Biblical Christianity?

[metis]

According to the RCC Jesus Christ is not enough for salvation and justification, the sacraments are necessary among other things.

False as the Church does not teach that one has to take the sacraments in order to be saved. Children and those outside the Church may be saved, according to Church teachings, without taking one single Catholic sacrament.

our family never read the Bible, none of my Catholic friends did, my Catholic relatives to this day do not, so I think it is reasonable to say most Catholics don't read the scriptures.

That's you and them back then, but the Church of today strongly encourages Bible reading and studies.

Do you think former priests and nuns misportray Catholicism when they reveal differences they know and understand between the teachings and requirements of the Catholic Church and the message of salvation through Christ in the Bible?

When people leave the Church with an ax to grind, all too often their judgment can be clouded.

I read one of the books like those back in the mid-60's, and even as a young adult I believed I was likely being taken "for a ride" by the author. Later, after finding out how many times I was being lied to, I left that fundamentalist Protestant church in disgust. In my undergrad years I took two Catholic theology courses because I was dating a Catholic woman and was curious about what the Church actually teaches, however I didn't convert until a decade later.

Anyhow, I've done the homework on this for a great many years, including eventually teaching a comparative religions course, and all too much of what's posted about Catholicism is simply garbage and provably wrong.

 

[Brickjectivity]

...all too much of what's posted about Catholicism is simply garbage and provably wrong...

Yes, probably so.

False as the Church does not teach that one has to take the sacraments in order to be saved. Children and those outside the Church may be saved, according to Church teachings, without taking one single Catholic sacrament.

Interesting!

 

[metis]

Yes, probably so.

Interesting!

BTW, on a different note, when I've taken the Beliefnet Quiz, my closest match is with "Liberal Quaker".

 

[Riders]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, for every good work.

The 10 commandments written supposedly after the Egyptians ran out the Jews in the exodus of slaves that never happened. If they had been chased through the red sea as the bible says and the 10 commandments written by the hand of God, we would have those 10 commandments in a museum somewhere where we could all look at it.

 

[pearl]

I did not read the scriptures while a Catholic so I never knew what they really said on the subject. I know for a fact that I was not a biblical Christian while a Catholic. I can't speak for all.

That's on you as don't you have a Bible? Right now I'm in a 20 week study of Matthew's gospel at my local Catholic Church, and I was involved in another multi-week study of the gospels last year.

3

I don't know the timeframe in which 'InChrist' refers to but it must be admitted that until Vat II Catholics were not encouraged to read Scripture, and in some diocese it was actually forbidden. Post Vat II Catholics were not only encouraged but required to study Scripture but were also provided with the tools of scholarship that avoided a fundamentalist reading.

 

[pearl]

That's on you as don't you have a Bible? Right now I'm in a 20 week study of Matthew's gospel at my local Catholic Church, and I was involved in another multi-week study of the gospels last year.

The opportunity is always there. One of the first Scripture studies I joined was at the diocesan level and involved a year on Hebrew Scripture and a year on NT. The study combined Scripture with current and diverse scholarship. This was 40 years ago.

 

[Jos]

The 10 commandments written supposedly after the Egyptians ran out the Jews in the exodus of slaves that never happened. If they had been chased through the red sea as the bible says and the 10 commandments written by the hand of God, we would have those 10 commandments in a museum somewhere where we could all look at it.

Really? Didn't know that. Do you have a source to back this up?

 

[Riders]

Really? Didn't know that. Do you have a source to back this up?

Its all in the Bible in the story of the Exodus and I am saying there's no proof to back it up.

 

[Vouthon]

BTW, on a different note, when I've taken the Beliefnet Quiz, my closest match is with "Liberal Quaker".

Haha, so is mine. Catholic second!

 

[Riders]

Haha, so is mine. Catholic second!

My Beliefnet quiz says UU church first! I love the UUS and liberal Quakers second and Tao third. I am into Zen so wanted to see Zen up there but Tao uses an action meditation so. I have taken a few Tao classes so.

 

[Vouthon]

My Beliefnet quiz says UU church first! I love the UUS and liberal Quakers second and Tao third. I am into Zen so wanted to see Zen up there but Tao uses an action meditation so. I have taken a few Tao classes so.

They're all great religions.

I think the algorithm is unable to distinguish between Catholic social doctrine (which, in temporal terms, is fairly left-of-centre - far left if we're talking about the U.S. system - compared with the church's moral conservatism which appeals to those on the right) and liberal Quaker social activism (because I certainly answered all the 'right' questions so far as RC dogma is concerned).

Indeed, that's probably due to the fact that there isn't much of a difference at all. I've always said that if I weren't Catholic, I'd likely be a Quaker.

The combination of conservative moral values and quasi-socialist economics, is seriously hard to quantify or allocate.

Surprisingly, Hinduism was high up on my match list.

 

[metis]

3

I don't know the timeframe in which 'InChrist' refers to but it must be admitted that until Vat II Catholics were not encouraged to read Scripture, and in some diocese it was actually forbidden. Post Vat II Catholics were not only encouraged but required to study Scripture but were also provided with the tools of scholarship that avoided a fundamentalist reading.

Exactly, which is what I did post on one of the threads last week when I said that the Church does ask that we read the scriptures, although I don't know if it was on this thread. Daily missals also include the readings for that day.

 

[metis]

Haha, so is mine. Catholic second!

Proof that great minds think alike!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Thanks. I hope I am a normal person, too. :

Thanks I will take your ideas into consideration. The idea of it somehow just fits to me. It fits all of the stories. I get what you are saying though about the belief that God is in the world. That idea really started to click for me after I took a course in the history of technology. Its I think why pagan holidays are considered now to be Christian ones and why Christians eat bacon and have yoga classes. There is nothing wrong with working towards peace. There is something un catholic to me, however, about magisteriums. There just is, and it seems like a monument to some past grasps for power among petty politicians. I can't accept it being catholic.

This is not an accusation. It’s just something for you to mull over and perhaps pray about for clarity. Could it be that you just have a thing against people being in authority over you?

 

[osgart]

I would argue that Christianity is those things. It's not that you keep them from it. They are it.


"Biblical Christianity", is not Christianity. It's about defining themselves as other to others. It's a division of "rightness" in opposition to "wrongness". Christianity is universal Love. It doesn't divide or exclude. Truth is a matter of perception. Love embraces all perceptions equally. That's what Christianity is.

That's what the Foundation is.


By being wise yourself.

I have never met anyone from your kind of Christianity. Its a very fair perspective; universal love, and accepting people as they are without the need to change or convince someone out of their perceptions of reality in order to save their souls.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This is not an accusation. It’s just something for you to mull over and perhaps pray about for clarity. Could it be that you just have a thing against people being in authority over you?

I have had plenty of people in authority over me. I distinguish moral relativity from what I understand the NT to be saying which is that God is directly over people when it comes to truth, and rather than all of our words fitting together like gears we are supposed to function more liberally and humbly.

Ecumenical efforts attempt to get everyone saying the same things and agreeing to the same things all in an effort to get people together in fellowship. The pope is currently part of an ecumenical effort to coalesce the disparate christians into a working group. The creeds are an example of an ecumenical effort. The pope is another. The common prayer book is another. These are ecumenical efforts.

Do ecumenical efforts work? If ecumenical efforts could succeed then they should have, already. Then it should make sense to rely upon authoritarian strategies to get everyone together. Then that could be evidence that the NT is not talking about direct revelation to individuals but is about revelation coming through the church hierarchy down to everyone else, so that we can all agree and be happy. That is not what we see. Instead all progress that has been made has been made through compromises despite ecumenical efforts, and authority has had to take a back seat. Ecumenical efforts have backfired, almost always, except where they have allowed terminology to be compromised and people have agreed to disagree.

What about all these hair brained quacks who pretend to be ministers? What of them? Well they don't listen to the pope, either. In the end what can one person in a position of authority do?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have had plenty of people in authority over me. I distinguish moral relativity from what I understand the NT to be saying which is that God is directly over people when it comes to truth, and rather than all of our words fitting together like gears we are supposed to function more liberally and humbly.

Ecumenical efforts attempt to get everyone saying the same things and agreeing to the same things all in an effort to get people together in fellowship. The pope is currently part of an ecumenical effort to coalesce the disparate christians into a working group. The creeds are an example of an ecumenical effort. The pope is another. The common prayer book is another. These are ecumenical efforts.

Do ecumenical efforts work? If ecumenical efforts could succeed then they should have, already. Then it should make sense to rely upon authoritarian strategies to get everyone together. Then that could be evidence that the NT is not talking about direct revelation to individuals but is about revelation coming through the church hierarchy down to everyone else, so that we can all agree and be happy. That is not what we see. Instead all progress that has been made has been made through compromises despite ecumenical efforts, and authority has had to take a back seat. Ecumenical efforts have backfired, almost always, except where they have allowed terminology to be compromised and people have agreed to disagree.

What about all these hair brained quacks who pretend to be ministers? What of them? Well they don't listen to the pope, either. In the end what can one person in a position of authority do?

The thing is God cannot be a direct authority for us because we do not hear his voice. Everything we have is God filtered through human beings—even the sacred texts. Thus it makes no sense for you to rebel against such spiritual authorities. Al you are really doing is making yourself the authority, your own Pope.

It’s not really my business to offer a personal opinion on ecumenism since it’s not my religion. But I know that those involved in ecumenism point out that for 1000 years the church was United. They also quote a few verses from the Christian scriptures that seem to indicate that a divided church is not what God wants. Anyhow it’s your church so hold whatever opinion you want.

You say ecumenical attempts have all backfired I think the Catholic Lutheran Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was was way totally awesome. It’s now benn signed by the Methodists and Reformed and is about to be signed by the Anglican Communion. Kudos!!

 

[Brickjectivity]

The thing is God cannot be a direct authority for us because we do not hear his voice. Everything we have is God filtered through human beings—even the sacred texts. Thus it makes no sense for you to rebel against such spiritual authorities. Al you are really doing is making yourself the authority, your own Pope.

That is what many people think, so you are not alone in it. I agree that everything written is filtered through human beings. I am a human being. How if that is the case can there be any spiritual authority over me that I do not grant? Well I believe in being humble and submitting to people around me. I think thats what makes things work, not spiritual authorities. The problem with spiritual authorities is they are expected to be purely spiritual, to behave as something other than a humble human. Its unhealthy for them and for those who associate with them. In moderation its not so bad, but that is not what you are talking about.

It’s not really my business to offer a personal opinion on ecumenism since it’s not my religion. But I know that those involved in ecumenism point out that for 1000 years the church was United. They also quote a few verses from the Christian scriptures that seem to indicate that a divided church is not what God wants. Anyhow it’s your church so hold whatever opinion you want.

The Great Schism is in our day and age a great embarrassment.

You say ecumenical attempts have all backfired I think the Catholic Lutheran Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification was was way totally awesome. It’s now benn signed by the Methodists and Reformed and is about to be signed by the Anglican Communion. Kudos!!

Just skimming....item 13 of that agreement (online here) says

"Opposing interpretations and applications of the biblical message of justification were in the sixteenth century a principal cause of the division of the Western church and led as well to doctrinal condemnations. A common understanding of justification is therefore fundamental and indispensable to overcoming that division..."​

I think these are not the principle causes of the division of the Western church. The document avoids pointing fingers, which is its real magic. Nevertheless it does not identify what really goes wrong and causes divisions. Sometimes to get people together it is necessary to overlook the details of an offense. There are all kinds of signs that the document is inadequate, but fortunately not many people care. They just want it to work, and so it does.

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification - Wikipedia

Throughout this document there are words that the parties agree upon but which mean different things to different people. Its their willingness to work together, to submit to each other that matters. That is the real spiritual authority at work.

 

[Jos]

Its all in the Bible in the story of the Exodus and I am saying there's no proof to back it up.

So the Bible isn't trustworthy?

 

[Muffled]

What other kind can there be? Suppose someone came up to me when I was unsaved and said Christianity is all about the words of Thomas. Now I believe some people might be fooled by that but culturally at least I would have known it was about Jesus but I wouldn't have known if the culture was correct without reading the Bible.

I do understand that some have co-opted the term to mean their understanding of the Bible but I believe that notion is false.