Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:38:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
618 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > > 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 propaganda ("You're not *real* Christians, we are," shouted
> > simultaneously).
>
> I wasn't making any such statements, just pointing out the difference in
> soteriology - which are significant.
I didn't say that you did - I was just pointing out the silliness of the
whole situation.
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Laugh away if it makes you feel enlightened.
A knowledge of history makes me feel enlightened.
>
> The fact of the matter is it's not Biblical Christianity.
I think you have an extremely narrow definition of "Biblical Christianity"
not shared by many.
> The sacraments are
> nowhere in the Bible (except of course baptism [not of babies] and
> communion).
You only enumerate ones that are - sounds like you are arguing that
Catholicism is a form of Biblical Christianity.
> Mary being a perpetual virgin is not in the Bible.
Open to interpretation - what you are effectively saying is religions that
don't make the same interpretation as you aren't based on the Bible. Hubris.
> Popery is not in the Bible.
Christ. Church. Founded upon rock. Peter. Again, open to interpretation,
but in the Bible.
> A priesthood is not in the NT.
Since you specify New Testament, I presume that such is in the Old
Testament, which I could swear means that it is in the Bible.
> Forbidding to marry and
> abstaining from meats (on Fridays) is called doctrines of devils and lies of
> seducing spirits.
???? Can't say that I ever heard this. They can eat meat on Fridays last I
heard (the Pope was trying to help the fishing industry way back when, if I
recollect - so yeah, it has nothing to do with the Bible, but so what). As
to forbidding to marry, Biblical and medieval concepts on the evils of sex.
> Purgatory is not in the Bible.
Always wondered where they got this from.
> Idles are forbidden in the Bible.
I suppose you mean idols. Clearly they don't interpret idols the same as
you - the distinction between saying a crucifix is an idol and a cross is
not is lost on me, for example. But I like the semi-pagan Irish cross, so
I'm a lost cause on that, anyway.
> Salvation is said to be in Christ alone, not Mary - she herself said
> she needed a Savior.
I'd have to look into what their current doctrine is. You seem ignorant of
many of their stances, so forgive me if I don't trust your interpretation on
this.
> The list goes on. They admit that they accept the
> "traditions" of the church and the Pope as infallible.
I believe the Pope can invoke "infalliblity" on certain doctrinal points
(kinda like the head of any religion never admitting being wrong). You make
it sound like if he said the Padres are going to win the World Series, it
must happen, and that simply is not the case.
> Why do you think they
> caused the Dark Ages?
Kindly note the Dark Ages are held to begin with the fall of (Catholic) Rome
to germanic invaders. Much knowledge was preserved by Irish Catholic monks.
> Because they didn't want their people reading the
> Bible.
Few people could read. Fewer still could afford hand-copied books.
> Which is why the Reformation happened in the first place.
Actually, because the people running the Church got fat and lazy and were
more concerned with secular power and comfort. Power corrupts.
> After the Reformation they told their people if they read the Bible they >would go crazy.
Papal eddict? Local yokels? What?
> So, yes, I differentiate between Catholocism and "Biblical"
> Christianity. And anyway, I presented it as "my" opinion. I didn't say
> anyone else should share it, least of all you.
Hey, you shared your opinion here on the message board. I shared my opinion
that I believe your opinion doesn't hold water. I don't see the problem.
>
>
> > Why don't you drop the spin-mastering and simply refer to what you term >as "Biblical Christianity" as Protestantism?
>
> I would if I were a Protestant. I'm not.
Didn't say you were. But then again, those who have Protestant sensablities
are usually the ones who use terms like "popery".
For example, my wife's uncle refers to popery. He is a minister in a
non-denominational Christian church. It isn't Protestant - officially. But
I can't tell the difference between what he preaches and what you would hear
in any Southern Baptist ministry.
> I also never said I wasn't Catholic.
I never said you weren't. I will observe that if you are Catholic, you seem
awfully ignorant of your own religion.
> I've never said anything about what I am. It doesn't matter what I
> am.
That's not true - it establishes where you loyalties and prejudices lay.
> I wasn't talking about what I am.
I wasn't either. I'm not sure why you are running on about this.
> And I made no value judgements about
> which one was superior. Different people like different flavors - to each
> his own. Catholics may be right, who knows? My point wasn't about who's
> right or wrong, merely to point out the difference in soteriology - which is
> stark - and which is what I said in the first place!
You said Catholics weren't "Biblical Christians". I simply disagree. You
comments above make it readily apparent that you *are* drawing conclusions
of right and wrong, and that you are placing a value judgment on it.
>
> Too many people here read too much into things. Just more knee-jerk
> reactions. I prefer to be judged as an individual and not part of whatever
> you wrongly consider "Christendom" to be.
And you don't think that what you consider "Christendom" could be wrong?
That you weren't judging people first? That the above isn't a knee-jerk
reaction?
> I have demonstrated many times
> that most people's mis/preconceptions about Christians is based on their own
> distorted views of what a Christian is.
You should pay attention to what you just said and look in a mirror.
> And I maintain again that if someone
> is not living by the Book then they are not followers of It.
And? So? The Catholics follow the Bible.
> I could list
> oodles of verses that state as much. Again, it's the same as saying all
> Muslims are terrorists.
What in the world are you talking about?
> It's simply not true. True Christianity is that
> which reaches out and helps the poor, the widows, the orphans, the
> imprisoned, etc.
Good works. Catholics.
> It is not the stuff of the Inquisition or the Crusades
> despite what those who participated in these acts said of themselves. Any
> such act is in direct opposition to the doctrines of Christ and the Apostles
> and is therefore not Christian by true definition.
That was long ago, by corrupt people. Who said that the people who run any
religion are perfect?
>
> I am more appauled than anyone here by the purported history of the Church.
I doubt it.
> It sickens me. I try to live as best I can by the precepts of the Bible, as
> I understand them, to demonstrate what Christianity is supposed to be about:
> compassion, benevolence, forgiveness, etc.
And you think Catholics disagree with those concepts?
>
> If I misrepresent atheism or agnosticism or any other position held by
> anyone here on LUGnet, those people stand up and set the record straight.
> I'm doing the same thing. I will not be misrepresented or mischaracterized.
But it's okay to mischaracterize Catholics?
> I take my honor and integrity very seriously. I can accept any criticism
> that is warranted - as Marines, our only reply to correction was, "No
> excuse, Sir!" (which is why I hate whining - we didn't offer nor accept
> excuses). I will not be criticized as something I'm not.
Please point out to me where I did such. I sure can't find it.
> If we disagree on
> matters at face value, that's fine, I respect that, but your remarks are not
> based on an accurate characterization of mine.
For someone who hates whining, you sure seem to be doing a lot of it.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| A few margin notes to chew on... (...) Another reason was to prevent the establishment of a papal bloodline as a competing ruling lineage. (...) As well as heretical Arabs, of course. 8^) (...) Interestingly, there is extant a copy of a letter from (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) I took it as if you were accusing me of what you stated above. Again, I was only pointing out the obvious differences - which is why they remain Catholic and others don't become Catholic. Some people like one and some the other. I wasn't (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
