The SimTropolis House of Worship

[ephorex_77 0]

Date: 12/31/2005 4:03:48 PM Author: Yellowlab Sola scriptura was a movement of the Reformation; it did not begin with Luther, nor did it end with him.

Luther was and has always been largely perceived to be the main architect of the Reformation. It mainly started, perpetuated and continued in his name and memory. Also, the start of the Reformation has never accurately been defined. Sorry for the ambiguity.

 

Date: 12/31/2005 4:03:48 PM Author: Yellowlab Martin Luther believed (and I agree) that the medieval Catholic Church controlled a monopoly of faith over the people of Europe; Latin Mass, sacraments with no scriptural base, the selling of fake 'indulgences,' and the belief that clergy alone could save a person from Hell were ideas he attacked.

 

The Catholic Church had a 'monopoly of faith' over much of Europe at the time. Perhaps this was due to the fact that it was founded by God Himself. Perhaps it was due to the fact that it was (and still is) guided by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it was due to the fact that people everywhere saw the virtue of its message. And yes, it is certain that the Church at times was spread and maintained by the sword. Such things are to be expected as Jesus Himself foretold this. Think of one organisation, religious or otherwise, that is perfectly uncorrupt (in terms of members). Still thinking?? It's known as corruption and it still happens today.

 

As to these Sacraments, perhaps you could list them so that I can address them individually??

 

I don't know why you put inverted commas around the word 'indulgences'. Indulgences are certainly not something made up. They are supported by Scripture and by the early Church Fathers.

 

(I) Who now rejoice in my (St Paul) sufferings for you (his audience; the Church), and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the Church,.

 

We being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another. The Church is a body; the joys and good works and its effects are shared by all associated.

 

In the Book of Maccabees, Judah Maccabee discovered that some men had been wearing amulets as they died in battle. He then prayed and offered sacrifice so that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. Of course this book is part of the Deuterocanonicals (disputed Canon), but I'll address that later.

 

Indulgences are part of Church teachings and have been so since the time of the Church fathers. They are supported by Scripture and the Church fathers (Tradition). No Pope is at liberty to contradict them, much less some upstart monk (Luther) who ran away from his monastery, broke his vows of chastity and married a nun. But I digress...

 

There was no outright selling of indulgences. Indulgences are granted by the giving of alms to some charitable foundation or fund. There is certainly nothing wrong with giving money to God or to the poor (as those of you who pay a tithe well know). Certainly, it is easy to see how abuses of the system could creep in, but these were addressed at the Council of Trent when the granting of indulgences were strictly moderated.

 

In granting indulgences the Council desires that moderation be observed in accordance with the ancient approved custom of the Church, lest through excessive ease ecclesiastical discipline be weakened; and further, seeking to correct the abuses that have crept in . . . it decrees that all criminal gain therewith connected shall be entirely done away...

 

And yes, it is easy to see why Luther was compared to a drunken German who would change his mind. On 3 March, 1519, he wrote to Pope Leo X: Before God and all his creatures, I bear testimony that I neither did desire, nor do desire to touch or by intrigue to undermine the authority of the Roman Church and that of Your Holiness. Two days later he wrote to Spalatin: It was never my intention to revolt from the Roman Apostolic chair. Ten days later, he wrote: I am at a loss to know whether the Pope be anti-Christ or His apostle.

 

Luther later wrote of the damage sola scriptura was doing: This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet De Wette III, 61.

 

Date: 12/31/2005 4:03:48 PM Author: Yellowlab Sola scriptura was the idea that the Catholic Church did not have control over who did and did not go to Heaven, nor control over the personal faith experience of any Christian. Sola scriptura as it existed in the 1500s did not mean that the interpretation of a minister was wrong and heretical. It only meant that any person interpreting the Bible should use only the Bible as the basis for that interpretation; Church traditions and the secular world were null and void in that interpretation. The whole idea is best summed up in the words of John Wesley, 'The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church.'  Reformers believed that because the Scriptures were unchanging and men do change, only the Scriptures, not Church tradition (no matter how old) could be used in interpreting the Bible.

 

The definition of sola scriptura (Wikipedia):

 

Sola scriptura (Latin By Scripture alone) is one of five important slogans of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. It meant that Scripture is the only infallible rule for deciding issues of faith and practices that involve doctrines.

 

You don't like the fact that Church tradition is to be held in as great an esteem as the Bible when it comes to interpretation?? Well, the Church pre-dated the Bible (including the date of writing and not collation). *shock*!! It's true. The Church and its traditions started at the Last Supper, which was waaaaay before any writing of the books of the Bible started. Ask any protestant who knows his stuff.

 

Date: 12/31/2005 4:03:48 PM Author: Yellowlab Sola scriptura as it existed in the 1500s did not mean that the interpretation of a minister was wrong and heretical. It only meant that any person interpreting the Bible should use only the Bible as the basis for that interpretation; Church traditions and the secular world were null and void in that interpretation.

 

You say the Bible is the (only, I assume you're saying) basis of interpretation. You say also that the interpretation of a minister (priest) is not necessarily wrong and heretical. Suppose I accept all this...You then go on and state that Church traditions (interpretations other than yours and a mininster's [priest]) were null and void.

 

I think you're contradicting yourself. On one hand, the interpretation of a minister is not wrong and heretical. On the other hand, you say that Church traditions (which are interpretations of the Bible by people probably far wiser and connected to the Church than any minister today) are null and void. Hmm....methinks a contradiction. I hope I've interpreted your argument aright.

 

The whole idea against it is summed up in the words of John Crysostom:

 

[Paul commands,]

[The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz 27]

I'm Atheist, although not strictly. I celebrate Christian holidays and stuff. I get annoyed by Jehovah's Witnesses, and once told them I was a Buddhist to get them to go away. . He clearly saw through my story, because when he asked me what beliefs I like the most, I replied Free Tibet .

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Date: 1/1/2006 11:40:34 AM
Author: The boy formerly known as Evil Muzz
I'm Atheist, although not strictly. I celebrate Christian holidays and stuff. I get annoyed by Jehovah's Witnesses, and once told them I was a Buddhist to get them to go away. . He clearly saw through my story, because when he asked me what beliefs I like the most, I replied 'Free Tibet' .

quote>

Well, provided they are not sporting an inverted wiccan symbol (satanist), I generally tell door-to-door missionaries that we are satanists and invite them in to hear the virtues of the devil.

I find it hard to believe in anything that needs to be worshiped. Notwithstanding all the hysterical scriptures written by self-serving or even well-intentioned evangelists, the only thing that even vaguely captures my attention is the clearly ordered universe. Too neat to be just chance.

If it is pure chance, then Sschrodinger got it right, and its a quantum universe. The infernal device went off at the right moment to produce what we have and we should all appreciate it. None of us has the right to spoil it for anyone else.

[Yellowlab 11]

I'm not looking to debate sola scriptura in this thread because A) I do not believe in it, B) it will just clog up this discussion. I may continue via PM with you, ephorex, if I can find some time.

I think that the universe did come about by chance and that there were probably uncountable times when just one thing went wrong. The universe isn't perfect either - stars burn out and explode, comets smash into planets and obliterate everything, radiation pulses everywhere. In a perfect universe, would we be worried about life-ending events like a comet hitting the Earth?

[The Terminator 0]

Hmmm....im supposed to be a catholic, but i DESPISE Benedict, so i am growing very disenfranchised with it lately. i really cant believe something that is supposed to preach peace and equality to be so totalitarianistic. i havent really told this to my family yet....so SHHHHH!!!! (duke that includes you)

so i would have to say that my only religion is ROCK AND ROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

http://crackrocksteady.info/indk/images/indk.jpg>

 

 

ROCK OVER LONDON, ROCK ON NEW JERSEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[vidioman 21]

Rock and roll isn't religion, it is a musical genre.

To be a religion it has to answer the who's, how's, what's, where's, when's, and why's of life.

[ephorex_77 0]

Date: 1/1/2006 9:48:10 PM Author: vidioman Rock and roll isn't religion, it is a musical genre. To be a religion it has to answer the who's, how's, what's, where's, when's, and why's of life.

Ditto that.

 

However, just by looking at the pictures you posted terminator, I can see some 'interesting' symbols and meanings (in terms of religion) there. I'd say that this reconfirms my suspicions about some (if not all) varieties of rock and roll.

 

yellowlab: That's fine by me. Saves me the trouble of having to post huge essays of rebuttals and writing. However, I do hope you found the time to read my post above as I did yours. It did take quite a long time to write it.

 

And if you happen to find to time to discuss this with me via PM, please feel free to tell me what you thought of the points that I made above. Feedback is always welcome. The absence of comments makes me wonder as to the effectiveness of my rebuttals.

[vidioman 21]

ephorex_77 | I'd say that this reconfirms my suspicions about some (if not all) varieties of rock and roll.

quote>

It isn't all varieties, there is Christian Rock, and many rock songs/bands don't mention religion, or even reinforce it (Creed, and possibly the Tea Party may fall under that last catgoiry, though Creed is much more religious)

[ephorex_77 0]

Date: 1/1/2006 10:17:20 PM Author: vidioman

ephorex_77 | I'd say that this reconfirms my suspicions about some (if not all) varieties of rock and roll.

quote> It isn't all varieties, there is Christian Rock, and many rock songs/bands don't mention religion, or even reinforce it (Creed, and possibly the Tea Party may fall under that last catgoiry, though Creed is much more religious)

quote>

I apologise then if I've slighted some rock and roll band. I never said that all were.  And as anyone can probably tell, I'm not into rock and roll.

[vidioman 21]

Date: 1/1/2006 10:19:26 PM
Author: ephorex_77

Date: 1/1/2006 10:17:20 PM Author: vidioman

ephorex_77 | I'd say that this reconfirms my suspicions about some (if not all) varieties of rock and roll.

quote> It isn't all varieties, there is Christian Rock, and many rock songs/bands don't mention religion, or even reinforce it (Creed, and possibly the Tea Party may fall under that last catgoiry, though Creed is much more religious)

quote>

I apologise then if I've slighted some rock and roll band. I never said that all were. And as anyone can probably tell, I'm not into rock and roll.

quote>

What are you into? Brittney Spears? Blue Man Group?

Yeah, great Christian values there!

[ephorex_77 0]

Date: 1/1/2006 10:21:19 PM Author: vidioman

Date: 1/1/2006 10:19:26 PM Author: ephorex_77

Date: 1/1/2006 10:17:20 PM Author: vidioman

ephorex_77 | I'd say that this reconfirms my suspicions about some (if not all) varieties of rock and roll.

quote> It isn't all varieties, there is Christian Rock, and many rock songs/bands don't mention religion, or even reinforce it (Creed, and possibly the Tea Party may fall under that last catgoiry, though Creed is much more religious)

quote>

I apologise then if I've slighted some rock and roll band. I never said that all were. And as anyone can probably tell, I'm not into rock and roll.

quote> What are you into? Brittney Spears? Blue Man Group? Yeah, great Christian values there!

quote>

Hey, hey, hey...I don't listen to Christian music (of any kind).

 

I listen to whatever music I like and it's based purely on how it sounds, not on its position on the chart. But it's getting off topic.

 

Btw, I don't like Britney Spears' music.

[vidioman 21]

ephorex_77 | Btw, I don't like Britney Spears' music.

quote>

Thank God!

[hello_SC4 1]

Hmm.. I have a question for everyone that is willing to answer. I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, but I'll ask anyway. First off, I'm not entirely sure about exactly when were the gospels to be included in the New Testament chosen. I am hoping someone might enlighten me on that. I was under the impression it was determined at the First Council of Nicaea. But that's not really of importance. 

 

As you may know, there are many gospels which remain outside of the Bible, some of which come from the era of the 4 canonical gospels, maybe even earlier.. Now, these have been repeatedly rejected by the Vatican as simply bogus. We have a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls, which I have yet to read, but I think it may shed some light for me..

 

Anyway, I was just wondering what are your thoughts on these apocryphical gospels..

[Meg 368]

Date: 1/1/2006 10:19:26 PM Author: ephorex_77
[i apologise then if I've slighted some rock and roll band. I never said that all were.  And as anyone can probably tell, I'm not into rock and roll. 

A former co-worker of mine is into Christian Heavy Metal.  It took me a while to get my mind around using those three words together but there are over a dozen groups that he follows.    He is one of the honestly devout people that I know.

Date: 1/1/2006 11:04:31 PM Author: hello_SC4
Hmm.. I have a question for everyone that is willing to answer. I'm not sure if this was mentioned before, but I'll ask anyway. First off, I'm not entirely sure about exactly when were the gospels to be included in the New Testament chosen. I am hoping someone might enlighten me on that. I was under the impression it was determined at the First Council of Nicaea. But that's not really of importance.

As you may know, there are many gospels which remain outside of the Bible, some of which come from the era of the 4 canonical gospels, maybe even earlier..  Now, these have been repeatedly rejected by the Vatican as simply bogus. We have a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls, which I have yet to read, but I think it may shed some light for me..

Anyway, I was just wondering what are your thoughts on these apocryphical gospels..

As I understand it, the Council of Nicea edited and deleted various parts of the bible to serve their own political purposes.   Which is one of several reasons I can

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

According to what I have read, none of the gospels in the new testatment were very contemporary. Perhaps Luke, but I don't remember whether Luke the evangelist was Luke the apostle. I do remember that John was the last and that there is internal evidence that it was written with reference to most of the others.

Some books are now included in the authorized apocrypha. The Book of Daniel was omitted because it was felt that, for instance, that it really added nothing (except the story of Bel and the Dragon).

Since the Christian Bible has been transmogrified by translation and in scriptoria for a few centuries, who can possibly be sure that it is right. This is certainly where the doctrine of papal infallibility goes awry. Authorized editions containing a Nihil Obstat from the Censor Liborum followed by an episcopal Imprimatur is the best guarantee that you have that nothing opposed to the current dogma appears, but so what? Later on, such a book may appear on the Index when the doctrine changes.

[sendarrow 3]

>>hello_SC4 wrote: Anyway, I was just wondering what are your thoughts on these apocryphical gospels..<<<

Hello everyone! I think that those apocryphical gospels didn't make it to the Bible because they don't serve to the purpose of the church.

I think that every religion is meant to dominate the humakind. I think that we are not prepare to understand the REALITY of what is out there, I mean, the Big Bang, the parallel universes, etc, and that is why humans go to any God, to find that something. Probably, deep into the future, we will be able to think outside the box.

Gee, what is it with you people thinking my title is my username! -hSC4

[vidioman 21]

sendarrow | I think that every religion is meant to dominate the humakind. I think that we are not prepare to understand the REALITY of what is out there, I mean, the Big Bang, the parallel universes, etc, and that is why humans go to any God, to find that 'something'. Probably, deep into the future, we will be able to 'think outside the box'.

quote>

So, are we religious because we're dumb, or religious because we haven't evolved enough to understand?

[sendarrow 3]

because we haven't evolved enough to understand.

Think about this: in the past, people used to worship the sun, the rain, thunders, etc, why? because they didn't understand that those Gods actually were what we know today as nature. natural things. They happen because they happen. So, maybe in billions of years people will think about us: How come did they believe in that? >That's my thinking
A note: I hope that in a billion of years there will be a Simcity edition 50.000.000.000!!!!!

[vidioman 21]

Date: 1/2/2006 12:31:02 AM
Author: sendarrow
because we haven't evolved enough to understand.


Think about this: in the past, people used to worship the sun, the rain, thunders, etc, why? because they didn't understand that those 'Gods' actually were what we know today as nature. natural things. They happen because they happen. So, maybe in billions of years people will think about us: How come did they believe in that? >That's my thinking

A note: I hope that in a billion of years there will be a Simcity edition 50.000.000.000!!!!!

quote>

I see what you mean. Using religion to fill in the gaps, and once the gaps are filled, removing religion from that aspect of our beliefs.

And I dont think in a billion years there will be 50 billion sim Cities. That's 50 a year.

[brtim2 11]

Date: 1/2/2006 12:42:14 AM
Author: vidioman

Date: 1/2/2006 12:31:02 AM

Author: sendarrow

because we haven't evolved enough to understand.

Think about this: in the past, people used to worship the sun, the rain, thunders, etc, why? because they didn't understand that those 'Gods' actually were what we know today as nature. natural things. They happen because they happen. So, maybe in billions of years people will think about us: How come did they believe in that? >That's my thinking
A note: I hope that in a billion of years there will be a Simcity edition 50.000.000.000!!!!!

quote>

I see what you mean. Using religion to fill in the gaps, and once the gaps are filled, removing religion from that aspect of our beliefs.

And I dont think in a billion years there will be 50 billion sim Cities. That's 50 a year.

quote>

And in the case of Dover, opening those closed gaps back up with a sledgehammer.

[vidioman 21]

Date: 1/2/2006 12:48:38 AM
Author: brtim2

Date: 1/2/2006 12:42:14 AM

Author: vidioman

Date: 1/2/2006 12:31:02 AM


Author: sendarrow


because we haven't evolved enough to understand.


Think about this: in the past, people used to worship the sun, the rain, thunders, etc, why? because they didn't understand that those 'Gods' actually were what we know today as nature. natural things. They happen because they happen. So, maybe in billions of years people will think about us: How come did they believe in that? >That's my thinking

A note: I hope that in a billion of years there will be a Simcity edition 50.000.000.000!!!!!

quote>


I see what you mean. Using religion to fill in the gaps, and once the gaps are filled, removing religion from that aspect of our beliefs.


And I dont think in a billion years there will be 50 billion sim Cities. That's 50 a year.

quote>


And in the case of Dover, opening those closed gaps back up with a sledgehammer.

quote>

And jetgluing them shut.

Let's just hope God doesnt decide to wipe them off the map for it!

[brtim2 11]

Date: 1/2/2006 12:52:56 AM
Author: vidioman

Date: 1/2/2006 12:48:38 AM
Author: brtim2

Date: 1/2/2006 12:42:14 AM
Author: vidioman

Date: 1/2/2006 12:31:02 AM
Author: sendarrow
because we haven't evolved enough to understand.
Think about this: in the past, people used to worship the sun, the rain, thunders, etc, why? because they didn't understand that those 'Gods' actually were what we know today as nature. natural things. They happen because they happen. So, maybe in billions of years people will think about us: How come did they believe in that? >That's my thinking
A note: I hope that in a billion of years there will be a Simcity edition 50.000.000.000!!!!!

quote>

I see what you mean. Using religion to fill in the gaps, and once the gaps are filled, removing religion from that aspect of our beliefs.

And I dont think in a billion years there will be 50 billion sim Cities. That's 50 a year.

quote>

And in the case of Dover, opening those closed gaps back up with a sledgehammer.

quote>

And jetgluing them shut.

Let's just hope God doesnt decide to wipe them off the map for it!

quote>

Because God hates towns that have 9 churches for 1000 people. He shall smite yeh, oh little town of littler faith.

It's Quote-tastic!

(But seriously, 'jetgluing'? Is that what the Canadian AF uses to keep their planes together. I would have accepted super-glue, gorilla-glue or rubber-cement, but jet-glue?

[hummer0328 6]

Date: 1/1/2006 7:20:12 AM Author: ephorex_77

Date: 12/31/2005 4:03:48 PM Author: Yellowlab Sola scriptura was a movement of the Reformation; it did not begin with Luther, nor did it end with him.

Luther was and has always been largely perceived to be the main architect of the Reformation. It mainly started, perpetuated and continued in his name and memory. Also, the start of the Reformation has never accurately been defined. Sorry for the ambiguity.

 

The beginnings of the reformation started in the tenth century, however, it began with no particular plan and only a vague idea of what a reformation might mean.  Some early steps taken by reformers were to make the clergy celibate and independent.  But the policy of the reformers did not take final shape until it was taken up by the papacy who then used it to organize the church under papal leadership.  In fact the movement to liberate the church began with the rulers who were controlling churches and monasteries, appointing churchmen, and using bishops as their administrators.

 

Many say that the reformation really began with cluniac reform.  Cluny was founded by the duke and duchess of Aquitaine in 910.  They endowed the monastery of Cluny with property  buth then gave it to Saints Peter and Paul.  In this way they put control of Cluny into the hands of the two most powerful heavenly saints.  The monks of Cluny were so devoted to prayer that through thier prayers they seeemed to guarantee the savation of all Christians.  Rulers, bishops, and landowners gave Cluny donations of land, joining their contributions to the land of St Peter.  Powerful rulers called on the Cluniac monks to reform other monasteries along the Cluniac model.  The monks of Cluny believed in clerical celibacy, which argued against many priests and bishops who were married.  Naturally, this angered many bishops and priests who began to encroach on Cluny.  Cluny appealed to the Pope for help.  Realize that at this time the papacy was itself becoming interested in reform.

 

Martin Luther is still considered to be the most important and infuencial single contributor to the Reformation.  However, understand that Luther only wished to reform the church rather than seperate from the church and begin a new branch of Christianity.  During his early years in a monastery, he experienced a religious crisis.  He continuelly found himself appaled at his own sense of sinfullness.  He basically lived in terror of Gods justice.  This gradually decreesed as he became older, however, it left scars that would greatly infuence his life later.

 

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed consience.  I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction [in penance].  I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punished sinners, and secretly ... I was angry with God. ...  Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul [in Romans 1:17]. . . . At last, by the mercy of god, meditating day and night, I gave the heed to the context of the words.  There I began to understand that the righteous live by a figt of God, namely faith.

 

Romans 1:17 In the Gospels a rightousness in God is revealed.  A rightousness in faith from first to last.  As it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.'

 

In this single verse can be found the true difference between Lutherans and Roman Catholics.  Catholics believe that righteousness in god is found through our actions here on Earth.  This is the reason why Catholics practice celebacy and confession.  They believe they must perform these actions in order to become closer to god.  What Luther realized was that it is not your acts that bring you closer to god.  Rather, it is soley in faith in god that you will become closer to god.  It is irrelevent if we sin because we are human and by our very nature are born sinners.  This is why Jesus died on the cross.  He died to absolve us from our very nature.  Jesus has already paid for our sins with his own blood and agony.  This is the reason our actions do not bring us closer to god.  It is only through faith in Jesus Christ and the fact that he died for our sins that we can find god.

 

At least this is my belief as I am a Luthern.

[louisville327 0]

I just want to comment on a disconcerting misconception that seems to be dominating this thread (at least when it's mentioned).

For the record, evolutionary change, as most of you have been referring to it, is not random or by chance. It is a common misconception (mostly among self-righteous fundamentalist Christians) that the theory of evolution considers all of the natural world to be the product of a giant accident. This is completely untrue.

The force behind evolutionary change is adaptation, which an adequate definition of can be found here . Simply put, organisms change over time in response to environmental stimuli. Those that fail to change die off as they become unsuited for the world in which they live. Less simply put, species that exhibit traits more suited to the environmental changes they encounter naturally survive to reproduce, spawning future generations that continue to exhibit those traits and also survive to reproduce, and on and on.

This is not an accident, nor is it random. It is not random that some moths look exactly like the trees they inhabit. The moths that didn't look like the trees got eaten by birds that could easily spot them, and weren't able to reproduce, leaving the more adapted moths to propogate under the cover of their natural camoflage.

It's incorrect to throw around terms like accident and random in an effort to belittle evolutionary theory. Granted, some changes can be attributed to genuine biological accidents (mutations), but the vast majority are dictated by natural selection through adaptation. Understanding this fact will make the concept of evolution seem far less mystical to those who are in doubt.


And, on a related note, check out the Theory of Incompetent Design . It makes a lot more sense than that other I.D.

[TheCrybKeeper 301]

No more arguments from me.

Ephorex77: great references! But once Peter was physically gone, things should stay the way they stay, until the next day, correct? That is 1000 years and it has been nearly 2000 since Peters death.

  1000 A.D. was the reformation; makes good since to me, as a new day in heaven dawned then.

Now we are in 2006 and it is the dawn of the seventh day. On the seventh day God rests. Imagine what is coming very soon, eh.

 

anyways, I have no case against what you say above, maybe Catholocism is a wise choice. If it is, then there is nothing wrong with simply following Christ either. I really do not feel the need for a priest just yet.

 

One item to add: I firmly believe that denominations are not important to the church, symbollically speaking, but administrative and organizational, I agree we do need. I will not apply that label to myself personally though. I am not a Baptist, but My church family is guided by that organization, let's just say.

 

 I firmly believe that, you Ephorex and I, are headed in the right direction, regardless.

 

Peace.

 

EDIT: Ummmm, really I should apologize for giving you sass. I apologize Ephorex.

[timotheus4 39]

I would just like to note (I will expand this post later or append another) that dev and I have virtually no difference in belief structure - it's not Fundamentalist vs. Reformed Calvinist. Granted, when I first saw dev's posts a few years back I thought he was a Baptist, but that was not. Granted, we're both Presbyterians, and Presbyterians have split over so many ridiculously tiny things that it's not even funny. But in essence we're the same.

[ephorex_77 0]

I don't have much time, so I'll just answer tim's post. I'll do the rest later, but lately, I've been rather busy. =(

 

Date: 1/2/2006 9:17:39 PM Author: timotheus4 I would just like to note (I will expand this post later or append another) that dev and I have virtually no difference in belief structure - it's not Fundamentalist vs. Reformed Calvinist. Granted, when I first saw dev's posts a few years back I thought he was a Baptist, but that was not. Granted, we're both Presbyterians, and Presbyterians have split over so many ridiculously tiny things that it's not even funny. But in essence we're the same.

 

By the same token, are Catholics the same?? Are (in no particular order) Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and Zoroastrians and Toaists and Shintos and Animists and Satanists and Jews and Confucianists (not really a religion) and Wiccans and Aetheists all the same?? In essence, they all believe in peace and the like.

 

I know the list is rather exaggerated, but seriously, if the religion dev and yourself belong to is the same, why aren't you then?? Why do you have different names and docrine and beliefs and founders?? Dev describes himself as 'Fundamentalist'. You call yourself 'Reformed Calvinist'. Why do you subscribe to religions with differing names and doctrines then??

 

Furthermore, what's the difference between Calvinist and Reformed Calvinist then?? Aren't they the same in essence?? Why aren't you a Calvinist as opposed to one with the prefix: Reformed??

 

In fact, if this theory of similarity in essence were true, then every Christian should belong to the Holy Roman Catholic Church because every church (traced back) came from it.

 

Think about it.

[dev 47]

Date: 1/2/2006 10:59:51 PM
Author: ephorex_77

I don't have much time, so I'll just answer tim's post. I'll do the rest later, but lately, I've been rather busy. =(

Date: 1/2/2006 9:17:39 PM Author: timotheus4 I would just like to note (I will expand this post later or append another) that dev and I have virtually no difference in belief structure - it's not Fundamentalist vs. Reformed Calvinist. Granted, when I first saw dev's posts a few years back I thought he was a Baptist, but that was not. Granted, we're both Presbyterians, and Presbyterians have split over so many ridiculously tiny things that it's not even funny. But in essence we're the same.

By the same token, are Catholics the same?? Are (in no particular order) Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists and Sikhs and Zoroastrians and Toaists and Shintos and Animists and Satanists and Jews and Confucianists (not really a religion) and Wiccans and Aetheists all the same?? In essence, they all believe in peace and the like.

I know the list is rather exaggerated, but seriously, if the religion dev and yourself belong to is the same, why aren't you then?? Why do you have different names and docrine and beliefs and founders?? Dev describes himself as 'Fundamentalist'. You call yourself 'Reformed Calvinist'. Why do you subscribe to religions with differing names and doctrines then??

Furthermore, what's the difference between Calvinist and Reformed Calvinist then?? Aren't they the same in essence?? Why aren't you a Calvinist as opposed to one with the prefix: Reformed??

In fact, if this theory of similarity in essence were true, then every Christian should belong to the Holy Roman Catholic Church because every church (traced back) came from it.

Think about it.

quote>

I would like to note that I find myself to be a Reformed Calvinist also. I call myself fundamentalist because it is easier for one to understand.

And for your 30,000 plus denominations from above, think, that most likely includes Mormons, Someones Witnesses, and other wolf in sheep's clothing religions. Plus, the church is unified as one catholic church, but not in a single denomination.

[ephorex_77 0]

Date: 1/2/2006 2:17:13 AM Author: hummer0328

Martin Luther is still considered to be the most important and infuencial single contributor to the Reformation. However, understand that Luther only wished to 'reform' the church rather than seperate from the church and begin a new branch of Christianity.

quote>

 

In that he failed miserably then didn't he?? Hence the fact that you're Lutheran, not Catholic (or reformed Catholic). Hence also the fact that there are so many thousands of denominations around today. Surely he didn't want 33,000+ denominations running around the place did he??

 

Date: 1/2/2006 2:17:13 AM Author: hummer0328 Romans 1:17 'In the Gospels a rightousness in God is revealed. A rightousness in faith from first to last. As it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.'

In this single verse can be found the true difference between Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Catholics believe that righteousness in god is found through our actions here on Earth. This is the reason why Catholics practice celebacy and confession. They believe they must perform these actions in order to become closer to god. What Luther realized was that it is not your acts that bring you closer to god. Rather, it is soley in faith in god that you will become closer to god. It is irrelevent if we sin because we are human and by our very nature are born sinners. This is why Jesus died on the cross. He died to absolve us from our very nature. Jesus has already paid for our sins with his own blood and agony. This is the reason our actions do not bring us closer to god. It is only through faith in Jesus Christ and the fact that he died for our sins that we can find god.

At least this is my belief as I am a Luthern.

quote>

 

As a Lutheran, you'll believe in the infallibility of the Bible (as do Catholics). So, here's a long and rather explicit passage for you to mull over.

 

James 2:14-26
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (emphasis mine)

 

So, you believe that the Bible is infallible (as you should, being a Lutheran). I'm a Catholic and I believe in the infallibility of the Bible myself. So then, what then do you make of the BIBLICAL passage above?? Somewhere along the line if you believe in the 'doctrine' of sola fide (sola fide) and in the infallibility of the Bible, you'll trip up.

 

Basically, you're in a very awkward position indeed. The core principles of your faith (Lutheranism) are contradicting themselves. You place the greatest of emphasis on the infallibility of the Bible (above Scared Tradition and the Magisterium) and the greatest of emphasis on sola fide. So which one will you compromise?? If you deny one, you deny your entire faith seeing as your entire faith is greatly based on those two of five solas.

 

I await a reply.

 

 

 

[hummer0328 6]

Date: 1/3/2006 12:29:32 AM Author: ephorex_77

Date: 1/2/2006 2:17:13 AM Author: hummer0328

Martin Luther is still considered to be the most important and infuencial single contributor to the Reformation. However, understand that Luther only wished to 'reform' the church rather than seperate from the church and begin a new branch of Christianity.

In that he failed miserably then didn't he?? Hence the fact that you're Lutheran, not Catholic (or reformed Catholic). Hence also the fact that there are so many thousands of denominations around today. Surely he didn't want 33,000+ denominations running around the place did he??

Date: 1/2/2006 2:17:13 AM Author: hummer0328 Romans 1:17 'In the Gospels a rightousness in God is revealed. A rightousness in faith from first to last. As it is written, 'The righteous shall live by faith.'

In this single verse can be found the true difference between Lutherans and Roman Catholics. Catholics believe that righteousness in god is found through our actions here on Earth. This is the reason why Catholics practice celebacy and confession. They believe they must perform these actions in order to become closer to god. What Luther realized was that it is not your acts that bring you closer to god. Rather, it is soley in faith in god that you will become closer to god. It is irrelevent if we sin because we are human and by our very nature are born sinners. This is why Jesus died on the cross. He died to absolve us from our very nature. Jesus has already paid for our sins with his own blood and agony. This is the reason our actions do not bring us closer to god. It is only through faith in Jesus Christ and the fact that he died for our sins that we can find god.

At least this is my belief as I am a Luthern.

As a Lutheran, you'll believe in the infallibility of the Bible (as do Catholics). So, here's a long and rather explicit passage for you to mull over.

James 2:14-26 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (emphasis mine)

So, you believe that the Bible is infallible (as you should, being a Lutheran). I'm a Catholic and I believe in the infallibility of the Bible myself. So then, what then do you make of the BIBLICAL passage above?? Somewhere along the line if you believe in the 'doctrine' of sola fide (sola fide) and in the infallibility of the Bible, you'll trip up.

Basically, you're in a very awkward position indeed. The core principles of your faith (Lutheranism) are contradicting themselves. You place the greatest of emphasis on the infallibility of the Bible (above Scared Tradition and the Magisterium) and the greatest of emphasis on sola fide. So which one will you compromise?? If you deny one, you deny your entire faith seeing as your entire faith is greatly based on those two of five solas.

I await a reply.

You do have a point.  But then doesn't the same apply to you.  We both believe in the infallibility of the bible even when placed before us are two different bible quotes that appear to contradict each other.  The key word I used here is appear.  They may appear to contradict eachother, however, maybe they don't.  Genuine faith in Christ should always result in actions that demonstrate faith.  As Luther said himself, You are saved by faith alone, but if faith is alone it is not faith.  God is not looking down at us and deciding we are bad christians because of the sins we commit.  He is looking at whether we have faith in him.  If someone truely has faith in God then they should naturally live a less sinfull life.