Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:55:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
657 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > >
> > > 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 differences in
> > soteriology - which are significant.
>
> I didn't say that you did - I was just pointing out the silliness of the
> whole situation.
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 declaring one as superior to the other - just different.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ummmmm, Catholicism isn't a form of Biblical Christianity? Forgive me while
> > > I laugh at such nonsense.
> >
> > 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.
Admittedly. There are many though who also differentiate between
Protestantism and "Biblical Christianity".
>
>
> > 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.
Catholics have seven sacraments, only two are listed in the Bible.
Confirmation is mentioned in a casual sense and is not considered a
sacrament in the NT, in the sense that it is not formally petitioned.
Marriage also has no effect upon salvation in the NT. Catholicism teaches
that the sacraments are "necessary" for salvation. Galations teaches that it
is grace alone. In fact, Galations states that if you try to add "deeds" to
this grace that you are in danger of actually falling from grace.
>
> > 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.
Not open to interpretation. It says she had other kids. One of them wrote
the book of James.
>
> > Popery is not in the Bible.
>
> Christ. Church. Founded upon rock. Peter. Again, open to interpretation,
> but in the Bible.
Yet it was the James mentioned above who was head of the early church, not
Peter. Jesus was referring to his confession (that Jesus is the Son of God)
as the "rock" - the original Greek makes this clear.
>
> > 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.
Catholicism considers itself a NT religion - not a form of Judaism. The book
of Hebrews makes it clear that a priesthood is not needed in Christianity.
The NT establishes "pastoring" not "priesting".
>
>
> > 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.
It's in First Timothy.
> 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).
I grew up in Allentown, PA, which is extremely Catholic - we were taught
that it was because Christ was crucified on Friday.
> As to forbidding to marry, Biblical and medieval concepts on the evils of sex.
Yet some teach that the Priestly vow of celibacy is a sacrament and also
that marriage is a sacrament.
>
> > Purgatory is not in the Bible.
>
> Always wondered where they got this from.
>
> > Idles are forbidden in the Bible.
>
> I suppose you mean idols.
Ooops, silly mistake, sorry.
> 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.
I was referring to the grand statues that adorn sanctuaries, mostly of the
Madonna and child - and sometimes Joseph and some of the "Saints", etc.
>
> > 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.
Referred to it in my initial statement - that Mary was made co-redemptress
with Christ. And, no, I'm not ignorant of their stances.
>
> > 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.
I meant doctrinally.
>
> > 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.
The church restricted the flow of Greek literature at Constantinople to keep
the Scriptures out of the people's hands.
>
>
> > 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.
Actually it was because Tyndale, Wycliffe and others were translating the
Bible into common English. Oppression also had a lot to do with it.
>
> > After the Reformation they told their people if they read the Bible they >would go crazy.
>
> Papal eddict? Local yokels? What?
The priests and nuns taught this in Catholic school and from the pulpit.
>
> > 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.
Fair enough. Yet I took much of your original post as you assigning the
things you said to my post - which is what I objected to, because that is
not what I was doing.
>
> >
> >
> > > 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".
The above statement sounds like you did.
> "simply refer to what *YOU* term as "Biblical Christianity" as Protestantism?"
> > 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.
Not so.
>
> > 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.
Valid point.
>
> > I wasn't talking about what I am.
>
> I wasn't either. I'm not sure why you are running on about this.
Because your post characterized mine as participating in this whole
religious "my dog's bigger than your dog" game. Protestant vs. Catholic. I
wasn't. And although your point above is valid, my original argument is also
valid apart from where my loyalties lie.
>
> > 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.
I said they don't practice Christianity as it is laid out in the Bible,
which they don't. There are many "born again" Catholics who see the
difference in what the "Church" teaches and in what the Bible teaches who
choose to remain in the Catholic church for various reasons. The fact that I
enumerate those differences does not mean that I have drawn conclusions of
right or wrong. If Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible in matters
of doctrine (and I can offer no proof that he's not) then they have a right
to believe his doctrine and practice it. My pointing out that this belief
does not originate from the Bible is not equivalent to condemning 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 made no judgements and still haven't.
Yes, my reaction to you was knee-jerk - I confess.
>
> > I have demonstrated many times
> > that most people's mis/preconceptions about Christians are 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.
How so?
>
> > 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.
They don't. Not in a litugical sense. Nor in a theological sense. Morally, yes.
>
> > 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?
That not everything that claims to be in the name of Christ is. It is quite
popular here to blame Christianity, as a system, for all of the atrocities
of those who claimed to be Christians. I maintain that if they were not
practicing Biblical mandates then they were not in fact Christian.
>
> > 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?
Have you ever been to Central or South America? I've lived there. These
kinds of atrocities still happen - along with people mutilating themselves
in search of forgiveness. And no, not by Catholics only - as the Crusades
were not exclusively Catholic either. These are not condemnations of
Catholicism, these are condemnations of anything which contradicts true
Christian principles - whether by Protestants or Catholics or anyone.
> > >
> > I am more appauled than anyone here by the purported history of the Church.
>
> I doubt it.
Why do you say that?
>
> > 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?
The point was to contrast the atrocities of the past - this was not a
statement about practicing Catholics.
> >
> > 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 was not speaking about "Catholics" here - I was referring to your
mischaracterization of my initial message. My only comments about Catholics
are in reference to doctrine - which I haven't mischaracterized.
>
>
> > 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.
Your claim that I was playing the "Your not a 'real' Christian" game.
>
> > 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.
Not at all. Defending and whining are quite different.
Bill
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| Bill Farkas wrote: <HUGE snip> (...) Bill, the only real problem I have with you is that when others defend, you call it whining, when you defend, it's Defending. Pot. Kettle. Black. Fess up to either both sides (including YOU) as whining or (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) And there are many people who argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Just as valueless an argument. (...) These are your interpretations. (...) Well they interpret it differently, go argue that with them. (...) Not according to (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) I think Todd would be smart enough to figure out that somebody changed the newsgroup in the reply thread and that I simply didn't realize it. So yes, he'd probably find that funny - I mean, the laugh's on me! Which is something you didn't seem (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) I didn't say that you did - I was just pointing out the silliness of the whole situation. (...) A knowledge of history makes me feel enlightened. (...) I think you have an extremely narrow definition of "Biblical Christianity" not shared by (...) (24 years ago, 18-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
|
|
|
|
