Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Catholics are making it up.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 69 of 507 (768259)
09-10-2015 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by jar
09-10-2015 10:20 AM


Re: Original Sin
Only literal-minded dunderheadedness requires the Bible to state doctrine in so many words. A great deal of doctrine is inferred, but that takes a lot of thought, which is beyond some.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by jar, posted 09-10-2015 10:20 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ringo, posted 09-10-2015 12:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 83 by jar, posted 09-10-2015 3:25 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 71 of 507 (768263)
09-10-2015 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by AZPaul3
09-10-2015 11:09 AM


Re: Original Sin
There is no revenue in salvation. Except of course bogus Catholic "salvation" which isn't salvation anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by AZPaul3, posted 09-10-2015 11:09 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by AZPaul3, posted 09-10-2015 11:22 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 74 of 507 (768268)
09-10-2015 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by AZPaul3
09-10-2015 11:22 AM


Re: Original Sin
Excuse me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by AZPaul3, posted 09-10-2015 11:22 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by AZPaul3, posted 09-10-2015 9:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 82 of 507 (768297)
09-10-2015 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by kbertsche
09-10-2015 3:09 PM


You've never come across scientists who are dogmatic?!?
You've never come across religious believers who are humble?!?
In the case of Biblical revelation it is NOT humble to subject it to fallible human scrutiny. THat's in fact the opposite of humility.
Science is man's attempt to understand nature. Theology is man's attempt to understand God and holy Scripture.
I don't think so. Not Christian theology. It's an attempt to understand what God has revealed in scripture. Your way of putting it implies something more like working in the dark to come up with something that convinces us.
Both understandings are necessarily incomplete and subject to correction and improvement. Serious students of both disciplines readily admit this.
I agree there is always more to learn about the Bible. But using it to validate evolution is not good theology, it's reading your own prejudices into it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by kbertsche, posted 09-10-2015 3:09 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by vimesey, posted 09-10-2015 3:38 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 95 by kbertsche, posted 09-10-2015 6:57 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 84 of 507 (768299)
09-10-2015 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by jar
09-10-2015 3:25 PM


Re: Original Sin
How stuppidd. inference is a method of solving puzzles. You assemble the facts and study how they are related to each other. Utter utter stupppidddity to call that making stuff up,. Sheer iddiocy.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by jar, posted 09-10-2015 3:25 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 09-10-2015 3:35 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 87 of 507 (768302)
09-10-2015 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by jar
09-10-2015 3:35 PM


Re: Original Sin
First sin ever = original sin.
Hid from God. Communication broken. Passed this on to the rest of us. None of us naturally has communication with God.
We are told in the New Testament that salvation is regeneration or "quickening," from which we infer that the spirit had died.
Adam and Eve did eventually die physically, which they would not have if they hadn't disobeyed God.
We all inherit susceptibility to diseases of all kinds and death, which we would not have if they hadn't disobeyed God. Inference from New Testament's saying death entered the world by Adam.
Not spending much time on this, you aren't going to get it anyway.
The idea of a "desired conclusion" is perfect iddiocy. Where would anyone get the idea to desire any particular explanation of these things? They can only be arrived at by study.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 09-10-2015 3:35 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 09-10-2015 3:48 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 89 of 507 (768305)
09-10-2015 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by jar
09-10-2015 3:48 PM


Re: Original Sin
The New Testament is the explanation of the Old Testament, as understood by true Protestants. You reduce scripture to something inane. Disgusting and blasphemous.,
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by jar, posted 09-10-2015 3:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by jar, posted 09-10-2015 4:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 102 of 507 (768339)
09-10-2015 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Coyote
09-10-2015 9:31 PM


Re: TRVTH?
Tangle is right. But EvC is full of "liberal" religionists who are always willing to change God's revelation to suit their version of science or political correctness or whatever. Or even not bother to change it, just ignore it.
The hundreds of made-up doctrines and practices of the RCC shouldn't bother any of them, or unbelievers either, as long as they like the Pope's politics.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2015 9:31 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2015 10:49 PM Faith has replied
 Message 109 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2015 2:01 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 105 of 507 (768357)
09-11-2015 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Coyote
09-10-2015 10:49 PM


Re: TRVTH?
No there aren't thousands of different denominations, that's a ridiculous inflation of tiny differences between some groups. There is the RCC and there is generic Protestantism which includes churches of many small differences that would all stand together on the Biblical essentials, there are "liberal" churches that make it all up to suit themselves, that no doubt have differences among them too though they are fairly enough all classed as liberal churches, and there are Christianish cults, that's pretty much it.
If the Bible is God's word you believe the churches that teach that. Everything else is human error.
But nobody said you have to believe anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Coyote, posted 09-10-2015 10:49 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 107 of 507 (768364)
09-11-2015 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Tangle
09-10-2015 11:34 AM


Re: Original Sin
Original Sin is a PROTESTANT belief
True, but the Catholics had it 1500 years or so before them.
The RCC is nothing but the bishop of the city of Rome who usurped power over the centuries against all the other bishops of all the other cities. It wasn't until 606 AD that the papacy as we know it today was formed, and that particular church just went on acquiring power, inventing justification for power, multiplying weird rituals, denying the people knowledge of the scriptures that would show it to be in serious error, keeping them enslaved, eventually coming to lord it over kings and boss them around too, the epitome of the union of church and state, the original totalitarianism justifying all kinds of abuses of power until the Reformation finally shot it down. But it seems to be gathering influence again these days, the result of ignorance of history and some kind of delusion that they've changed.
Also, there were Protestants all the way back to apostolic times, who opposed the falseness of the RCC as it developed and were persecuted and martyred by the RCC for daring to disagree with their ridiculous made-up doctrines and pagan practices. The Reformers of the Protestant Reformation recognized those ancient dissident groups as Protestants like themselves. This knowledge was suppressed by the RCC of course, who labeled the dissident groups as heretics and gave themselves the right to murder them.
There are doctrines from the early church that are accepted by Protestants. It's just the usual RCC chutzpah that claims they are the original church etc. etc. They made all THAT up too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Tangle, posted 09-10-2015 11:34 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 108 of 507 (768365)
09-11-2015 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by NoNukes
09-10-2015 11:15 AM


Re: Catholics and original sin
So their definition of original sin is similar to Protestantism's. Well and good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2015 11:15 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 118 of 507 (768403)
09-11-2015 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Tangle
09-11-2015 11:13 AM


Christianity is based on what was written 2,000 years ago, by unknown authors, after the fact, cobbled together and hacked about by a Roman emperor 300 years later for reasons of power and politics.
It's been argued and fought over ever since - hence even people that call themselves Christians can't agree on it. There's thousands of versions of this 'truth' - even liberal Christians can't agree. The particular dumped 'truths' we've been talking about where imposed on the laity by decree from a man claiming infallibility - for god's sake.
There's no objective mechanism of testing these 'truths' - no process, just what people prefer to believe at any point in time.
And that's just Christianity; the process has been repeated by thousands of different sects with any number of different books and beliefs - all un-evidenced and unchallengeable. And strangely all true.
Nonsense. You haven't said one true thing in any of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Tangle, posted 09-11-2015 11:13 AM Tangle has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 119 of 507 (768407)
09-11-2015 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by kbertsche
09-11-2015 2:01 AM


Re: TRVTH?
Faith, consider the following:
1) Luther made strong statements in support of geocentrism. Calvin arguably also supported geocentrism. But nearly all Christians today deny geocentrism.
2) John Whitcomb was comfortable with a creation as much as 10,000-15,000 years old. But nearly all YECs today insist that it can't be much more than 6,000 years old.
3) Many of the pro-YEC arguments that I heard as a youngster are now on ICR's and AIG's lists of "arguments that should not be used".
4) B.B. Warfield supported a version of theistic evolution. But most reformed believers today who are his theological descendants completely deny theistic evolution.
5) Serious Christians (even in your own Reformed branch of Christendom) have different views on a huge variety of topics: eschatology, types of music allowed in worship, role of women in church leadership, etc.
The fundamental, primary, essential doctrines of the Christian faith don't change. But secondary, non-essential doctrines DO change. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
I never said there aren't different interpretations of the Bible on some subjects. However, some of the above stretch the Biblical base quite a bit. I don't think theistic evolution can be Biblically justified. But there will always be even very good theologians who allow themselves to defend something that really isn't Biblically defensible. The point is that Protestants try to stay within the Biblical framework even if they push the envelope quite a bit in some cases.
The RCC, however, has to be clearly identified as just about never bothering to stay within the Biblical framework but making up the vast majority of their doctrine, most of it out of their pagan predecessors, which was the reason they denied the Bible to believers over so much of their history. Remarkably, enough of the Bible accounts get through to enough rank and file Catholics for a few of them to actually be saved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2015 2:01 AM kbertsche has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 09-11-2015 12:53 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 507 (768416)
09-11-2015 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Taq
09-11-2015 12:53 PM


Re: TRVTH?
There's no dilemma. The Bible is always true even if human beings are fallible.
Besides, show me ONE religion that's ever "died a quick death" even when out of touch with the mountains of often bogus evidence science piles on us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Taq, posted 09-11-2015 12:53 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Taq, posted 09-11-2015 2:23 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 126 of 507 (768461)
09-12-2015 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by kbertsche
09-11-2015 2:01 AM


Re: TRVTH?
Faith writes:
Tangle is right. But EvC is full of "liberal" religionists who are always willing to change God's revelation to suit their version of science or political correctness or whatever. Or even not bother to change it, just ignore it.
Faith, consider the following:
1) Luther made strong statements in support of geocentrism. Calvin arguably also supported geocentrism. But nearly all Christians today deny geocentrism.
2) John Whitcomb was comfortable with a creation as much as 10,000-15,000 years old. But nearly all YECs today insist that it can't be much more than 6,000 years old.
3) Many of the pro-YEC arguments that I heard as a youngster are now on ICR's and AIG's lists of "arguments that should not be used".
4) B.B. Warfield supported a version of theistic evolution. But most reformed believers today who are his theological descendants completely deny theistic evolution.
5) Serious Christians (even in your own Reformed branch of Christendom) have different views on a huge variety of topics: eschatology, types of music allowed in worship, role of women in church leadership, etc.
The fundamental, primary, essential doctrines of the Christian faith don't change. But secondary, non-essential doctrines DO change. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
I'm not sure I answered this clearly enough so I'm trying again. The idea was supposed to be that even excellent theologians can make mistakes. It would be a mistake to use their mistake to justify an argument that is essentially unbiblical, which I believe geocentrism is, and theistic evolution, so it's right that most believers today reject those ideas. Note: there was no change here, np progress, just mistakes that have been rejected by the majority.
In fact nothing you said suggests that any progress from a biblical position has ever been made, since most have reverted to the most conservative biblical viewpoint.
Continuing, I don't see how it's possible to justify more than 6000 years of earth history from the Biblical facts.
I don't think any of those ideas can be convincingly defended from scripture but are imposed on it by one degree or another of self-deception due to worldly influences.
I think women in leadership positions in the church is another obvious violation of what the Bible says, so that liberal views of it are simply unbiblical and wrong, same as with geocentrism, age of the earth, theistic evolution etc. I don't suppose any woman with leadership ability could be completely happy with this but our job is to obey the Bible and find other outlets for our leadership gifts. This life is short enough and I don't want to be found arguing with God in the end.
Eschatology is of course a difficult subject and one the Bible leaves vague for obvious reasons, and I've found it hard to accept anybody's complete system. So although I think some systems are more convincing than others I'm not going to come down hard and fast on any one of them yet.
Types of music is another vexed subject, and one I think involves spiritual discernment but I'm not ready to make it a hill to die on.
However, again, in all these subjects you haven't shown the superiority of any liberal idea over the obvious conservative position of the Bible. You obviously choose to support some of the liberal ideas yourself, but in my judgment completely without biblical warrant.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by kbertsche, posted 09-11-2015 2:01 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by kbertsche, posted 09-12-2015 11:45 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024