The Damn Catholic Church...

[ck_taft325is]

Best way I can think of hell is less a "pit of fire" and more a total and complete absence of God, which, as many have voiced, they want if not postulate.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Yes, the modern "vision" of Hell comes from scenes in prophesy. May have been a specific "City" if you will in the grand scheme of things.

[87e30]

I'm not saying that I don't do good, but I'm saying that the bad I've done will not limit my ability to gain eternal life.

Again, this is based on your belief. The catholic church, from my understanding, would not entirely agree with you. I've never been involved with a Catholic church, so I may be off base here.

While semi-correct about Luther, it is, well, incorrect information. When I get a bit more time to sit down and get a better answer, I'll post it on up.

Most Biblical "interpretation" is reflect upon contast to the entire Bible. You cannot take the Bible literally in every aspect. Many things concerning the Bible and interpretation are not cut and dry. To contrast your reference to James, Christ said works do not sanctify you, only faith. Faith produces works, yes, but the works themselves are meaningless as anyone on this rock can do "good things".

You actually have a pretty good perspective on many things Christian oriented. I'd recommend coming by Mars Hill Ballard campus sometime and checking it out. I went regularly before coming (back) to God and regardless of faith or belief, there's some interesting points to think on. Mark Driscoll has a way about him ;)

I went to private school for 6 years, church up until mid high school, and then some church now in college and I took a course on the History of Christianity. The class opened my eyes, and I'd already lost most of my faith in Religion, that I choose to ignore most everything now, though in the back of my mind I'm open to a 'god' of some kind.

In regards to luther, I'd love to know where I am incorrect.

Martin Luther (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) initiated the Protestant Reformation.[1] As a priest and theology professor, he confronted indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel with his The Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. Luther strongly disputed their claim that freedom from God's punishment of sin could be purchased with money. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the emperor. Martin Luther taught that salvation is not from good works, but a free gift of God, received only by grace through faith in Jesus as redeemer from sin

Here is what I'm getting at. Martin Luther interpreted the New Testament based on faith by justification, scripture alone, faith alone, and grace alone. Based on his interpretation (I'm sure he's just coined as the leader of the movement) he was able to start the protestant reformation. Conveniently at this time Germany was upset (and luther was) with the taxes the catholic church was charging, the penances, and the overall bad in the church. More conveniently, luther created a religion that allowed Germany to break away, and a religion that encompassed everyone and asked less of them.

Before the 1500s no one had the idea that they were automatically saved.

24 You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

- Codex Sinaiticus (Oldest non-biased translation, if I'm not mistaken)

You can't simply shrug off that verse. You can't say, well see you must know how to interpret it and really look at these other versus that says you are justified by faith. That's what Luther did, but does that really make sense to you? You are trained in how to read through the protestant lens, but for me it's hard to ignore things like James (which luther wanted to remove) and put my faith into luther's interpretation.

By all means, show me the flaws in the argument. (Learned this in class, from a catholic professor, very interesting guy)

[Farbin Kaiber]

Again, this is based on your belief. The catholic church, from my understanding, would not entirely agree with you. I've never been involved with a Catholic church, so I may be off base here.

Yep, I am no longer Catholic, I left that in my teenage years, and came to my present point in my mid-twenties...

...

- Codex Sinaiticus (Oldest non-biased translation, if I'm not mistaken)

You can't simply shrug off that verse. You can't say, well see you must know how to interpret it and really look at these other versus that says you are justified by faith. That's what Luther did, but does that really make sense to you? You are trained in how to read through the protestant lens, but for me it's hard to ignore things like James (which luther wanted to remove) and put my faith into luther's interpretation.

By all means, show me the flaws in the argument. (Learned this in class, from a catholic professor, very interesting guy)

Paul, who wrote 13 books of the NT, or James who wrote one very small book... Paul, who was an apostle, or James who there is no historical record of him accepting Jesus while he was alive and teaching, nor ever speaking to him...

[ck_taft325is]

The "justification" referenced there is the "fruit" (Bible lingo, yay!) from Faith. To have Faith without "fruit" you would essentially be all talk.

The rub in regards to Luther is not what he fought for or what he went about saying, doing and writting (all 100% correct historically as it can be) its the assumption or assertation that before the 1500's Martin Luther's voiced concept didn't exist. The words of Christ would disprove this and pre-date Luther (Duh, hehe).

If you look into both Arminianism (spelling is off, I know) and Calvinism, there are diametrically uposed views in how one would go about looking at and the perception of salvation. One says that you can "lose" your salvation by sinning or not doing physical action or works towards furthering your salvation (Arminian) while the other follows more along what Christ himself said in that you do not earn your salvation because you have no hope (Calvinism). Now if you look at both sides, both have bits of the truth and yet both go one or two steps too far (5 points of Calvinism and Arminianism).

Take love. What you love is what you sacrifice for, work towards, etc, etc... the idea that you can earn salvation takes love out of the equation. You love Christ for his sacrifice therefore you follow his lead in life. Which in general, despite any belief or faith in Christ himself, anyone can respect what he did here on earth and his teachings. You realize you need Christ (because you can't do it on your own), you enter a personal relationship with Christ, you love Christ, you follow what Christ taught and says in the Bible.

Taking yonder verse in James, by and for itself is a distortion of its intent. Claiming interpretation is dandy, but does a diservice to the rest of Scripture. Professing Christ, and then not following anything he says (no 'fruit') is empty. Just like telling your wife you love her, but sleep with every bimbo that comes along and opens her legs. It's false. You very well might feel something for her but not enough to be faithful, which isn't love.

[87e30]

The "justification" referenced there is the "fruit" (Bible lingo, yay!) from Faith. To have Faith without "fruit" you would essentially be all talk.

The rub in regards to Luther is not what he fought for or what he went about saying, doing and writting (all 100% correct historically as it can be) its the assumption or assertation that before the 1500's Martin Luther's voiced concept didn't exist. The words of Christ would disprove this and pre-date Luther (Duh, hehe).

If you look into both Arminianism (spelling is off, I know) and Calvinism, there are diametrically uposed views in how one would go about looking at and the perception of salvation. One says that you can "lose" your salvation by sinning or not doing physical action or works towards furthering your salvation (Arminian) while the other follows more along what Christ himself said in that you do not earn your salvation because you have no hope (Calvinism). Now if you look at both sides, both have bits of the truth and yet both go one or two steps too far (5 points of Calvinism and Arminianism).

Take love. What you love is what you sacrifice for, work towards, etc, etc... the idea that you can earn salvation takes love out of the equation. You love Christ for his sacrifice therefore you follow his lead in life. Which in general, despite any belief or faith in Christ himself, anyone can respect what he did here on earth and his teachings. You realize you need Christ (because you can't do it on your own), you enter a personal relationship with Christ, you love Christ, you follow what Christ taught and says in the Bible.

Taking yonder verse in James, by and for itself is a distortion of its intent. Claiming interpretation is dandy, but does a diservice to the rest of Scripture. Professing Christ, and then not following anything he says (no 'fruit') is empty. Just like telling your wife you love her, but sleep with every bimbo that comes along and opens her legs. It's false. You very well might feel something for her but not enough to be faithful, which isn't love.

My point is, what makes you think this interpretation is right? I mean, at some point it comes down to a non-provable faith that you have. There is simply no way to prove that one way of interpretation is better than another, because that is your perspective. You believe millions of others will suffer in hell for eternity because they missed that very small, and direct point, that they have to have a "personal connection." But, lived out lives that were more parellel to Jesus' than the true 'Christians?'

If I'm not mistaken, the other kinds of Christians that you speak of never directly attributed salvation to Faith in Christ. They were more along the lines of who could be saved, whether or not everyone had it in them to be saved, or whether the blood in the eucharist/communion was actually real. Regardless, a majority of people up until 1500 had no conception of "connection" personally with Jesus, do they all die in hell?

The Bible itself was made up by men, some books thrown out. Not to mention the trinity was debated up and decided by man. What if that had fundamentally been altered in the 300s? Well the decision was guided by God? So then when did god stop guiding the catholic church?

So many of your core beliefs, those beyond the simple existence of god, come from a decision made by a man or group in the past.

[ck_taft325is]

That's fairly conspiritorial at the least. While one could make a case (and I'm not the strongest in this department as I'm still researching, reading and learning on the History and considering many accounts differ. Especially from College classes to independant theologians and Seminary) that each was decided by man, you would have to remove God from this equation.

Those in relationship (Apostles) were in direct relationship with him and continued even after he was crucified. Does this, and others that have gone and gathered one or two generations removed say no one pre-dating 1500AD had any to no concept of a personal relationship with Christ?

To answer directly, Scripture interprets Scripture. Many of the books not included in the Bible were in direct opposition to the specific teachings of God/Christ/Prophets or were found to have no founding ("I was with Jesus at this party and..." 20 years before he was born).

Also, that much of the Bible remains for 2000 + years the same, with the exception of word grouping/language (NIV vs KJV vs ESV *Note: ESV is a literary word for word via Arabic*) would say much that the Bible is God spoken. Yes, Faith is involved in this. Do I presume to understand or believe every single word in the Bible as it is written? I probably don't. I doubt many things and questions nearly all of it. There's a ton of things I'm not clear and and continue to look for answers to. And some I don't because I simply don't think anyone really knows. But I think this about a great many things in life.

Example: I've thought long and hard that trying to convince h0lmes of anything logical was an exercise in nothing more than typing as it just simply can't be done.

[HarryPotter]

Well, as long as you calm down this hatred towards all religion I'll gain a little bit more respect for you.

And :rofl: , I have a friend coming over later, wish me luck.

Getcha some!!!

I don't HATE any religion!!! I don't hate anyone who follows them. I hate stupid people. I don't hate my family that is christian I don't hate my friends that are christians, I just don't care! I just choose to believe what I think are more factual explanations to our existence.

I agree with your qualms with the way your Aunt and Uncle raise their children, but they are their children, when you have your own batch, you can teach them all sorts of Star Wars trivia, dress them like they are headed to Hogwarts, and feed them candy, it's the parents prerogative.

And, I have fucking fun everyday of my life, banged lots of chicks, did lots of drugs, etc. , but, that has no bearing on my spiritual faith/life. You need to realize that just because some people think you have to be all sorts of strict and law-abiding to be a christian, you don't. I go to the bar, flip people off, spit and curse, go unshaven, yell at old women with walkers, and again, like I said, these things are not related, man has tried to tie them together for control.

Exactly I don't have any say nor do I care. I just find it a bad way to raise your kids due to the fact that you can't shield them from all the evils of the world for eternity. Eventually they'll find out what soda is!

[Farbin Kaiber]

^ And then hate you for not letting them have it.

[87e30]

That's fairly conspiritorial at the least. While one could make a case (and I'm not the strongest in this department as I'm still researching, reading and learning on the History and considering many accounts differ. Especially from College classes to independant theologians and Seminary) that each was decided by man, you would have to remove God from this equation.

Those in relationship (Apostles) were in direct relationship with him and continued even after he was crucified. Does this, and others that have gone and gathered one or two generations removed say no one pre-dating 1500AD had any to no concept of a personal relationship with Christ?

To answer directly, Scripture interprets Scripture. Many of the books not included in the Bible were in direct opposition to the specific teachings of God/Christ/Prophets or were found to have no founding ("I was with Jesus at this party and..." 20 years before he was born).

Also, that much of the Bible remains for 2000 + years the same, with the exception of word grouping/language (NIV vs KJV vs ESV *Note: ESV is a literary word for word via Arabic*) would say much that the Bible is God spoken. Yes, Faith is involved in this. Do I presume to understand or believe every single word in the Bible as it is written? I probably don't. I doubt many things and questions nearly all of it. There's a ton of things I'm not clear and and continue to look for answers to. And some I don't because I simply don't think anyone really knows. But I think this about a great many things in life.

Example: I've thought long and hard that trying to convince h0lmes of anything logical was an exercise in nothing more than typing as it just simply can't be done.

Sine the Bible has remained the same, why does the protestant bible have two less books than the Catholic bible?

Honestly, I don't know enough about this myself to continue much further in depth. But the fact that so many groups of people have believed so many things throughout history, not to mention political reasoning for beliefs, makes me very weary to claim one is more right than the other. (that a majority of people throughout history are tortured for eternity by a "loving" god)

[ck_taft325is]

I'm actually not sure why there's two extra books in the Catholic Bible. From what I understand, these are not books of the Bible so much as mandates and regulations for its congregants. Such as, unless you're Catholic, you cannot partake of Communion. Which on a side note, made for an interesting visit I had to my wife's cousin's Catholic "baby dedication" or whatever it was ;) I think I actually called this really old Priest retarded.

[87e30]

I'm actually not sure why there's two extra books in the Catholic Bible. From what I understand, these are not books of the Bible so much as mandates and regulations for its congregants. Such as, unless you're Catholic, you cannot partake of Communion. Which on a side note, made for an interesting visit I had to my wife's cousin's Catholic "baby dedication" or whatever it was ;) I think I actually called this really old Priest retarded.

Gotcha, I asked a couple people and they didn't even realize this until I had asked them. Haven't been curious enough to look it up myself.

I find not worrying about a religion very freeing... I'm enjoying it so far.

[Schnitzer318is]

I have the brains to take what I want without paying. Why adhere to society telling me what is or is not right/wrong? That's just illogical if you commit fully to the fact that there's no purpose beyond this world. You can do a million things without any belief. Nothing limits you, that's the beauty of it. But logically, if you reason that view point through to its extent, why not do whatever you want when you want?

Because when you were raised you were taught right from wrong... and because most people would prefer not to spend the limited time we have in this life rotting in a jail cell.

Contrary to your logic, not believing in retribution after death does not give you a free pass to do whatever you want. There are social, legal, and just plain human standards to maintain just by knowing right from wrong.

[dvmotorsports]

Guess you didn't read any of my other posts nubscakes.

What the fuck are you talking about? I don't care about your other posts. I was replying the the one that said "the earth was created 4,000 years ago, FACT!"

[ck_taft325is]

Because when you were raised you were taught right from wrong... and because most people would prefer not to spend the limited time we have in this life rotting in a jail cell.

Contrary to your logic, not believing in retribution after death does not give you a free pass to do whatever you want. There are social, legal, and just plain human standards to maintain just by knowing right from wrong.

There are human laws. Not standards. And the best thing to do is not get caught. But what's jail? Really, follow it through. It's something most people don't want to do, right? That sounded a lot like work to me and that you're in a prison of your "own" morality. While I found that it was easier to just not have any if there was no point. Sure, you can make a case for "social, legal and just plain human standards to maintain just by knowing right from wrong" but why? And how do you know right from wrong? If there's nothing but ones own personal sense of morality that one must discover for yourself and only that, then I'm sorry, your reasoning doesn't line up. Maybe my sense or understanding of right and wrong is totally different from yours. Why adhere to a implied social, legal or just plain human standard?

And just because you feel some affinity towards being an "alright" person, it doesn't change that if you truly believe you rot in the ground and commit to it, why waste your time, man? You can just as easily not break the law and still do nothing but what you want. You infer I was a lawless little shit. On the contrary I was living in a 1 million doller home on an Island on a golf course right next to the water. I could take the boat out, drive $80,000 automobiles around and had "designer" drugs at my disposal. I engineered my life to be completely without responsibility because, well, that's a waste of time if you really get to thinking about it. I wouldn't want to waste my pre-rotting time working towards, what? Ultimately selfish ends. All self gratification. A car? A good job? C'mon, wastes of time in the scheme of things. No one will remember that. You'll be just another cosmic failure in the ever turning, chaning world of the worthless living. Sorry. I'd rather not waste my time by having some obligation to "social, legal and just plain human standards".

Ultimately, you're right though. But not for the reasons you stated. And it's not so much divine retribution, it's that there is an ultimate truth and right. Not a subjective right and wrong. Not one's own morality but a higher morality that gives credance to what is or is not in the right. But to claim that YOU know it more than anyone and YOUR sense of morality and YOUR faculties are fully in operation more than ANYONE else, is just arrogance. Within that frame work of reasoning, there really is no point. To give to society? Wasted effort. To make a lot of money? Why? To pass onto your off spring? Or are we just animalistic, ruled by nature and fueled by our needs? Then in that case, take what you need and want, spread your seed as much as possible and have no pity for anyone that's not as strong, not as a smart or rich as you. Survival of the fittest works directly off of death and destruction. The strong over powering the weak.

Bleh, I've allowed myself to type to much. Again, believe what you will and I totally respect that. Honestly, while I can disagree, at least I can do so with civility. Frankly, I'm just disgusted that most can't. In one sentance they can claim to be more enlightened than you yet all it's bought them is a smug, self satisfied religious tendancy. Can't see the forest for the trees.

Carry on.