Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:18:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
640 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:
> Admittedly. There are many though who also differentiate between
> Protestantism and "Biblical Christianity".
And there are many people who argue how many angels can dance on the head of
a pin. Just as valueless an argument.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
These are your interpretations.
>
> >
> > > 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.
Well they interpret it differently, go argue that with them.
> >
> > > 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.
Not according to the Catholics - what part of "they are interpreting the
Bible differently from you" don't you understand?
>
> >
> > > 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".
Mere semantics. The Bible. It's in there. You wanna throw out the Old
Testament? Well, that's your interpretation.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
That's why they picked Friday, but it was to help out the fishing industry.
>
> > 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.
So?
> >
> > > 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.
I'm aware of that. What can I say: Protestants are just too cheap to pay
for art. :-)
And again, what part of "they interpret things differently" is not getting
through to you?
> >
> > > 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.
I read your original statement - I just doubted its accuracy/interpretation.
As to ignorance - you seem to think because you believe your interpratation
of the Bible is correct, they must therefore not be using the Bible. That's
being ignorant of their stances. I don't have a problem with you saying you
don't believe they are accurate, but dismissing them as not following the
Bible is simple arrogance.
> >
> > > 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.
You implied something broader than that knowing it would look worse. I've
seen that trick before.
>
> >
> > > 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.
And keeping the Scriptures out of the people's hands caused the Dark Ages?
Ahem.
So Roman Catholics tried to keep Greek literature out of Greek hands in a
Greek city when they were in Rome with the hopes that they'd screen out the
Scriptures at the same time? Perhaps you need to be a bit more specific,
with some dates and names.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
Sigh. You have a simplistic version of the causes of the Reformation and
Dark Ages.
> >
> > > 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.
Local yokels. So it wasn't church policy.
>
> >
> > > 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.
Apology accepted (yeah, I know, you didn't apoligize, but I will: sorry if I
gave that impression).
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 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.
But that wasn't what you were complaining about. And I didn't say you were
a Protestant, but functionally that Protestantism is functionally closer to
where you are coming from.
>
> > "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.
You haven't been paying attention, have you?
>
> >
> > > 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.
Yes you were. You're not being honest with yourself.
> And although your point above is valid, my original argument is also
> valid apart from where my loyalties lie.
Ahhhhhh-ha. No, your loyalties have blinded you. You wish to typify
Catholics as not "Biblical" because you simply interpret the Bible
differently. Had you said Protestants were not Biblical, we'd be having the
same discussion.
> >
> > > 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.
As you *think* it is laid out in the Bible.
> 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.
I must admit I have always wondered why various sects must append some other
word before Christianity, such as "Born-Again". They aren't thinking the
implications through. Anyway, people should think for themselves.
> 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.
Rock. Peter. Their interpration of such. You simply aren't paying
attention. Say they are wrong all you want because I'll be there agreeing
with you, but saying this belief does not originate from the Bible, then
saying you KNOW their stances (and therefore the bit about Peter being the
rock the church is founded on and the Popes deriving their authority from
this) means that insisting that the practice is not based on the Bible is a
knowing lie. Take your pick:
1. You are lieing and deliberately misrepresenting the Catholic church.
2. You are ignorant of their stances.
3. You don't understand the meaning of "interpretation".
Take your choice - personally, I think it is #3. But make no mistake, it
*is* one of those three. Sorry if you are insulted, but there's no where
else to go.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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 you have. Constantly. And the message is always they are wrong and you
are right so therefore stuff they clearly base on the Bible can't be based
on the Bible.
>
> Yes, my reaction to you was knee-jerk - I confess.
Confession - Catholic sacrament? :-)
> >
> > > 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?
Read that part about "their own distorted views" and just imagine that
perhaps that applies to you.
>
> >
> > > 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.
So you can morally follow the Bible and not be following the Bible? If you
make a mistake in interpretation, you are not a follower of the Bible and
nothing you do is therefore based on the Bible? If you introduce something
outside the Bible into your life, you are not following 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?
>
> That not everything that claims to be in the name of Christ is.
What do Muslim terrorists have to do with that?
> 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 becomes difficult to seperate a religion from its followers.
>
> >
> > > 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.
You were refering to the Crusades and the Inquisition. Now you are
introducing something else. If you mean that people still do evil things
often in the name of religion (inaccurately or not), you are not exactly
imparting a revelation.
>
>
> > > >
> > > I am more appauled than anyone here by the purported history of the Church.
> >
> > I doubt it.
>
> Why do you say that?
What makes you think you are more appalled than others is why I say that.
Why do you think you are the only one who is aware of the history of the
Catholic Church - for me, I can say everything you said and add on
oppression of scientific discovery (and having been burned too many times,
the Catholic Church is letting the Protestants fight the losing battle over
evolution).
>
> >
> > > 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.
It was implied. Your follow up confirms that (South America).
>
> > >
> > > 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.
Ahhh, no, your "belief" of my mischaractization. You are mischaracterizing
me with the above statement. And yes, you have mischaracterized Catholic
doctrine, both in accuracy and in its basis on the Bible.
>
> >
> >
> > > 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.
But you were and are doing that. Deny it all you want - you are only
fooling yourself, not me. Catholics are not Biblical Christians - you said
that.
> >
> > > 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
Defending and whining are quite different. No excuse, sir, indeed. :-)
Bruce
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
