bible the word of god?

Seems to me that if one is going to claim god is speaking through the Bible, there's the implication that everything that's said in the book is correct. I mean, didn't he direct or inspire men to write down his exact message? So what should we make of the errors? If what was written contained errors why wouldn't god have seen that they were corrected? Or did he simply walk away from the project and leave the writers on their own?


.

Yes, absolutely, the entire Bible is the very word of Almighty God. BUT (I really do hate 'buts' but they are useful-haha), not all of the Bible (mainly OT) is important or applies to Christians. There is a lot of God's words aimed directly at and for the Jewish people. or ex.- none of us (except Jews) celebrate the Jewish holy days/feasts, except for the Passover, which, to us, is Jesus, not animals. Things like that. However, there is one group that has lots of temples but they don't use them as a temple was designed, by God, to be used- splattering blood and guts all over the place. This group lets people get married and such in their temples. The Bible never uses a temple (there is only one temple for the Jews. They've had two but only one at a time) for anything but mankind's sin and the horrific price it costs, thus the blood everywhere in it.

Everything God said is correct. men make mistakes but never when speaking what God has told them or when God is directly speaking to them. God did inspire men to write His word. he allowed them to write it in their own style. That's why we can tell who wrote which books. If a mistake doesn't affect anything why change it? That is how God does it. IDK why He chose that way. I wish I did. Mistakes, even slight ones, should not be in the Bible, to my way of thinking. But I am not God. Plus, God does not interject Himself into life in that way. He didn't speak to Israel for 400 years. They had the Law and the Prophets to live by. It is the same today-until He returns the next 2 times.

 

[Sonny]

Mormons follow Christ. We adhere to His teachings. We look to Him for salvation. We revere and honor Him. Therefore, Mormons are Christians. Get over it.

That isn't enough (Get over it) for proof of anything. I have personal request letters from both the National Museum of Natural History (Smithsonian) and the National geographic Society. Both say that taking one man's word for what he said happened is both unwise and unscientific. if I wrote a book about God today and said I am His only prophet or that of this generation I'd be laughed off the earth. But if I had evidence that proved it I'd be followed by millions. I agree with both of these Institutions of great knowledge. Saying one is something, no matter how sincere, does not make them that. I am not the Queen of England. And if I keep saying it I will probably get locked in a rubber and round room and heavily medicated for a few months. Evidence is the key. Does a church's beliefs agree with the Bible's teachings? That is all anyone needs to know to make an informed decision.

 

[Skwim]

Everything God said is correct. men make mistakes but never when speaking what God has told them or when God is directly speaking to them.

Your evidence please.

God did inspire men to write His word. he allowed them to write it in their own style. That's why we can tell who wrote which books. If a mistake doesn't affect anything why change it?

If one contends that the Bible was written or inspired by god to say X, Y, and Z isn't it reasonable to think god had very good reason to use those exact words rather than any others? And why allow the writers to pen various statements that conflict with each other or cause doubt as to their meaning? Wouldn't a god be able to insure that his message and all its elements were crystal clear, and for all time, rather than let them fracture his church into so many competing denominations? When looked at objectively the Bible has been the source of a lot of disagreement, some of which has led to violence and bloodshed. And because of some of its outlandish claims and instructions/demands it has also led a lot of people to reject Christianity. If I was god I believe I could have written far better instructions for attaining salvation, as could have a lot of other people.


.