Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 16 Dec 2000 21:24:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
460 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
> > SRC wrote:
> >
> > > 2. Christ's significance isn't limited to just what He said and did.
> > > You speak of Him in the past tense - it's not what He did - it's who He IS.
> > > Christmas and Easter are celebrations of the three most significant events
> > > in history - Christ's birth, death, and resurrection.
> >
> > Not really - Xmas was a pagan ritual coopted by the Christians because they
> > couldn't quash it.
> >
> >
> Minor point: Christmas is of Catholic origin, springing from Constantines
> pronouncement of Rome as a Christian Empire. They kept their basics
> practices and just changed the name plates on the base of their idols. In
> the Pilgrim days Christmas and Catholicism were not permitted (because of
> fleeing it's persecution).
The Christmas that is celebrated today is bits and pieces of a variety of
traditions and religions from all over the place. If you are refering to
the name, yes, that comes from the Roman Catholic Christ Mass.
Various Christian sects have objected to Christmas - all or in part - along
the way. Why? Simply because they recognized that Jesus was *not* the
reason for the season (despite the fact that you can often see that bumper
sticker that claims otherwise, ironically usually used by Protestants).
> I do differentiate between Christian and Catholic
> on the basis of the Popes recent statements that Mary is co-redemptress with
> Christ and even more recent statement that believing in Christ is not
> necessary as long as you're a decent person. The focus on Mary and the
> sacraments is also antithetical to salvation by grace alone.
I suppose Catholics also differentiate between Christianity and
Protestantism for their reasons, too. I can't say I respect either opinion
- cheap ppropaganda ("You're not *real* Christians, we are," shouted
simultaneously).
>
> These remarks are not intended to criticize the sincerity of practicing
> Catholics, merely to point out that there are fundamental differences in
> matters of soteriology between Catholicism and Biblical Christianity.
Ummmmm, Catholicism isn't a form of Biblical Christianity? Forgive me while
I laugh at such nonsense. Why don't you drop the spin-mastering and simply
refer to what you term as "Biblical Christianity" as Protestantism? God
only knows where eastern orthodoxism lies in this hubris - I suppose they
aren't real Christians because their cross is too short.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) But I also hinted at the fact that Constantine kept the old practices under new names, which was a round about way of saying what you said in the first part of the above statement. (...) I wasn't making any such statements, just pointing out (...) (24 years ago, 17-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Minor point: Christmas is of Catholic origin, springing from Constantines pronouncement of Rome as a Christian Empire. They kept their basics practices and just changed the name plates on the base of their idols. In the Pilgrim days Christmas (...) (24 years ago, 16-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
