RicOlie_2

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

Hey, you said you felt good for a week or two. That sounds like fantastic progress to me! Of course you’re going to have relapses, and at first, they’re going to happen fairly often, but if you keep at it, they’ll get further and further apart. Don’t give up! You’ve made progress, and that’s the important part.

The best pizza I’ve ever had is made in my home village (it’s also the greasiest, which probably has something to do with it). There’s a place near where I live that makes really good deep dish pizza, too.

Upping the font size really makes a difference! And I agree that it wouldn’t be good to widen the text.

ray_afraid said:

Tyrphanax said:

My brother had that same problem earlier in the year, Ric. Like faucet-level torrents of blood. Turns out he’d broken vein up there somehow that wouldn’t heal properly and he had to go get it cauterized several times before they finally got it.

I had to do that when I was about 14! I had to get it cauterized four times in one night!

Yikes!

I hope your problem with it ends quick, Ric!

Yeah, me too. The worst of it seems to be past, but I’m still living in suspense, fearing that I’ll get a nosebleed at a really awkward time… 😛

yhwx said:

Tyrphanax said:

I have a humble request of this forum:

If you all wouldn’t mind helping me finish up grad school, go ahead and fill out this nifty little survey I’ve thrown together (it’ll probably only take about five minutes) as accurately and honestly as you can.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeRT117Dbe6QJ00l7rkchyvzsc57ik1JPPzLno8YBZtqbTtHQ/viewform

I’ll be very grateful for any responses generated from OT.com! Love you guys.

I answered no to the ‘Do you play video games?’ question, so I only got to answer two questions. 😉

I said that I was less than 18, so I only got to answer one question, LOL. 😛

Tyrphanax said:

I’ve actually been thinking about asking Mike how he was. I’ve seen him in a couple other threads here and there lately…

Hopefully no news is good news…

I hope all is as well as it can be with things the way they are, Mike. It’s been a while since we’ve gotten an update from you. Have you heard about the (fairly recent) advancements in research on OCD? Let’s hope the findings turn into something concrete soon enough for you to benefit.

http://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(16)32380-0/fulltext
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ocd-can-turned-switch-brain-8467009

Yeah, I’m curious how you would “learn” to speak in tongues. It’s not something you hear about much in Catholicism.

I might have spoken too soon about my nosebleeds… I had a couple today (really short ones though, thank goodness).

You have my sincere condolences and best wishes, Ray.

That’s great!

As for me, my daily nosebleeds seem to have stopped. I had one almost every day from June 7 to a few days ago, some of which lasted about an hour (and I’m talking about an intense hour-long nosebleed that didn’t even slow down until about 45 minutes into it). Hopefully I don’t have that problem again, because it was annoying. I had nosebleeds at church, at work, and during two separate fancy dinners, and I thought it was only a matter of time before it happened when I was driving or something and caused a real mess.

TV’s Frink said:

*wade

Geez, my typing has been sloppy lately.

I don’t know how I even managed to spell it like that in the first place.

You’d never be able to start any new relationships either.

On the other hand, if you choose the other option, almost all your relationships would end prematurely…

Yeah, it’s not bad at all.

The other day we had a huge rainstorm while I was at work. There was a heavy downpour for at least half an hour. When I went outside, I had to waid through two or three inches of water.

TV’s Frink said:

So basically would you rather live a normal life or be Dory?

I’ll take the normal life, please. A dream life is worthless if you can’t remember it. I am lucky to not live in poverty but otherwise I’ve dealt with plenty of crap and I’d still rather that than forgetting everything good that happened.

Some people’s normal lives, I guess. I meant (significantly) more than average suffering (for a first world country) though.

Jeebus said:

Would you rather forget everything that happened more than 24 hours ago but otherwise live your dream life, or have a normal memory but experience suffering often in your life? You’d retain all the memories you have up to this point, either way, but if you chose to have a short memory, you’d forget anything that happened from hereon.

Shit, that’s a hard one, since your memories define you so much. What kind of suffering are we talking about?

From poverty to losing loved ones to more minor problems. Maybe illness of some kind too (though nothing too debilitating). You’d have all your basic needs met, though–you wouldn’t be homeless and rummaging through garbage bins, for instance.

Jeebus said:

Post scenarios and discuss your answers.

I’ll start off with;

Would you rather be fluent in every language or be able to play every instrument?

Wow, I guess I’m the only one who would pick omnipolyglotism in a flash. Learning French has opened up quite a bit of the world for me, so it’s definitely something I would benefit from and enjoy. Being able to play every instrument might get me the girls, but so can a cute accent. 😉

Would you rather forget everything that happened more than 24 hours ago but otherwise live your dream life, or have a normal memory but experience suffering often in your life? You’d retain all the memories you have up to this point, either way, but if you chose to have a short memory, you’d forget anything that happened from hereon.

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Again, the main difference between Catholicism and Christianity is that Catholicism revolves around a Church that operates no differently than a secular government. Church and state are merged in Catholicism. Christianity, according to the Bible, is incredibly submissive and is inherently passive. Given the contradictions between Hitler’s own speech, it’d be unwise to call him a “Christian”, in fact, he’s often inaccurately referred to as an atheist.

I find it interesting that you declare the Catholic Church to be not Christian based on the New Testament, which was, as it happens, assembled and defined by synods and councils of the Church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397

Note how the Council of Carthage, in addition to listing the agreed-upon books of the Bible, recommends that the martyrs be honoured on their feast days, and clearly mentions priests. In other words, when the New Testament was assembled, certain Catholic teachings were the norm throughout the majority of Christendom.

Those were ecumenical to a degree, not exclusively Catholic, and were before the Catholic Church had its monopoly on biblical interpretation. Ironically, the Catholic Church throughout European history was the greatest enemy to those who actually wanted to read the Bible.

What do you mean by “not exclusively Catholic”? I could do my research, I suppose, but I don’t really have the time at the moment.

Just to be clear, I was always against Lutheranism and Calvinism as well. Lol.

Fair enough.

moviefreakedmind said:

Sure, but I was thinking of Hitler himself, who was raised Catholic. I don’t really consider the individual soldiers in the German Army; I’m sure most of them weren’t aware of what they were fighting for. As for most of Hitler’s SS thugs, I don’t know what their religious identities were. The problem I have with your definition of Christianity is that there are sects that elevate the Pope or Joseph Smith, for example, (I hope Ender can elaborate on his views) to the level of near-divinity. The Pope takes the title of “Holy Father”, which is only used in the Bible to refer to God himself.

Joseph Smith is certainly not elevated above humanity in Mormon teaching.

moviefreakedmind said:

Again, the main difference between Catholicism and Christianity is that Catholicism revolves around a Church that operates no differently than a secular government. Church and state are merged in Catholicism. Christianity, according to the Bible, is incredibly submissive and is inherently passive. Given the contradictions between Hitler’s own speech, it’d be unwise to call him a “Christian”, in fact, he’s often inaccurately referred to as an atheist.

I find it interesting that you declare the Catholic Church to be not Christian based on the New Testament, which was, as it happens, assembled and defined by synods and councils of the Church:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage#Synod_of_397

Note how the Council of Carthage, in addition to listing the agreed-upon books of the Bible, recommends that the martyrs be honoured on their feast days, and clearly mentions priests. In other words, when the New Testament was assembled, certain Catholic teachings were the norm throughout the majority of Christendom.

Granted, Protestants reject the Deuterocanon because the Jews didn’t include it (well, not all Jews, anyway), despite retaining all the New Testament books, neither adding nor removing any.

To reject the Church as having strayed from the truth is one thing, but to say that it is not Christain because its base structure is misaligned with the Bible doesn’t seem to be a very tenable position, considering that the New Testament canon was defined within that structure (the canon was assembled by a council of bishops, and had to be ratified by Rome, etc.).