Those who start their own church....

[PsyOps]

Not trying to start anything but if you looked to 2000 years of historical and orthodox understanding, then you'd be a Catholic which is the historical church, or at the very least not disagree with the Catholics on so many things. That's not to mention that the bible you read wasn't even around the whole 2000 years. Just sayin'.

Historical relevancy has very little meaning in terms of the truth. The Jewish faith stood for several millennia before Jesus came, and look what Jesus did – He railed against them telling how much they screwed things up. I happen to think a lot of what the CC practices is not just off the page, but is completely opposite of what we’ve been told to practice. And this by no means assumes protestants aren’t guilty of a lot of these things. All of them cause me to not want to have anything to do with them.

 

[onel0126]

This doesn't answer to what you asserted with whether Christ had in mind all the various denominations in the protestant sect. In-so-far-as Christ and His Church... ABSOLUTELY it's what He had in mind.

Quite frankly the scripture you posted doesn't support your assertion that "absolutely it's what He had in mind.

 

[Zguy28]

The only guarantee given by Christ himself in scripture regarding His church was that the gates of hell would not prevail. Not that the church at times wouldn't be wrought with strife, sin, etc. It was after all left to mortal men to see it through.

All of your other points above can be summed up by your last sentence...

Indeed, its why we believe that its possible for the RCC to be wrong. The Reformation was a sort of remnant that therefore proved that Hell did not prevail. True evangelical doctrine survived.

 

[Radiant1]

Historical relevancy has very little meaning in terms of the truth. The Jewish faith stood for several millennia before Jesus came, and look what Jesus did – He railed against them telling how much they screwed things up. I happen to think a lot of what the CC practices is not just off the page, but is completely opposite of what we’ve been told to practice. And this by no means assumes protestants aren’t guilty of a lot of these things. All of them cause me to not want to have anything to do with them.

Sure it does. Btw, Jesus didn't abolish the law. He didn't set out to start a new religion. Jesus had his criticisms, but don't we all? He never said the Jewish faith itself was wrong, and He remained a Jew through and through. At any rate, would your feelings deem either Catholics or Protestants non-Christian?

Indeed, its why we believe that its possible for the RCC to be wrong. The Reformation was a sort of remnant that therefore proved that Hell did not prevail. True evangelical doctrine survived.

A "sort of remnant"? I'm surprised you would try that tact since we've been over this before. The Church has believed the same long before Luther or any other Protestant arrived on the scene to save the day; therefore, the gates of hell apparently already prevailed and had done so from the beginning. You really can't get around the fact that you are more or less calling Jesus a liar. Believe me, many years ago I tried like hell (no pun intended) to get around this (yet another) Protestant conundrum, but as an honest and rational person I had to concede to the fact. Btw and in addition, I've not read a whole lot of "true evangelical doctrine" in the ECFs, nor do I find a whole lot of it when I read scripture. But, what can you say about that? It's that supposedly "true Evangelical doctrine" of priesthood of believers and personal interpretation that allows me to reject the doctrine that you hold dear. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[PsyOps]

Quite frankly the scripture you posted doesn't support your assertion that "absolutely it's what He had in mind.

Well there you have it... we can never really truly know the truth can we? You claim you have it and I claim I have it. What we're left with is our OPINIONS based on what we've been taught. The churches I've been to (and I’ve been to many, protestant and Catholic alike) all have one fundamental central figure: Christ. That is enough evidence for me to believe it’s exactly what Christ had in mind.

 

[PsyOps]

Sure it does. Btw, Jesus didn't abolish the law. He didn't set out to start a new religion. Jesus had his criticisms, but don't we all? He never said the Jewish faith itself was wrong, and He remained a Jew through and through. At any rate, would your feelings deem either Catholics or Protestants non-Christian?

Well, if historical relevancy does have meaning in terms of the truth, the CC can’t be THE Church of Christ. History shows us where the CC has gotten wrong on so many things both in the science and Christian/biblical realms; not to mention The Crusades; which violate every tenet of Christ in peace and love. The CC aimed to FORCE Christianity on the world. I‘m not so sure that’s what Christ had in mind. I’m trying to imagine the Pope declaring war today. If the CC is the same church today as it was then, why isn’t the CC launching war on Islam – again, given the threat Islam poses to Christianity? Especially in Muslim countries, Christians are persecuted daily; thrown in prison, tortured, and murdered simply for holding the Christian faith.

I hold my views of the churches – the institutions – as corrupt and not representing the tenets of Christ. I refuse to take a position of who is Christian and who is non-Christian. Jesus held the leaders of the Synagogues accountable for deceiving the people, not the people. I hold the leaders of our churches – the institutions – accountable for deceiving believers, not the believers. It’s my view that believers, by-and-large, are honestly seeking God and do believe. Of course you’d say the institutions are made up of people that claim to believe… It’s not my place, nor do I have the desire, to weed out who I think is authentic and who isn’t.

 

[Radiant1]

Well, if historical relevancy does have meaning in terms of the truth, the CC can’t be THE Church of Christ. History shows us where the CC has gotten wrong on so many things both in the science and Christian/biblical realms; not to mention The Crusades; which violate every tenet of Christ in peace and love. The CC aimed to FORCE Christianity on the world. I‘m not so sure that’s what Christ had in mind. I’m trying to imagine the Pope declaring war today. If the CC is the same church today as it was then, why isn’t the CC launching war on Islam – again, given the threat Islam poses to Christianity? Especially in Muslim countries, Christians are persecuted daily; thrown in prison, tortured, and murdered simply for holding the Christian faith.

I could pick apart a lot of what you said above, but I won't bother and just keep it simple. Like I said, Jesus nor you or I are without criticisms, but that doesn't make the doctrines of the Jewish faith or the Catholic faith wrong. Stone Thrower and I were talking historical significance in regards to scriptural interpretation and theology.

I hold my views of the churches – the institutions – as corrupt and not representing the tenets of Christ. I refuse to take a position of who is Christian and who is non-Christian. Jesus held the leaders of the Synagogues accountable for deceiving the people, not the people. I hold the leaders of our churches – the institutions – accountable for deceiving believers, not the believers. It’s my view that believers, by-and-large, are honestly seeking God and do believe.

Do you hold the tenets of Christ? You may forget, but I remember, we're all sinners. You seem to want to hold an organized religion to a higher standard than yourself. Are not the leaders of churches also believers? By eschewing any institutionalized or organized religion does that get yourself off the hook? Make you an innocent? Never having deceived anyone?

Of course you’d say the institutions are made up of people that claim to believe… It’s not my place, nor do I have the desire, to weed out who I think is authentic and who isn’t.

Then I'd suggest you stop doing it.

 

[PsyOps]

I could pick apart a lot of what you said above, but I won't bother and just keep it simple. Like I said, Jesus nor you or I are without criticisms, but that doesn't make the doctrines of the Jewish faith or the Catholic faith wrong. Stone Thrower and I were talking historical significance in regards to scriptural interpretation and theology.

Scriptural interpretation comes out in action: The Crusades, kissing a statue of baby Jesus, calling your priest ‘Father’, placing God-like authority in the ‘saints’, believing that baptism is salvation and not getting baptized condemns one to hell (as in baptizing babies)…

Do you hold the tenets of Christ? You may forget, but I remember, we're all sinners. You seem to want to hold an organized religion to a higher standard than yourself. Are not the leaders of churches also believers? By eschewing any institutionalized or organized religion does that get yourself off the hook? Make you an innocent? Never having deceived anyone?

Then I'd suggest you stop doing it.

Anyone that stands on the pulpit and opens his mouth a claiming a position of authority on things-scripture MUST be held to a higher standard. We, that are not thoroughly and formally educated in scripture are dependent on these people to properly and honestly promote the message of Christ. It’s for that very reason you kiss the Pope’s ring and bow to him. Certainly you would hold him accountable for what gets propagated from the CC over someone that sits in the pews. When I walk into a church I have an expectation of what the message should look like. It’s MY decision to make that decision whether to accept their core message and scriptural interpretations. In the end I will be held accountable by God for what I believe and do. But those institutions that mislead the masses need to be held accountable by us. My point is not to determine who is saved; my point is to express my disagreement with how ‘the churches’ operate and disseminate the message.

These are my views of ‘the churches’ and not a commentary on YOUR faith.

 

[onel0126]

Scriptural interpretation comes out in action: The Crusades, kissing a statue of baby Jesus

Ah yes the crusades...you clearly aren't the academic you think you are! Do some non-biased research on the Crusades. I don't have the time now but will gladly address this farce this evening--but for now, let's start here:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/ZCRSADES.HTM

Do you pledge allegiance to the flag by chance?

 

[PsyOps]

Ah yes the crusades...you clearly aren't the academic you think you are! Do some non-biased research on the Crusades. I don't have the time now but will gladly address this farce this evening. Do you pledge allegiance to the flag?

And what exactly do you THINK I think the kind of academic I am?

Did the Crusades happen? Were they not at the behest of the Pope (Urban II)? The CC owns the Crusades. What would be your response (the world's response) if the pope gathered up a Catholic army and launched war today?

 

[PsyOps]

Do you pledge allegiance to the flag by chance?

So if your Pope ordered you to war you'd fight?

 

[onel0126]

So if your Pope ordered you to war you'd fight?

You missed my point. If you stand and pledge allegiance to a flag by either standing, putting your hand on your heart, seems to me that would be idolatry in your book!

 

[Radiant1]

Scriptural interpretation comes out in action: The Crusades, kissing a statue of baby Jesus, calling your priest ‘Father’, placing God-like authority in the ‘saints’, believing that baptism is salvation and not getting baptized condemns one to hell (as in baptizing babies)…

If scriptural interpretation comes out in action, then what do your ignorant statements above say about yours? Again, I could pick apart some of what you say above, but I'll try to keep this simple. Back to my point, which is the Protestant conundrum of allowing for personal interpretation but yet judging those whose own interpretation doesn't agree with yours. Your statement above is yet another example of this and why it doesn't work.

Anyone that stands on the pulpit and opens his mouth a claiming a position of authority on things-scripture MUST be held to a higher standard. We, that are not thoroughly and formally educated in scripture are dependent on these people to properly and honestly promote the message of Christ. It’s for that very reason you kiss the Pope’s ring and bow to him. Certainly you would hold him accountable for what gets propagated from the CC over someone that sits in the pews. When I walk into a church I have an expectation of what the message should look like. It’s MY decision to make that decision whether to accept their core message and scriptural interpretations. In the end I will be held accountable by God for what I believe and do. But those institutions that mislead the masses need to be held accountable by us. My point is not to determine who is saved; my point is to express my disagreement with how ‘the churches’ operate and disseminate the message.

These are my views of ‘the churches’ and not a commentary on YOUR faith.

But, isn't that what you just did above? You are [passively] claiming yourself an authority and thereby making a judgment on the Catholic Church (or any other institutionalized religion). Your point is not to declare who is saved or not, but rather you will proclaim who is misleading others all the while stating you are not thoroughly and formally educated in scripture. In addition, if you think someone or an organization is misleading people why do you think you, who are not thoroughly or formally educated in scripture, need to hold them accountable? Don't you think God will do so just as He will you? Basically, you're saying, "God will hold me accountable for my actions but I will hold others accountable for theirs." Well now, that's certainly a high standard you've set for yourself, isn't it? Don't fool yourself, you most certainly are placing yourself in a position of authority. You can't skate on this because you do have a pulpit just like everyone else -- your family, your friends, your co-workers, this forum.

 

[Radiant1]

So if your Pope ordered you to war you'd fight?

As in times past, the pope might encourage someone to go to war, but he can't order it. Never the less, this is an interesting question. For me, the answer would be yes or no depending on the circumstances. You seem to think that Catholics are obliged to do whatever the Pope says, which is not the case. I'd be happy to enlighten you on this if you wish. You, as do many others, seem to have a lot of ignorance about Catholic practices, especially the infallibility thing.

Let me ask you this. Would you fight for your country if your President ordered you to do so? If there was a draft, would you go or dodge?

 

[PsyOps]

As in times past, the pope might encourage someone to go to war, but he can't order it. Never the less, this is an interesting question. For me, the answer would be yes or no depending on the circumstances. You seem to think that Catholics are obliged to do whatever the Pope says, which is not the case. I'd be happy to enlighten you on this if you wish. You, as do many others, seem to have a lot of ignorance about Catholic practices, especially the infallibility thing.

Let me ask you this. Would you fight for your country if your President ordered you to do so? If there was a draft, would you go or dodge?

My ‘ignorance’ is based on dealing with Catholics. I’ve witnessed the practices (well, except the Crusades; I was born slightly later than that ). There are many that believe the Pope is infallible and that the CC is THE Christian church and all others are false.

I knew someone would make the analogy of the CC to one’s country. Of course I would fight for my country. I have. I am a citizen of the US and have allegiance to it in that defending the land that is ours. There is no land/nation belonging to Christians. Jesus commanded us to obey the laws of your country/government. I would never go to war for my pastor/preacher/priest/Pope; doing so would be in violation of the law of the land. I don’t see it as part of any Christian Church’s mandate to be ordering people to war. I realize the days of the 11th century were a different order; that religions ruled rather than governments. Today, times are different. No land truly belongs to any religion; they belong to governments and citizens of those countries. Certainly some of those governments adhere to religious tenets (like Muslim countries), but there is no country of Islam or country of Catholicism. Just as we are outraged that Muslims are waging war all over the globe, and that these radicals believe Allah orders them to war; I think the world would be outraged if the Pope were to order Catholics to war.

 

[PsyOps]

If scriptural interpretation comes out in action, then what do your ignorant statements above say about yours? Again, I could pick apart some of what you say above, but I'll try to keep this simple. Back to my point, which is the Protestant conundrum of allowing for personal interpretation but yet judging those whose own interpretation doesn't agree with yours. Your statement above is yet another example of this and why it doesn't work.

Wait a minute! How are my statements ignorant? Did the Crusades not happen? Did the Pope not kiss the knee of a statue of Jesus? Do Catholics, when greeting the Pope not kneel before him and kiss his ring? Do you not call your priest ‘Father’. Do you not believe that you have to baptize your children just in case they die they will be saved? Those things are what I consider to be unbiblical.

I’m going to say this… first of all you have ignored where my criticism of the protestant churches are just as many as those of the CC. Secondly, because of that I do not identify with any particular church or denomination. I’ve found that churches (organized religion) are more about 2 things: power and money – and very little to do with God. My ‘conundrum’ is wading out here in a netherworld of trying to find people that are simply interested in God and the core tenets of Christ rather than defending their church. Again, I have never questioned your salvation nor asserted that because you practice any particular thing, you are going to hell. That’s not for me to say. And regardless of what you decide to practice, I would never take the attitude I am above you and couldn’t associate with your or be your friend.

But, isn't that what you just did above? You are [passively] claiming yourself an authority and thereby making a judgment on the Catholic Church (or any other institutionalized religion). Your point is not to declare who is saved or not, but rather you will proclaim who is misleading others all the while stating you are not thoroughly and formally educated in scripture. In addition, if you think someone or an organization is misleading people why do you think you, who are not thoroughly or formally educated in scripture, need to hold them accountable? Don't you think God will do so just as He will you? Basically, you're saying, "God will hold me accountable for my actions but I will hold others accountable for theirs." Well now, that's certainly a high standard you've set for yourself, isn't it? Don't fool yourself, you most certainly are placing yourself in a position of authority. You can't skate on this because you do have a pulpit just like everyone else -- your family, your friends, your co-workers, this forum.

I am not claiming I am anything. I’m having a discussion. I’ve giving you my opinion based on what I’ve learned and my experiences. Because I’m not formally educated in the scripture doesn’t mean I can’t rationally talk about it. I feel I have a deep enough understanding to have these discussions. Just because someone is formally educated on these things doesn’t mean they have the capacity to teach it or have your best interest in mind. I’ve seen enough to be convinced that formally knowing something CAN lead to means to abuse it or manipulate it. Look at our president. He is a constitutional scholar. You can take him two ways: Either he really doesn’t understand it and his education means nothing, or he has learned it in order to know how to abuse it and destroy it. Either way, he seems to have very little interest in the rule of law and our constitution. He’s only interested in power. I see our churches in the same light.

 

[Zguy28]

Sure it does. Btw, Jesus didn't abolish the law. He didn't set out to start a new religion. Jesus had his criticisms, but don't we all? He never said the Jewish faith itself was wrong, and He remained a Jew through and through. At any rate, would your feelings deem either Catholics or Protestants non-Christian?



A "sort of remnant"? I'm surprised you would try that tact since we've been over this before. The Church has believed the same long before Luther or any other Protestant arrived on the scene to save the day; therefore, the gates of hell apparently already prevailed and had done so from the beginning. You really can't get around the fact that you are more or less calling Jesus a liar. Believe me, many years ago I tried like hell (no pun intended) to get around this (yet another) Protestant conundrum, but as an honest and rational person I had to concede to the fact. Btw and in addition, I've not read a whole lot of "true evangelical doctrine" in the ECFs, nor do I find a whole lot of it when I read scripture. But, what can you say about that? It's that supposedly "true Evangelical doctrine" of priesthood of believers and personal interpretation that allows me to reject the doctrine that you hold dear. Ironic, isn't it?

I see lots of evangelical doctrine evidenced in the ECF's. I valso don't see many Roman Catholic doctrines. So I guess that means you must reject those too. You can reject anything you like, you have that freedom. As far as the priesthood of believers... why do you go against Christ by seeking to sew back together the temple veil that Christ ripped asunder by his sacrifice once for all? Perhaps a reading Hebrews would do you some good?

 

[Radiant1]

My ‘ignorance’ is based on dealing with Catholics. I’ve witnessed the practices (well, except the Crusades; I was born slightly later than that ). There are many that believe the Pope is infallible and that the CC is THE Christian church and all others are false.

Actually that's mostly true, although we think Protestants only have partial truth so therefore heretical but not particularly outright false. At any rate, by the comment you made it's clear you have no idea what infallible means or when infallibility is used; hence, your ignorance. I've taken note that you've taken offense regarding your ignorance and haven't chosen to be enlightened regarding the issue. As I've said often enough before; if you're going to criticize, then at least get the facts right so you know what it is you're criticizing.

I knew someone would make the analogy of the CC to one’s country. Of course I would fight for my country. I have. I am a citizen of the US and have allegiance to it in that defending the land that is ours. There is no land/nation belonging to Christians. Jesus commanded us to obey the laws of your country/government. I would never go to war for my pastor/preacher/priest/Pope; doing so would be in violation of the law of the land. I don’t see it as part of any Christian Church’s mandate to be ordering people to war. I realize the days of the 11th century were a different order; that religions ruled rather than governments. Today, times are different. No land truly belongs to any religion; they belong to governments and citizens of those countries. Certainly some of those governments adhere to religious tenets (like Muslim countries), but there is no country of Islam or country of Catholicism. Just as we are outraged that Muslims are waging war all over the globe, and that these radicals believe Allah orders them to war; I think the world would be outraged if the Pope were to order Catholics to war.

But, excepting a draft, there is no law requiring you to go to war for your country. Apparently as a Christian you think that killing others in the name of a secular government is more righteous than doing so for your faith.

A hypothetical scenario for you because I'm curious how you'd answer. Islam has gained grounds in Western nations through the democratic process. Muslim government leaders have enacted sharia law legally and are now requiring people to recite the shahada. Do you obey the laws of your country/gov't by reciting the shahada and de facto becoming a Muslim? Do you become a martyr when they kill you for not reciting it? Or, do you go to war with them? I'm placing this in a 21st century context, but it really does hint at what Christian nations in the 11th century were facing at the time of the crusades. You did read the link onel presented, didn't you?

 

[Radiant1]

Wait a minute! How are my statements ignorant? Did the Crusades not happen? Did the Pope not kiss the knee of a statue of Jesus? Do Catholics, when greeting the Pope not kneel before him and kiss his ring? Do you not call your priest ‘Father’. Do you not believe that you have to baptize your children just in case they die they will be saved? Those things are what I consider to be unbiblical.

You do believe in personal interpretation, right? If so, then considering anyone's interpretation "wrong" or "un-biblical" is ignorant. At the very least it's inconsistent with the very doctrine you seem to espouse and at the most it's hypocrisy.

I’m going to say this… first of all you have ignored where my criticism of the protestant churches are just as many as those of the CC. Secondly, because of that I do not identify with any particular church or denomination. I’ve found that churches (organized religion) are more about 2 things: power and money – and very little to do with God. My ‘conundrum’ is wading out here in a netherworld of trying to find people that are simply interested in God and the core tenets of Christ rather than defending their church. Again, I have never questioned your salvation nor asserted that because you practice any particular thing, you are going to hell. That’s not for me to say. And regardless of what you decide to practice, I would never take the attitude I am above you and couldn’t associate with your or be your friend.

Ok. If you don't want to see others defend their expression of faith, then I suggest you don't attack or criticize it. Easy solution to your conundrum, wouldn't you agree?

I am not claiming I am anything. I’m having a discussion. I’ve giving you my opinion based on what I’ve learned and my experiences. Because I’m not formally educated in the scripture doesn’t mean I can’t rationally talk about it. I feel I have a deep enough understanding to have these discussions. Just because someone is formally educated on these things doesn’t mean they have the capacity to teach it or have your best interest in mind. I’ve seen enough to be convinced that formally knowing something CAN lead to means to abuse it or manipulate it. Look at our president. He is a constitutional scholar. You can take him two ways: Either he really doesn’t understand it and his education means nothing, or he has learned it in order to know how to abuse it and destroy it. Either way, he seems to have very little interest in the rule of law and our constitution. He’s only interested in power. I see our churches in the same light.

When you make judgments on what others believe and whether you think they are correct or not, then yes, you are claiming to be something...an authority (of whatever sort that may be). And hey, I'm just having a discussion with you pointing that out. My opinion is based solely on what you're saying.

 

[Radiant1]

I see lots of evangelical doctrine evidenced in the ECF's. I valso don't see many Roman Catholic doctrines. So I guess that means you must reject those too. You can reject anything you like, you have that freedom. As far as the priesthood of believers... why do you go against Christ by seeking to sew back together the temple veil that Christ ripped asunder by his sacrifice once for all? Perhaps a reading Hebrews would do you some good?

But I don't see things as you, so no, it doesn't mean that I must reject those too, nor does it mean I'm going against Christ simply because I understand priesthood of believers differently than you. If you believe in personal interpretation, then why would you even suggest I re-read Hebrews? Do you think I must interpret scripture as you to be correct? Once again, thank you for giving us another great example of the point I've been making.