Religion — Page 69

moviefreakedmind said:

darth_ender said:

I’ve noticed a lot of criticism of the Catholic Church lately. I actually really love and respect that institution.

Why? Whenever someone is referring to how violent of a religion Christianity is, they almost universally are referring to the Catholic Church. Also, I’m pretty sure that their official stance, even though Pope’s of late have been incredibly ecumenical (something that simply does not go hand in hand with Christianity), would be that Joseph Smith and his successors were false prophets. Why would you respect an institution that claims that?

In the same way that I can deeply respect the Church of Latter Day Saints. Our churches have a lot in common, and both do a lot of good.

Sure, it utilizes more than the Bible as a source, but I assure you, so does Protestantism, even when they pretend not to.

I feel like this should be a red flag for Christians. At my most faithful I was always against Lutheranism and Calvinism too for the exact same reason.

So what did Christians do before the Bible was a thing? Before the biblical canon was established, some held The Shepherd of Hermas and other non-canonical books to be canonical, while other rejected Revelation or the Epistle of James. The books of the New Testament were not even completed until around 150, over a hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion.

The Bible does not even declare itself to be the only source of true doctrine, so what authority decided that it was? 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” That’s more or less what the Church has always done. It doesn’t introduce brand new doctrines. Almost invariably, they have their roots in the earliest days of the Church.

http://www.alternet.org/personal-health/abortion-spiritual-ministry-interview-christian-doctor-willie-parker

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I feel like this should be a red flag for Christians. At my most faithful I was always against Lutheranism and Calvinism too for the exact same reason.

So what did Christians do before the Bible was a thing? Before the biblical canon was established, some held The Shepherd of Hermas and other non-canonical books to be canonical, while other rejected Revelation or the Epistle of James. The books of the New Testament were not even completed until around 150, over a hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion.

The Bible does not even declare itself to be the only source of true doctrine, so what authority decided that it was? 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” That’s more or less what the Church has always done. It doesn’t introduce brand new doctrines. Almost invariably, they have their roots in the earliest days of the Church.

Some hold Harry Potter to be canonical and some would claim the rearrangement of the stars into text as non-canonical.

Completed 150 AD? That’s MAJOR progress. The atheist claim used to be that it was all concocted by Constantine’s scribes around 330AD. The NT keeps being confirmed by the serious scholars as having been produced in it’s claimed timeframe before 90AD.

It’s VERY disturbing to see Catholics so radically devoted to discrediting the Bible. It’s for the purpose of maintaining their own Luciferian doctrines.

2Thes2:15 Instructs Christians to stand firm with what they were taught by letter or word BY THE APOSTLES AND DISCIPLES OF THE TIME OF 2THES. It certainly does not allow for any group of closeted homosexuals dressed as Harry Potter wizards to come along hundreds or thousands of years later and establish any new doctrinal whims because they formed a circle-jerk and voted that Peter would have been thrilled.

Do you remember being in kindergarten and playing a new game with other kids? Remember how the children would change the rules of the game on-the-fly? How ridiculous it ended up being? Yeah, Luciferians LLLLOOOOOOOOVVVVVVE having that kind of latitude, for obvious reasons. That the whole exercise becomes ridiculous and discredited is a TREMENDOUS bonus for them.

Bottom line, any instruction we receive must be closed and must not be so undeniable that it is like the teacher writing all the answers on the chalkboard before the math test.

Wadyakno, that’s exactly what we got.

thejediknighthusezni said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I feel like this should be a red flag for Christians. At my most faithful I was always against Lutheranism and Calvinism too for the exact same reason.

So what did Christians do before the Bible was a thing? Before the biblical canon was established, some held The Shepherd of Hermas and other non-canonical books to be canonical, while other rejected Revelation or the Epistle of James. The books of the New Testament were not even completed until around 150, over a hundred years after Jesus’ crucifixion.

The Bible does not even declare itself to be the only source of true doctrine, so what authority decided that it was? 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.” That’s more or less what the Church has always done. It doesn’t introduce brand new doctrines. Almost invariably, they have their roots in the earliest days of the Church.

Blah blah blah LUCIFERIANS blah blah blah CLOSETED HOMOSEXUALS blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah …

WYRS

The etymological meaning of Lucifer is “bearer of light,” making Luciferians consequently the bearers of light and thus of the truth.

Also, last I checked, Protestantism has its origins in the 16th century, before which time, Christians were almost universally Catholic or Orthodox, and it is they who invented the rule that all true doctrine must come from the Bible (note that that rule isn’t anywhere in the Bible…). Talk about changing the rules, huh?

RicOlie_2 said:

Also, last I checked, Protestantism has its origins in the 16th century, before which time, Christians were almost universally Catholic or Orthodox, and it is they who invented the rule that all true doctrine must come from the Bible (note that that rule isn’t anywhere in the Bible…). Talk about changing the rules, huh?

He’ll probably just pull some discredited “Babylonian mystery religion” claim out of his ass, now.

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

The etymological meaning of Lucifer is “bearer of light,” making Luciferians consequently the bearers of light and thus of the truth.

Also, last I checked, Protestantism has its origins in the 16th century, before which time, Christians were almost universally Catholic or Orthodox, and it is they who invented the rule that all true doctrine must come from the Bible (note that that rule isn’t anywhere in the Bible…). Talk about changing the rules, huh?

Before the Catholic church, there was no all-encompassing institution that governed the individual churches. 2 Timothy 3:16 also set the standard for living by the scriptures.

Timothy 3:16 says: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness[…]”

It just says it’s God-breathed and useful, which is exactly the Catholic Church’s position, and in no way even implies that it is the only acceptable source of divine truth.

I don’t think there’s much historical evidence that there was a “before the Catholic Church,” once Christianity was established. From reading the Bible and the Church Fathers, I have come across numerous references to bishops and other clergy, and even popes (from the early second century). The sacraments of baptism and communion (and confession, etc.), as described by those writers, are all consistent with Catholic teaching, sometimes even surprisingly so.

moviefreakedmind said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

The etymological meaning of Lucifer is “bearer of light,” making Luciferians consequently the bearers of light and thus of the truth.

Also, last I checked, Protestantism has its origins in the 16th century, before which time, Christians were almost universally Catholic or Orthodox, and it is they who invented the rule that all true doctrine must come from the Bible (note that that rule isn’t anywhere in the Bible…). Talk about changing the rules, huh?

Before the Catholic church, there was no all-encompassing institution that governed the individual churches. 2 Timothy 3:16 also set the standard for living by the scriptures.

EDIT: Just so you know, I have no loyalty to the protestant churches. I don’t think that an individual church should be very big. The bigger, the more corrupt.

I can’t remember exactly what you’re religious beliefs are. Could you remind me?

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

So it’s only valid in cases where someone has a choice?

I’m not sure I would say it that way, but I’m not really sure how I would say it.

By that logic, I can’t “hate the sin” of an individual attracted to the same sex, but I can “hate the sin” of someone having homosexual sex, right? Bear in mind that you probably don’t know my views on homosexuality (and others who’ve known me longer and think they do likely not either) so don’t bring me personally into this. It’s merely a question. Homosexual sex is in fact a choice.

Sexual relief is a requirement for humans, and if you’re gay then the only way to get that is through gay sex. It may technically be a choice, but it’s a choice in the sense that your only other option is to be unhappy/sexually frustrated.

Sexual relief is a need, not a requirement for humans. The same with procreation. I don’t know of any reports of people dying from abstinence. Being a sentient life form is hard enough without all the other frustrations that come with it.

Jetrell Fo said:

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

So it’s only valid in cases where someone has a choice?

I’m not sure I would say it that way, but I’m not really sure how I would say it.

By that logic, I can’t “hate the sin” of an individual attracted to the same sex, but I can “hate the sin” of someone having homosexual sex, right? Bear in mind that you probably don’t know my views on homosexuality (and others who’ve known me longer and think they do likely not either) so don’t bring me personally into this. It’s merely a question. Homosexual sex is in fact a choice.

Sexual relief is a requirement for humans, and if you’re gay then the only way to get that is through gay sex. It may technically be a choice, but it’s a choice in the sense that your only other option is to be unhappy/sexually frustrated.

Sexual relief is a need, not a requirement for humans. The same with procreation. I don’t know of any reports of people dying from abstinence. Being a sentient life form is hard enough without all the other frustrations that come with it.

That’s a better way of saying it. It’s a need.

Being forced to be abstinent can be pretty harmful, not physically, but emotionally and psychologically. I think it’s fucked up to demand someone to be abstinent.

Jeebus said:

Jetrell Fo said:

Jeebus said:

darth_ender said:

So it’s only valid in cases where someone has a choice?

I’m not sure I would say it that way, but I’m not really sure how I would say it.

By that logic, I can’t “hate the sin” of an individual attracted to the same sex, but I can “hate the sin” of someone having homosexual sex, right? Bear in mind that you probably don’t know my views on homosexuality (and others who’ve known me longer and think they do likely not either) so don’t bring me personally into this. It’s merely a question. Homosexual sex is in fact a choice.

Sexual relief is a requirement for humans, and if you’re gay then the only way to get that is through gay sex. It may technically be a choice, but it’s a choice in the sense that your only other option is to be unhappy/sexually frustrated.

Sexual relief is a need, not a requirement for humans. The same with procreation. I don’t know of any reports of people dying from abstinence. Being a sentient life form is hard enough without all the other frustrations that come with it.

That’s a better way of saying it. It’s a need.

Being forced to be abstinent can be pretty harmful, not physically, but emotionally and psychologically. I think it’s fucked up to demand someone to be abstinent.

Yes, look what it did to Impscum. Now he can only get off when talking about how awesome he is.

Ah. I take it you were born into a Protestant family, then, but don’t have any strong personal (religious) beliefs?

Huh. I find the arguments you use when criticizing the Church interesting, considering you don’t have much of a religious background.

This all stems from the refusal, in the face of every imperative, to toss out EVERYTHING received from the Catholic abomination. Scripture must be approached as if for the first time and with a determination to accept what is there. There must also be a determination to resolve any apparent contradiction with Logic, Common Sense, and natural True Law.

Your favorite team has reached the Super Bowl. The opposing team has a record of placing bounties and violating rules to injure the stars of your team. You can go into the stadium with the hope that there will be none of that nastiness and that the rival team will sincerely repent of the error of their ways. At the same time, You can be OUTRAGED and utterly disgusted by the attitude and practices of that gang of thugs. You can resolve to shout and do any other Lawful thing to stop the goons and encourage the officials to uphold the rules.

Christians are commanded to pray for the leaders and peoples who might cause them troubles that there can be peace. They are to do so without anger and contentiousness. At the same time, Christians are commanded, through Scripture and Natural Law, to be horrified by and oppose evil and hurtfulness with constant judgement and the courage to undertake any necessary action to stop cruelty that is ordained by our Creator through Scripture and Natural Law.

Where the HHHHHYYYYYYYEEEEEELLLLLLL is the contradiction?!?!?

I pray EVERY DAY, and sometimes several times a day, that our indescribably CRUEL and DEPRAVED elite will be moved by our Creator or anyone and anything else to clap themselves on the forehead and say “Gee, we really need to knock off this INSANITY” Praying that others will repent and rejoin humanity cannot be experienced with anger and contentiousness. They are mutually exclusive emotional states.

O…T…O…H, when not in earnest prayer for peace, I certainly can feel FURIOUS OUTRAGE and UTTER DISGUST for those enlightened ones and their designs. I certainly can find the COWARDICE and CORRUPTION of their willing tools and shills UTTERLY VOMITOUS and HORRIFYING. I certainly can call upon our LORD to uphold His Word of Honor and provide a full measure of Justice to the unrelenting and the cowardly. I certainly can call upon any other person and power to take every ordained action. I certainly can keep myself from being a HYPOCRITE.

Our reactions must be consistant with the degree of evil faced. This business of handing over our children to the will of HEINOUS MONSTERS because we “can’t be judgmental” and laying the heads of our family and neighbors on the chopping block because we “must not be contentious” is it’s own form of INCALCULABLE DEPRAVITY.

For once yhwx is unambiguously, objectively, 100.100% right.

This is interesting.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-does-praying-in-public-make-others-uncomfortable/

TV’s Frink said:

This is interesting.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-does-praying-in-public-make-others-uncomfortable/

That’s more or less the results I would have expected, though prayer before meals bothered people slightly more than I would have thought.

Out of curiosity, would you feel uncomfortable if you were invited over for dinner and your hosts prayed grace? And if so, would it make you feel more at ease if they explained that they were going to pray grace, and you could pray or abstain from doing so as you wished?

Incidentally, the only person who has mentioned anything when I pray grace before lunch at school (silently, but visibly making the sign of the cross) was a kid from a Catholic family who obviously didn’t share his parents’ religious convictions and who teased me about it. I do go to a Catholic school, though, so even non-religious kids there probably wouldn’t think much of it (I got a ton of questions about it in elementary, though).