attacking religion (breaking off the constitutiional thread)

[foxpaws]

One question one post - I can do that... I hope...

I know that no man can absolve sin - Right now I am trying to avoid the whole Catholicism thing here - I will quote what a priest actually says during confession "may God give you pardon and peace, and absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." obviously the priest isn't absolving the sins, through the priest Christ is absolving sin. Then probably go with John 20:23, and maybe 2 Corinthians 5:18

But - that isn't what I asked....

So, you agree that Jesus absolves you of all your sins if you believe in the "one God, Son of God, died for us", but maybe you could answer...
Is more required?

 

[97stscaddy]

How the hell do you people have time to write all of this?!? I need to catch up here, and making sense of the thousands of quotes in the last two pages of this thread is almost excruciating.

But you guys did a great job of staying on the original topic, no thanks to me. Let me read this in full tomorrow and see if you actually answered my question.

 

[fossten]

One question one post - I can do that... I hope...

I know that no man can absolve sin - Right now I am trying to avoid the whole Catholicism thing here - I will quote what a priest actually says during confession "may God give you pardon and peace, and absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." obviously the priest isn't absolving the sins, through the priest Christ is absolving sin. Then probably go with John 20:23, and maybe 2 Corinthians 5:18

But - that isn't what I asked....

So, you agree that Jesus absolves you of all your sins if you believe in the "one God, Son of God, died for us", but maybe you could answer...
Is more required?

Depends on what you mean by "believe." If you examine the entire New Testament, paying close attention to the gospels, you will note the strong emphasis placed on repentance. Look how many times Jesus urged people to repent. Look at how he treated the religious leaders of his day. He called them vipers! He emphasized that organized religion was not the answer and was in fact part of the problem.

The key is the Ten Commandments, which is the Law of God. If we have ever broken one of them (who has never lied?) we are guilty of breaking God's Law. As such, we are condemned to hell. The only way of avoiding hell is repentance and trust in Christ. Just saying the words "I believe Jesus exists" doesn't cut it. Christ isn't just some pill you take to ease the pain. He wants your heart. As I quoted earlier, if we regard iniquity in our hearts, the Lord will not hear us. That includes idolatry, which includes Mary and pope worship. If we are holding on to some sin or some belief that gets in the way of repentance or of recognition that Christ is the only way, the Lord will not hear us.

It sounds like you're asking me if someone can be saved without giving up the Catholic church. If the believer is a Christian and is aware of the differences, I cannot imagine him/her not leaving. If a Catholic makes a profession of faith but still prays to Mary, it is my spiritual judgment that this person didn't get it, and is still confused. Remember, no man can serve two masters. God is a jealous God, and He will not tolerate idolatry. Read the 1st and 2nd commandments in Exodus.

Also note:

2Cr 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

2Cr 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

2Cr 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in [them]; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

2Cr 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,

2Cr 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

 

[fossten]

How the hell do you people have time to write all of this?!? I need to catch up here, and making sense of the thousands of quotes in the last two pages of this thread is almost excruciating.

But you guys did a great job of staying on the original topic, no thanks to me. Let me read this in full tomorrow and see if you actually answered my question.

I type 55wpm. Does that answer your question?

Seriously, your question was "are Roman Catholics not Christians" and it was based on your implied accusation that Christians were the Inquisitors.

I've made a strong case that what the Bible defines as Christians in no way resembles the Catholic church.

 

[foxpaws]

sts - I type more words per - but, that is probably due in part to my habit of running sentences together, and poor sentence structure (fewer caps, less punctuation)

And currently I am trying to ascertain what exactly Foss uses to determine if one is a Christian - beyond “one God, Son of God, died for us”. Like he is stating in his post up there...

Thanks Foss...

 

[foxpaws]

Foss, from your post it looks like you place repentance, the New Testament, along with the 10 Commandments as ‘requirements’ on the same plane as "one God, Son of God, died for and absolves our sins, accept in your heart". [I should have stated more clearly, accept Christ in your heart, I did sate it earlier (post #57). Sorry – I have seemed to ‘assumed’ that instead of ‘stating’ that – so I will start stating that too…]

They all work together, equally?

And out of curiosity, and I do understand if you don’t want to answer this, where you ever Catholic? Quid pro quo – I am not a Catholic, and I have never been a Catholic.

So, applying that to the confession scenario - You go to your priest, you confess your sins to him, he tells you that Christ absolves you of your sins (note, it isn’t the priest that absolves you of sins, he is just a ‘telephone’ as it were). In that case, because, as a Catholic, you see nothing wrong with confessing your sins to the priest, and there is Biblical source (2 Corinthians 5:20 “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.”) to confirm your belief, you won’t list this in your ‘repent’ category. So, you will not go to heaven, because you haven’t asked for forgiveness for using a priest to confess your sins to Christ?

Just trying to take these one at a time…

 

[fossten]

Foss, from your post it looks like you place repentance, the New Testament, along with the 10 Commandments as ‘requirements’ on the same plane as "one God, Son of God, died for and absolves our sins, accept in your heart". [I should have stated more clearly, accept Christ in your heart, I did sate it earlier (post #57). Sorry – I have seemed to ‘assumed’ that instead of ‘stating’ that – so I will start stating that too…]

I'm not putting your phraseology on any plane. I'm using my own. You keep trying to put words in my mouth.

They all work together, equally?

"They?" The Bible, the New Testament, the 10 commandments, all provide the prescription. Repentance is the prescription.

And out of curiosity, and I do understand if you don’t want to answer this, where you ever Catholic? Quid pro quo – I am not a Catholic, and I have never been a Catholic.

No, I never was, but my father was, and he's a scholar on the subject.

So, applying that to the confession scenario - You go to your priest, you confess your sins to him, he tells you that Christ absolves you of your sins (note, it isn’t the priest that absolves you of sins, he is just a ‘telephone’ as it were). In that case, because, as a Catholic, you see nothing wrong with confessing your sins to the priest, and there is Biblical source (2 Corinthians 5:20 “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.”) to confirm your belief, you won’t list this in your ‘repent’ category. So, you will not go to heaven, because you haven’t asked for forgiveness for using a priest to confess your sins to Christ?

Just trying to take these one at a time…

The priesthood was dissolved upon Christ's death. Read the account, taking note the part where the veil in the temple was ripped in half.

Hebrews 4 clarifies the change:

Hbr 4:14 ¶ Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hbr 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

In other words, we don't have to go through an earthly priest. We go directly to God through Jesus Christ, our sinless high priest.

As far as confession, James 5:16 says, "Confess your faults one to another..." This indicates that the priest should confess to me as I confess to him!

I'm reading the chapter in 2 Cor that you mentioned. I'll formulate an answer to your question later.

If you have time, read the entire book of Hebrews. It clearly shows how the old priesthood is no longer necessary thanks to the perfect sacrifice made by Jesus Christ.

 

[fossten]

2Cr 5:18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

God reconciles us to Himself BY Jesus Christ.

2Cr 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

"To wit" means this verse is explaining the previous verse. It says He has committed unto us the WORD of reconciliation. NOT THE POWER OF RECONCILIATION.

2Cr 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

The ministry of reconciliation given to ambassadors is to "pray" or "exhort" or "urge" or "persuade" people to reconcile THEMSELVES to God. This supports and explains the previous verse saying ambassadors have the "word of reconciliation." Again, no mention here of a priest having the POWER to absolve sin.

2Cr 5:21 For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

This verse emphasizes the sinlessness of Christ, adding bricks to the foundation that Christ is the only route to God.

 

[foxpaws]

And Foss, I truly am not trying to put words in your mouth – I am trying to state in words I understand what you said – and seeing if they match up. I don’t want to fall into the trap that I thought you said one thing, and in reality, you meant it a totally different way. I certainly have been known to say something, and then have been quite flabbergasted that someone read something totally different into it.

And I do feel a little undermanned here – my Dad isn’t a scholar on religion at all. But, I will carry on…. Thanks for the insight though, I really do appreciate it.

So, to understand what you need to ‘ask forgiveness for’ (repent) you only need this tool: The Bible (we have added the old testament, so we have therefore included the 10 commandments within that umbrella). That is it – right? Is there any order – New Testament first, 10 commandments and then Old Testament – or maybe Gospels sit at the top – then the books of the disciples and… Or does it all get equal ‘billing’?

And just as a little point aren’t the high priests in the book of Hebrew referring to Jewish high priests, from the Levi tribe? The term ‘Melchizedek’ certainly is. At that point in time they didn’t even have any idea of ‘priest’ as Catholics use the term. I have read it, that whole parochial school thing…

But, you didn’t answer the question… at the end of this paragraph…

So, applying that to the confession scenario - You go to your priest, you confess your sins to him, he tells you that Christ absolves you of your sins (note, it isn’t the priest that absolves you of sins, he is just a ‘telephone’ as it were). In that case, because, as a Catholic, you see nothing wrong with confessing your sins to the priest, and there is Biblical source (2 Corinthians 5:20 “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.”) to confirm your belief, you won’t list this in your ‘repent’ category. So, you will not go to heaven, because you haven’t asked for forgiveness for using a priest to confess your sins to Christ?

 

[fossten]

So, to understand what you need to ‘ask forgiveness for’ (repent) you only need this tool: The Bible (we have added the old testament, so we have therefore included the 10 commandments within that umbrella). That is it – right? Is there any order – New Testament first, 10 commandments and then Old Testament – or maybe Gospels sit at the top – then the books of the disciples and… Or does it all get equal ‘billing’?

What are you talking about? I never said you should stack them. Just read them. What's the matter, don't have time? Sorry, I don't have Cliff Notes.

And just as a little point aren’t the high priests in the book of Hebrew referring to Jewish high priests, from the Levi tribe? The term ‘Melchizedek’ certainly is. At that point in time they didn’t even have any idea of ‘priest’ as Catholics use the term. I have read it, that whole parochial school thing…

Which part of the Bible does the Catholic church rely on for authority to use priests to actually absolve people for their sins?

But, you didn’t answer the question… at the end of this paragraph…

So, applying that to the confession scenario - You go to your priest, you confess your sins to him, he tells you that Christ absolves you of your sins (note, it isn’t the priest that absolves you of sins, he is just a ‘telephone’ as it were). In that case, because, as a Catholic, you see nothing wrong with confessing your sins to the priest, and there is Biblical source (2 Corinthians 5:20 “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.”) to confirm your belief, you won’t list this in your ‘repent’ category. So, you will not go to heaven, because you haven’t asked for forgiveness for using a priest to confess your sins to Christ?

I answered the question. Maybe I didn't fall into your little pigeonhole, but I did address the question. Frankly, that question is loaded, and I'm not going to opt for a false choice.

Here's what you said:

I know that no man can absolve sin - Right now I am trying to avoid the whole Catholicism thing here - I will quote what a priest actually says during confession "may God give you pardon and peace, and absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." obviously the priest isn't absolving the sins, through the priest Christ is absolving sin. Then probably go with John 20:23, and maybe 2 Corinthians 5:18

And then you made this logical leap:

So, applying that to the confession scenario - You go to your priest, you confess your sins to him, he tells you that Christ absolves you of your sins (note, it isn’t the priest that absolves you of sins, he is just a ‘telephone’ as it were). In that case, because, as a Catholic, you see nothing wrong with confessing your sins to the priest, and there is Biblical source (2 Corinthians 5:20 “Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.”) to confirm your belief, you won’t list this in your ‘repent’ category. So, you will not go to heaven, because you haven’t asked for forgiveness for using a priest to confess your sins to Christ?

How did you make this logical leap? Exactly what are you applying to the confession scenario? Which scenario, yours or mine? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the correct thing to say in confessional "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned?" Who is the confessor calling "Father" here? If it's the priest, then this is a form of worship, is it not? And does not the Bible say that God alone has the power to forgive sins?

Besides, I did address the question, because I discredited the Catholic view of the scriptural source in 2 Cor 5:20 by simply placing it in context. Furthermore, the passage from Hebrews destroys the "telephone" idea. Your entire assumption is void because it has no authoritative foundation. You have yet to address my point on that.

 

[foxpaws]

What are you talking about? I never said you should stack them. Just read them. What's the matter, don't have time? Sorry, I don't have Cliff Notes.

Nope, I was just wondering because earlier you had left out the Old Testament – and then recently you included it. I wanted to make sure that everything in the Bible held equal footing – that is all, just trying to understand, sorry.

Hey, Foss, I have read the Bible, lots, all sorts of versions, and in many different contexts… but, cool – Cliff Notes on the Bible – really?

But, let me try this in a different path…

If you believe the Bible supports ‘your’ belief (I am still going to use the confession example here – I don’t want to wander from this and open more wormy cans) that it is OK to confess your sins to a priest, then why would you have to repent the act of going to confession? According to 'your' interpretation of the Bible, you are fine, you haven’t sinned.

Or are there correct and incorrect interpretations of the Bible? I ask in this case, are the Catholic’s wrong in pointing to the 2 Corinthian passages we are both using as support for their belief of confession?

From earlier…

I will quote what a priest actually says during confession "may God give you pardon and peace, and absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." obviously the priest isn't absolving the sins, through the priest Christ is absolving sin. Then probably go with John 20:23, and maybe 2 Corinthians 5:18

I took the passage back one more verse for my debate…

2Cr 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Doesn’t this point to the possibility that God gives ‘us’ (mankind) the ability to minister through reconciliation?

2Cr 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Yes, the “word of reconciliation”. The priests never say that they absolve you of your sins – but, that the ‘word’ of Christ is that He will absolve you of your sins. They are ministering through reconciliation – as stated in 5:18.

2Cr 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Once again – the priest doesn’t absolve sin – he prays to Christ in your behalf (or stead), so that ‘you can be reconciled to God’ not to the priest. He is just an ambassador for Christ – as stated in the first part of this verse.

2Cr 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

This verse emphasizes the sinlessness of Christ, adding bricks to the foundation that Christ is the only route to God.

I agree with that last explanation Foss.

So, same passage – rather different conclusions – I believe each logical – I can easily follow your path here Foss, and come to your conclusion. But, isn’t my logic just as apparent here?

I already know the answer to that – no - my logic is flawed.

I am trying to point out that the Bible is open to many interpretations – wars have been fought over this – inquisitions started, people destroyed over the fact that to one set of people the Bible says one thing and to another set of people, the Bible says another.

How do we judge who is right?

 

[fossten]

dp

 

[fossten]

If you believe the Bible supports ‘your’ belief (I am still going to use the confession example here – I don’t want to wander from this and open more wormy cans) that it is OK to confess your sins to a priest, then why would you have to repent the act of going to confession? According to 'your' interpretation of the Bible, you are fine, you haven’t sinned.

Why do you keep harping on this? Where did I say this this is 'my' belief? This is 'your' assertion. I never said it was ok to confess your sins to a priest. According to the Bible, there should not be any priests. We should confess our faults one to another, period.

The Catholic church's purpose for confessional is to obtain forgiveness for sins. That is contrary to the Bible. The Bible says in 1Ti 2:5-6,

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

***

2Cr 5:18 And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

Doesn’t this point to the possibility that God gives ‘us’ (mankind) the ability to minister through reconciliation?

Not the way the Catholics mean it, which is to obtain actual salvation. The purpose of ministering to reconciliation is to urge someone to repent and reconcile himself to God through Jesus Christ. Do you not see the arrogance? Who gets to decide if a priest is "good enough" to act as mediator? God says all our righteousnesses are as "filthy rags." We all have to reconcile ourselves to God. Who reconciles the reconcilers? The pope?

2Cr 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Yes, the “word of reconciliation”. The priests never say that they absolve you of your sins – but, that the ‘word’ of Christ is that He will absolve you of your sins. They are ministering through reconciliation – as stated in 5:18.

No, they are acting as mediators, and that is unscriptural. You have yet to answer my question about why a confessor must ask the priest for forgiveness.

2Cr 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.

Once again – the priest doesn’t absolve sin – he prays to Christ in your behalf (or stead), so that ‘you can be reconciled to God’ not to the priest. He is just an ambassador for Christ – as stated in the first part of this verse.

As I've already stated and proved via Scripture, the priest's position as mediator is unscriptural.

So, same passage – rather different conclusions – I believe each logical – I can easily follow your path here Foss, and come to your conclusion. But, isn’t my logic just as apparent here?

Not when you take the passage in context with the rest of Scripture. See below:

"But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all". (Isaiah 53:5-6)

Peter and John tell us:

"ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from our fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot". "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (I Peter 1:18-19, I John 2:2)

Salvation is Christ's work and His alone, not some priest's.

". . .by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Hebrews 1:3).

How do we judge who is right?

By doing what I suggested earlier - reading the entire New Testament (and the Ten Commandments, I don't care in which order!) and gathering up all, repeat ALL, relevant Scripture, not just cherrypicking the ones that seem to support one position, which is what the Catholic Church does repeatedly.

Or, you could just take my word for it, since I've already done the reading and the gathering.

2 Corinthians 4:1-2: Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

 

[foxpaws]

OK - now... I understand...

If Fred believes the Bible supports the Catholic Church's belief that it is OK to confess his sins to a priest, then why would Fred have to repent the act of going to confession? According to Fred's (and the Catholic Church's) interpretation of the Bible, Fred is fine, Fred hasn’t sinned.

But, according to your interpretation of the first set of passages (the 2 Corinthians we used above to argue both sides of this issue) Fred has sinned.

However, my interpretation of the first set of passages shows that Fred hasn't sinned, it is OK by God and the Bible for the priest to hear his confession.

Who is right? You state other evidence in your last post - I should be able to match you verse for verse with Bible passages that support Fred's and the Catholic Church's viewpoint on this.

But, in the end, once we have gone to 200 or 2000 posts on this - we will still be at the same point - it will be Fred's and the Catholic Church's viewpoint and interpretation versus your viewpoint and interpretation (and I am sure a whole group of people who interpret the Bible as you do).

Neither side believes that they are being deceitful or dishonest. They believe that they are right - in their heart - in their faith - they truly believe they are reading the Bible as God intended it to be read.

Or, you could just take my word for it, since I've already done the reading and the gathering.

Yeah, right, I think you should believe me - and the entire Catholic Church (Is that enough winky smileys to indicate big joke there in my last statement?)

 

[fossten]

Doesn't matter what 'Fred' thinks - it only matters what God says.

It doesn't matter to Christ what sins Fred commits prior to his salvation - according to the Bible they will all be washed away. But we're not really talking about sin, are we? This despite your best efforts to throw up straw man arguments.

Fred's attendance at confessional being a sin is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is that IT DOES NOT SAVE HIM.

 

[foxpaws]

Doesn't matter what 'Fred' thinks - it only matters what God says.

It doesn't matter to Christ what sins Fred commits prior to his salvation - according to the Bible they will all be washed away. But we're not really talking about sin, are we? This despite your best efforts to throw up straw man arguments.

Fred's attendance at confessional being a sin is irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is that IT DOES NOT SAVE HIM.

I am obviously being dense - and I am really sorry. And maybe I am not getting my point across.

So, Bible has rules and regulations in it that you, Foss, believe must be adhered to as one of the criteria to arrive into heaven. Obviously the Bible can be interpreted in many ways (see multitudinous arguments previously posted). So, who's interpretation do we go with?

I need to understand who's interpretation before I can argue anything else.

 

[fossten]

I am obviously being dense - and I am really sorry. And maybe I am not getting my point across.

So, Bible has rules and regulations in it that you, Foss, believe must be adhered to as one of the criteria to arrive into heaven. Obviously the Bible can be interpreted in many ways (see multitudinous arguments previously posted). So, who's interpretation do we go with?

I need to understand who's interpretation before I can argue anything else.

Why don't you just read it yourself and decide, instead of letting the Church decide for you. The correct way to interpret is through context. I have made a case that most Catholic doctrines do not use context when using the Bible as authority. How many Scriptures have I used to back up my case?

1. Read the Ten Commandments.
2. Ask yourself, have I ever even once broken any of these?
3. If so, I am guilty of breaking God's Law.
4. What does the Bible say about judgment and hell?
5. What does the Bible say about salvation? (Note: NOT what does the church say, or what does a forum commenter say)
6. Am I willing to follow the prescription that the Bible gives, no matter what that means?

If you want a shortcut, I can give you all the verses I have that pertain to this subject, along with some commentary. But you are welcome to look them up yourself and make sure they are in context. I do not wish to use the Bible deceitfully.

You can try this link, also. It's a test to see if you're good enough to go to heaven.

 

[foxpaws]

Now, you do know, I am just being the 'advocate' in Fred's and the Catholic Church's case.. right?

I don't hold to Catholic doctrine -

In the Corinthian's passage I used more context than you did, and still came up with a totally different outcome. I can continue in this way, just like you - I happened to think I did a pretty good job of the Corinthian's passage - and I just came up with it as I was typing.

All of your points are valid too, I am not saying yours are wrong. There are just so many ways to interpret the Bible, even when you use things in context.

I am trying to say that everyone reads the Bible in their own way. It might be colored by church sentiment, or maybe in some cases colored by 'anti-church', sentiment. Life experiences, upbringing, there are just so many ways that can influence how you personally experience the Bible.

I went to the site for the test - I answered guilty to them all (because I am guilty of them all as described on the pages) - except the thing about God not sending anyone to hell - hell is plenty crowded.

So obviously I didn't get an answer, because I know the answer in my heart, there isn't a website that can tell you the answer, there isn't a church that can tell you the answer, there isn't anyone or anything on earth that can tell you what only God knows.

 

[Marcus]

I hesitate to interject into this thread, as Fossten's and Fox's exchange has been quite enlightening. Nevertheless...

Fossten, given your strict interpretation of biblical doctrine, what's your take on these closely related groups/movements/doctrines?

The New Apostolic Reformation
Five-Fold Ministries
Third Wave of the Holy Spirit
Joel's Army
Spiritual Warfare Movement

 

[fossten]

Now, you do know, I am just being the 'advocate' in Fred's and the Catholic Church's case.. right?

I don't hold to Catholic doctrine -

In the Corinthian's passage I used more context than you did, and still came up with a totally different outcome. I can continue in this way, just like you - I happened to think I did a pretty good job of the Corinthian's passage - and I just came up with it as I was typing.

All of your points are valid too, I am not saying yours are wrong. There are just so many ways to interpret the Bible, even when you use things in context.

I am trying to say that everyone reads the Bible in their own way. It might be colored by church sentiment, or maybe in some cases colored by 'anti-church', sentiment. Life experiences, upbringing, there are just so many ways that can influence how you personally experience the Bible.

I went to the site for the test - I answered guilty to them all (because I am guilty of them all as described on the pages) - except the thing about God not sending anyone to hell - hell is plenty crowded.

So obviously I didn't get an answer, because I know the answer in my heart, there isn't a website that can tell you the answer, there isn't a church that can tell you the answer, there isn't anyone or anything on earth that can tell you what only God knows.

I'm saddened to hear you say that. Millions of people throughout history have gotten answers from God's Word. He's not hiding the truth from you, you just have to seek Him out. Don't discount the possibility that in seeking him out He may be revealing the truth to you through what I'm saying.

By the way, I answered guilty to them all too.

 

[foxpaws]

Foss, I didn't get an answer to 'am I good enough to go to heaven' from the website.

I thought it would be one of those things like the IQ tests that pop up. But, mostly it was just promoting one group's version of the Bible. Nothing new to me.

Narrow version. Very narrow version.

If I wanted to get the answer to life, the universe and everything on a website I would have looked up Douglas Adams instead.

You know, that 'Living Waters' website - it could save God a lot of time though - sort of a pre-screening test.

You say that your interpretation is correct, the next group down the line says that their interpretation is correct, it goes on and on and on.

The Bible gets to be a dividing force, not a method for understanding and learning. And eventually the Bible gets elevated to 'worship' status. Remember the 1st Commandment here...

I am not discounting you or your ideas - I think you have very valid points in your arguments. But, I also think others (even me) have had valid points as well. Faith is an odd combination of head and heart. You seem to overrule heart in favor of head, I overrule head in favor of heart.

My interpretation of the Bible says we could both correct. Your interpretation of the Bible says only you are correct. My interpretation says we could both end up in heaven, your interpretation says unless I change my ways and beliefs I won't. Well, I am not worried.

You narrow Christ's word down to where it agrees with only your idea of faith, basically no different than what Catholics do. You might take more Bible verses to do it - but, the end result is the same...

Exclusion not inclusion.

Why not open it up, explore other religions, ideas, concepts, find out what could be, instead of what you need it to be.. Keep seeking, don't judge.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Hi Marcus - so what are those things - do I need to go to them for this argument - or are they Bible elitists? I find those types of sites pretty offensive, and basically ignore them.

 

[hrmwrm]

thanks foxpaws. your arguement here with fossten pretty much makes a case of christian intolerance in it's own right. christian intolerance of christians. you should ask him on his stance on gays.

 

[foxpaws]

thanks foxpaws. your arguement here with fossten pretty much makes a case of christian intolerance in it's own right. christian intolerance of christians. you should ask him on his stance on gays.

I don't think it is intolerance - but, wanting to 'make better'. I could be wrong, though, I don't want to assume anything about Foss here...

Heck, hrmwrm, maybe you got to view a case for tolerance too

I don't think I am ready for his stance on gays...

I sort of make a little inner poll on these sort of things. Often I find when people find God later in life, they become more zealous about their discovery. It might be part of that mysticism you mentioned earlier, hrmwrm. When you grow up with God, it becomes more of a 'given', instead of something that has to be proven. Or, maybe you have gotten the 'proven' part out of the way earlier.

So, about that idea of yours that

after all, you're not born believing, you have to be told to believe.

 

[97stscaddy]

Ok, now three days later and...



I read about half of it.

Foss no doubt you're an excellent debater, but all I can see that you have done is outline differences in the beliefs of Catholics from those of Protestants. I still don't see a clearly defined answer as to why you believe Catholics are not Christian.

I don't have all the references to, and passages from, the bible to cut and paste, but I do have Merriam Websters Dictionary, so I'll cut and paste some of that.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Catholic

Main Entry: Cath·o·lic
Listen to the pronunciation of catholic
Pronunciation:
\ˈkath-lik, ˈka-thə-\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English catholik, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French catholique, from Late Latin catholicus, from Greek katholikos universal, general, from katholou in general, from kata by + holos whole — more at cata-, safe
Date:
14th century

1 aoften capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the church universal boften capitalized : of, relating to, or forming the ancient undivided Christian church or a church claiming historical continuity from it ccapitalized : roman catholic2: comprehensive , universal ; especially : broad in sympathies, tastes, or interests <a catholic taste in music>
— ca·thol·i·cal·ly Listen to the pronunciation of catholically \kə-ˈthä-li-k(ə-)lē\ adverb
— ca·thol·i·cize Listen to the pronunciation of catholicize \-ˈthä-lə-ˌsīz\ verb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Catholicism

Main Entry: Ca·thol·i·cism
Listen to the pronunciation of Catholicism
Pronunciation:
\kə-ˈthä-lə-ˌsi-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
circa 1617

1 : roman catholicism 2 : the faith, practice, or system of Catholic Christianity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Christianity

Main Entry: Chris·tian·i·ty
Listen to the pronunciation of Christianity
Pronunciation:
\ˌkris-chē-ˈa-nə-tē, ˌkrish-, -ˈcha-nə-, ˌkris-tē-ˈa-\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century

1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies 2 : conformity to the Christian religion 3 : the practice of Christianity

So we see Roman Catholic mentioned there, how about another kind of Catholic...

Main Entry: An·glo–Cath·o·lic
Listen to the pronunciation of Anglo–Catholic
Pronunciation:
\-ˈkath-lik, -ˈka-thə-\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1838

: of or relating to a High Church movement in Anglicanism emphasizing its continuity with historic Catholicism and fostering Catholic dogmatic and liturgical traditions

Main Entry: An·gli·can
Listen to the pronunciation of Anglican
Pronunciation:
\ˈaŋ-gli-kən\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Medieval Latin anglicanus, from anglicus English, from Latin Angli Angles
Date:
1635

1 : of or relating to the established episcopal Church of England and churches of similar faith and order in communion with it 2 : of or relating to England or the English nation

 

[hrmwrm]

foxpaws, i have a lot of tolerance for religions, i just believe they should be where they belong. living in a multicultural world means one must have thought for all views, and not just the majority view should be the only prevelant one. my view of no belief is just as acceptable as a christian, muslim, hindu, buddhist, or even native view(and whatever else there is) i just shouldn't have to be constantly assaulted with a particular view.

it can be an interesting reaction from some when they find out i don't believe. they make an assumption that everyone does. they think that no belief is ignorant, when actually, it is from being quite enlightened.