hmmm.. jedi-ish. Thanks.

Actually, I think Lucas based Yoda and the Jedi on the Tao, it's alot alike. Maybe that's how it subliminally tuned me on to it. Either way, I think it's the best philosophy in the world, and since it's not a religion. I have room to take parts from other religions that turned me on... just seems natural to me. Kinda creating my own beliefs as I go along. It's just more satisfying to me finding God on your my, than looking in a book. No offence to the book people. I went that way and found nothing of interest. And if plan A fails, gotta go to Plan B. Or in other words. If you want something done right, Do it yourself.

------------------
A Jedi feels the Force running through him.

Your arguments against me are all well and good. The only problem is, I get most of my information from people who weren't raised in the Catholic Church. I get most of what I argue, by far, from ex-Protestants. People who are not so entwined in belief from birth. In fact, they have rejected thier cradle beliefs to become Catholic.

You want to know why I believe that there is one perfect church? It is called the Bible.

"And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd." Jn 10:16

"...eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all." Eph 4:3-6

"I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them." Rom 16:17

"I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgement." 1 Cor 1:10

"...complete my joy of being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind." Phil 2:2

"May the God of steadfastness and encouragement grant you to live in such harmony with one another, in accord with Christ Jesus, that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ." Rom 15:5-6

"Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.
"I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou has sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me." Jn. 17:17-23

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink of one Spirit." 1 Cor 12:13

"So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." Rom 12:5

"And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in the one body. And be thankful." Col 3:15

"God is one and Christ is one, and one is His Chruch, and the faith is one, and His people welded together by the glue of concord into a solid unity of body. Unity cannot be rent assunder, nor can the one body of the Church, through the division of its structure, be divided into separate pieces." (St. Cyprian c. 250 AD).

How you can sit there defending blatant dissensions is beyond me. I don't call rejecting the Eucharist or Peter's authority 'unity', nor do I call it 'avoiding disagreements'. The early Church certainly thought 'no dissensions' meant what it said.

As for infallible (perfect) teachings:

"When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you." Jn. 16:13-14

"These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." Jn. 14:26

"He who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." Lk 10:16

Seems to be saying to the Apostles that anyone that rejects the Apostles' teachings rejects Him. Trick there is to show the Apostles founded the Catholic Church. No difficulty there, history is certainly on my side.

"...if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." Tim 3:15

"...teaching them to ovserve all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." Mt 28:20

"For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God, there the Church and every grace. The Spirit, however, is Truth." St. Irenaeus (c. 200) Against Heresies 3, 24, 1.

It seems more than obvious that the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus will never abandon it. If that is so, its teachings will be infallible. Like it or not, there are some contradictions between the various Christian Churches. Therefore either the Holy Spirit isn't doing His job, or one version is right and the other is wrong. Since the Church must be one, and it will be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, there must be one church existing today (that has always existed, otherwise there would be points where the Holy Spirit failed) that fits the bill.

More reinforcement that this Church will be unbroken in authority:

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called 'Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.' Of the increase of his goverment and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this." Is. 9:6-7

"And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall its sovereignty be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever;" Dan 2:44

"And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. Dan 7:14

"He shall be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever;" Lk. 1:32-33

"Every one then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house upon the rock; and the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock." Mt 7:24

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." Mt. 16:18

"And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you." Jn. 14:16-17

How can anyone say the Church can be flawed in teaching? Is the Holy Spirit impotent then?

This is not all I have to say. There is the proof that the Church needs a heirarchy and proof of Apostolic succession. I want to see how these are received first.

------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

Wise are you Ki-Adi-Mundi to be able to choose what is right and what is wrong based on 'feeling'. After all, if it appeals to you it can't be wrong, right?

Making yourself sole authority certainly is more convenient, I'll grant you that. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/biggrin.gif)

I don't think you even know what mormons believe. It certainly has very little to do with the Bible. I'd also be happy if you made an attempt to back up your statements of the government givings so much money to the Church.

Yes I do think Jesus walked on water. I also believe He rose from the dead. I don't think 'nice guys' go around condemning everyone they think is wrong either. He certainly didn't mind offending people.

Find something the Roman Catholic Church changed. Find a doctrine that was repealed. No disciplines mind you. You'll find the Church has always believed the same things. Also name something the pope has changed or is trying to change in the deposit of faith.

------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

Conor, as I have said many times now, Jesus came before us to show we must love God, love ourselves, and love our enemies. I have payed very close attention to your arguments, and the one sole thing you keep referring to, which baffles my mind simply because it goes against everything Jesus taught, was:

How you can sit there defending blatant dissensions is beyond me. I don't call rejecting the Eucharist or Peter's authority 'unity', nor do I call it 'avoiding disagreements'. The early Church certainly thought 'no dissensions' meant what it said.

Every one of your quotes aforementioned spoke of unity, but this is unity under God, unity under life and love. Blessed be the day someone is refusing your "church of Christ" when they don't think eating bread and drinking wine will do anything. And for all I am concerned, maybe it does do things for certain people. BUT, this is nothing more than a celebration, as you fail to understand. You cling to this ritual as if it MUST be done to carry out the teachings of Christ. Tell me, does some bread and wine make you any more of a Christian? Does giving Peter authority make you any more of a Christian? No. These acts supplement your faith, but they are moot. Does it matter how you pray, where you go to church, who informs you of the works of Christ, what color text your Bible is written in? More than ever I feel you cling to ritual more than a love for what you have and what you can do with it.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

Conor--

I'm sad about the direction this discussion has taken. You say things like, "Your arguments against me..." and "history is certainly on my side." This has clearly become personal on some level. That has never been my intention, and I regret it. I consider you a friend and don't want to continue in a direction that would undermine that.

You continually cite the fact that "I get most of my information from people who weren't raised in the Catholic Church. I get most of what I argue, by far, from ex-Protestants. People who are not so entwined in belief from birth. In fact, they have rejected thier cradle beliefs to become Catholic." That's fine, but it establishes nothing in any objective sense. It is not evidence for truth. I know several people very well who went from Catholicism to Protestantism, one of whom is quite famous (you'd probably know his name), was raised by nuns in Catholic schools, the whole nine yards. But so what?

I read the Scripture passages with interest. You make a very good case for believing as you believe. It is not sufficiently strong to persuade me from my beliefs for the simple reason that you place interpretations on those passages that I do not accept. You impute their meaning specifically to the RCC and I impute them to the universal Christian church, not any one sect.

Example:
"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and all were made to drink of one Spirit." 1 Cor 12:13

I would extend that to include Roman Catholics and Protestants, Fundamentalists and Pentacostals, Presbyterians and Anglicans, we are all made to drink of one Spirit. "So we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another." Rom 12:5

How you can sit there defending blatant dissensions is beyond me. I don't call rejecting the Eucharist or Peter's authority 'unity', nor do I call it 'avoiding disagreements'. The early Church certainly thought 'no dissensions' meant what it said.

I have never defended dissension. I have always said factions are wrong and harmful. But I have also said that God is larger than our human disputes and frailties, and he brings good out of our human errors. I have seen it happen again and again. This is an example of the situation where I have explained my position quite clearly, in many ways, and yet you do not hear me. Then you respond (a bit heatedly, it seems) to something I never said.

You cite:

"He who hears you hears me and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." Lk 10:16

Then say:


Seems to be saying to the Apostles that anyone that rejects the Apostles' teachings rejects Him. Trick there is to show the Apostles founded the Catholic Church. No difficulty there, history is certainly on my side.

You can't seem to grasp the fact that I am just as much an heir of the Apostles' teaching as you or any other Christian. I do not reject the Apostles' teachings. I hold fast to them.

You quote:

"For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God, there the Church and every grace. The Spirit, however, is Truth." St. Irenaeus (c. 200) Against Heresies 3, 24, 1.

And say:
It seems more than obvious that the Church will be guided by the Holy Spirit, and that Jesus will never abandon it. If that is so, its teachings will be infallible. Like it or not, there are some contradictions between the various Christian Churches. Therefore either the Holy Spirit isn't doing His job, or one version is right and the other is wrong. Since the Church must be one, and it will be infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit, there must be one church existing today (that has always existed, otherwise there would be points where the Holy Spirit failed) that fits the bill.

The church is not one sect, it is the entire body of Christ. On the essentials, the entire body of Christ agrees. On nonessentials, there are points of disagreement and contradiction. There is one church today that fits the bill, as you say, and it is the entire, universal body of Christ. This is so clear to me as to not even be arguable, but I fully understand that you cannot agree.

After citing a number of passages, which I read carefully, you say:

How can anyone say the Church can be flawed in teaching? Is the Holy Spirit impotent then?

The universal church which upholds the essentials of the Christian faith, whether RCC or outside the RCC tradition, is not flawed in those essentials, even though it may be flawed in peripheral and nonessential matters. I know you feel you have made an open-and-shut case for RCC supremacy, and you think I'm crazy because I don't see it that way. But every Scripture passage you cited is more reasonably applied, in my thinking, to the total church, not just the RCC sect.

One thing I would be interested in knowing is your response to an issue I raised earlier. I mentioned the atrocities committed by the old RCC. You replied that "When a person commits evil in Christ's name it does not make Christ flawed. When a person commits evil in the name of Christ's Church, it does not make the Church's teachings flawed." I agreed, but pointed out that the atrocities were official, institutional, sactioned actions of the Church, not individuals taking renegade action. I said that when the church does evil, as the old RC church did, it disqualifies itself from presenting itself as flawless.

I also pointed out that it was the RCC's corruption that produced the division and dissension. It was not the Reformers--they attempted first to reform the church from within. I pointed out that had the RCC not sunk to such an egregious level of corruption and evil, the Reformation would have never taken place, and there would have been one church to this day. Even if you disagree with my conclusions, can you not at least agree that my thinking is logical and based on reasonable historical premises?

Can you not see that the evil of the old RCC can reasonably be viewed by a rational person as disqualifying the Church institution as flawless? And can you not see that it was the corruption of the Church, not the so-called "pride" of the Reformers, that made the Reformation if not necessary then at least inevitable?

If you cannot even minimally acknowledge that my position has logical merit (you don't have to agree with it, just admit that I am not "off-the-wall" in thinking this way), then I would see no reason to continue any further dialogue. We would, in that case, be truly shouting to each other from different planets, if not different galaxies.

--wiz

---------------------------------------------

"We have not really budged a step until we take up residence in someone else's
point of view."
Novelist JOHN ERSKINE



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 20, 2000).]

I should mention, too, that another problem you and I have when communicating is that I am never quite sure when you use the word "church" exactly what you mean. Sometimes you mean the church institution, sometimes the church as the body of Catholic believers, sometimes the church as a body of beliefs or doctrines.

When I speak of the church per se, I always refer to the total body of believers, RCC, Protestant, Orthodox, etc. When I read of the church in the Scriptures, I normally take it the same way.

Just a point of clarification.

--wiz

You lost my point Connor, I'm sorry I offended you, This will be my last post in this topic . It's just a fight now. I know the mormon's well, My girlfriend of Years is a strict mormon.... When you go to church ask how much money your "Father" sends to the vatican. Ask how much help they actually do in your community. The RCC lost itself a long time ago.
I can tell this is your passion Conor, It used to be mine until I found how wrong everything was, and just believed my own theories. You could say I gave up. But a persons Faith cannot be judged by another.
I noticed a hint of sarcasm telling me how wise I was to follow God without Being in a set religion. That was mean. Obviously I can't believe you are Catholic anymore. I think you just go to church with everyone else and Don't actually love god. Or love at all. I don't know you any more than this board, but you haven't shown me or anyone else the actions of a catholic. You just sound angry that people aren't agreeing with your religion. Like I said in my first post here, I believe the Catholics are amazing, they can heal anyone of anything non-physical. Addiction, Loss, Depression. you name it, they can help. The Christian caring and loving is what makes it great, That is what they preach. Spreading gospel to people is optional, but it's nice to learn about it. I would recommend ending this post. I know it can be locked. This argument is just developing negative energy now.
I should have thought about what I was getting into when I got involved in the debate. I never expected to be insulted about not conforming to a single religion. I never once stated I was sole authority, I am equal to everyone else. I sincerely think this topic should be closed! Before people make enimies. Yes I am mad. I regret I even posted in here.

This is worse than Racism

[This message has been edited by Ki-Adi-Mundi (edited April 20, 2000).]

Sorry to hear you were offended by Conor's comments, Ki. I agree that his remarks were intemperate, but I don't think he intended the harm you felt.

All in all, discussions around here tend to be very civil and instructive, including this one. I don't think we have a flame war on our hands yet, and I would hate to see the thread locked.

--wiz

<font=1>

[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 20, 2000).]

Okay, I think I will ask you a few questions. Maybe try to clarify a few things.


I have never defended dissension. I have always said factions are wrong and harmful. But I have also said that God is larger than our human disputes and frailties, and he brings good out of our human errors. I have seen it happen again and again. This is an example of the situation where I have explained my position quite clearly, in many ways, and yet you do not hear me. Then you respond (a bit heatedly, it seems) to something I never said.


First, you have been defending the Reformation on the grounds that it was trying to accomplish something good. I don't know the motivations of Luther and Kalvin and the rest, but your defense of their actions has been based on the idea that they were trying to put the church 'back on the rails' when it had gone astray, am I right?

Maybe if you could provide any evidence whatsoever that the things the Reformation implemented (rejection of the Eucharist, rejection of Purgatory) were ever believed by the Apostles or their successors. If you could provide any evidence from the writings of early Christians that those ideas were rejected by anyone before the Reformation. If the Reformers did bring Christianity in directions it had never gone before, how could that possibly be bringing the Church 'back' to anything?

You say in your quote that you think factions are wrong, yet you defend the Reformation. That stems in part, I understand, from your belief the RCC was intrinsically corrupt at that stage. Do you have any evidence of this? The leaders were corrupt, but why should that mean anything if they don't change the teachings of the Church? Men often choose self over God. It is a historical and present fact. But if, in fact, I am right and these men didn't actually change the teachings of the Church that had been constant from the Apostles, why would the teachings of the Church be made flawed by the actions of a number of men at that period in time. If doctrine remained intact, and I am certain you will find that it did, what was the problem with the deposit of faith?

If I am right (I welcome you to post any evidence that the deposit of faith was at all different from the time of St. Ignatius) then what in the world was the Reformation trying to get 'back' to? The beliefs they espoused had been rejected since the beginning.

If the Reformation was to create a church that had never existed, surely that is a dissension to be condemned.

As for today, if the roots of the Reformation were false and in rebellion against the true Church, are not all Protestant groups still in rebellion, holding to beliefs rejected by the Church from the beginning to the Reform?


You can't seem to grasp the fact that I am just as much an heir of the Apostles' teaching as you or any other Christian. I do not reject the Apostles' teachings. I hold fast to them.


What you have just stated is an impossibility. I believe the Eucharist is central to Christianity. You believe it isn't. One of us is rejecting the Apostles' teaching on the matter (pardon the pun http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif). You are saying all groups are equally valid. How can this be? We disagree about at least one of the fundamentals of Christianity! (I see it as fundamental, you don't, but you get my point). That is why I will now use this quote:

"To be deep into history is to cease to be Protestant." -Malcom Muggeridge.

I see history as a deciding factor on what the Apostles' teachings really were. Obviously the Bible isn't enough to sort it out. Today I am saying one thing and you are saying another. What did the first Christians say? Again I welcome you to bring forth any evidence that those that succeeded the Apostles' believed other than the Catholic Church does today. This is essential though, do you agree that the very earliest Christians would have believed the same thing as the Apostles?


The church is not one sect, it is the entire body of Christ. On the essentials, the entire body of Christ agrees. On nonessentials, there are points of disagreement and contradiction. There is one church today that fits the bill, as you say, and it is the entire, universal body of Christ. This is so clear to me as to not even be arguable, but I fully understand that you cannot agree.


But don't you see? We can't even agree on what the essentials are! How can all Christian groups be the total Church, Christ's true Church, when they all can't even agree on the essentials? If it was just disciplines that separated us that would be one thing, but Protestants and Catholics disagree on the very nature of Christianity from the Eucharist to the after-life (I still don't know your view on Purgatory, BTW).

This is one of the places I really don't see your logic. How can all these groups be the total Church, how can the Holy Spirit be guiding the true Church to disagreements within itself? This is a point you must make clearer, or I fear I will never see how logic has led you to your belief. I don't see how the true Church could have any contradictions on matters that even one side sees as essential.

I am asking you a lot of questions here. In answer to your question, I sort of and sort-of-do-not see where your logic comes from. I see that if you used certain verses at the expense of others you could say that all Christian churches are equally valid members of Christ's Church. But I can't see you taking all the verses and coming to the same conclusion.

I want to thank you for every bit of patience you've shown. If I have ever given you the impression that I don't think you are a genuine Christian, please dispel it immediately. I believe deeply (and I think I have every reason to believe it) that the Catholic Church is Christ's true Church. That leads me, by command no less, to try to get people to come 'back' to it, even if they were never there.

But I do consider a friend of God my friend, and a fellow Christian my brother in Christ.

I am sorry for insulting you with sarcasm Ki-Adi-Mundi. I should have just stated why I have always disagreed with the sort of belief pattern you entertain. I would be happy to have as civil a discussion as possible on the subject of that, and mormons if you wish.

------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

Going to bed now, but I'm just wondering if you read my last post Conor? I repeat, the essentials of Christianity are to love God and love every person, whether friend or foe. Now, many things follow from this. In fact there would be no hatred, no hunger, no war - in essence world peace, if everyone followed this. This ritual you keep clinging to is (and I repeat) simply a celebration of your faith. I have never had a negative attitude for someone celebrating their love for life and God. But why should it be that we must follow your tradition of celebration? I have yet to follow your logic. Perhaps the church of Christ, immediately following the resurrection, was in essence perfect. Now, should I jump to the conclusion that since the buildings which housed the churches of that time had 6 ft. tall wooden doors that any church of the present is dissentious for not complying? Please respond to this. There is literally no meaning, no purpose, to what you cling to as a necessity whereas Wiz does not. It contributes nothing to a greater purpose.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

Conor-

You raised some very good points. I want to answer them all, but I am going to start with the issue I feel most strongly about at the moment. (I have an idea for a post that answers much of the other stuff you raised in a straight-line, orderly fashion, but I probably won't get around to writing that until later.) Meanwhile, with regard to the "essentials"--

I originally wrote:

The church is not one sect, it is the entire body of Christ. On the essentials, the entire body of Christ agrees. On nonessentials, there are points of disagreement and contradiction.

To which you responded--

But don't you see? We can't even agree on what the essentials are! How can all Christian groups be the total Church, Christ's true Church, when they all can't even agree on the essentials? If it was just disciplines that separated us that would be one thing, but Protestants and Catholics disagree on the very nature of Christianity from the Eucharist to the after-life (I still don't know your view on Purgatory, BTW).

The fact that you and I can't agree on what the essentials of Christianity are does not mean they aren't clearly defined in the mind of God. Obviously they are.

You say, "How can all Christian groups be the total Church, Christ's true Church, when they all can't even agree on the essentials?" I ask you: How can I be a genuine Christian if I am not a part of Christ's true church?

I'm honestly not trying to lay a trap for you here, and I hope you won't take it that way, but you said that you consider me a genuine Christian, and I trust your sincerity in saying that. I do not believe as you do regarding the Eucharist. I take holy Communion, but I do so in a Protestant church under the understanding that it is a symbolic celebration, not a mystical and miraculous event called transubstantiation or the Real Presence. I say this is a peripheral issue, you say it is an essential issue.

But I submit to you that if this was truly an essential issue, a core issue of the Christian faith, I could not believe as I do and still be a genuine Christian. To me, an essential issue of the faith is one that defines what it means to be a Christian. Examples of essentials: Belief that Jesus is God, that I am a sinner, that He was crucified for my sins, that He died, was buried, and rose again, and is alive today. These, to me, are essentials.

The exact nature of Holy Communion/The Eucharist? That's a doctrinal matter, not an essential matter that defines whether Jesus is or is not your Lord.

When Jesus was crucified, there were also two thieves crucified on either side of Him. One believed in Him, the other cursed Him. To the one who believed, Jesus said, "Today, you will be with Me in paradise." This thief died without ever receiving a sacrament, without ever learning any doctrine, without any religious instruction or experience at all. But He had one thing: He had faith in Jesus Christ. He had the essentials. And from that example, it seems clear to me that the essentials are very few and very simple, so few and so simple that a dying thief can receive them to the fullest in his last hours on earth.

You are absolutely right in observing that churches continue to bicker over what is essential and what is not. I've heard that churches have split over whether the line in the Lord's Prayer should be recited, "Forgive us our debts," or, "Forgive us our trespasses." Some poor foolish Christian actually thought that was essential! Some believers I've met have thought that it was essential that a Christian be baptized by full immersion in water, others by sprinkling with water. I look at the thief on the cross and I see a man who was received by God without any baptism at all, without the Eucharist, without unction, without much of anything but a simple profession of faith.

And I have to conclude from that and other biblical examples that the business of making Jesus the Lord of your life is really not that complicated. It's not religion. It's a relationship.

Is any of this making sense to you? I hope I'm communicating this clearly, because I think this is probably the heart of what I would like you to understand. If we can get through this issue of what is and is not essential in the Christian faith, it seems to me that everything else becomes a slide on ice.

You also say:

This is one of the places I really don't see your logic. How can all these groups be the total Church, how can the Holy Spirit be guiding the true Church to disagreements within itself?

The Holy Spirit does not guide the true church into internal disagreements. People do that all by themselves. The Spirit guides the overall church into an understanding of the essentials. People and churches tend to add on the peripherals and nonessentials that then become sticking points and bickering points. The essence of Christianity, as revealed in the Scriptures and affirmed in our hearts by the Spirit, is really very simple.

Part of the reason we had a Reformation, I believe, is that the pure simplicity of biblical Christianity had become overlaid with complications and peripheral matters. The idea of Reform was a return to an earlier simplicity. I know you don't buy that, but I will develop the idea in a future post, and it will hopefully make more sense to you.

I don't see how the true Church could have any contradictions on matters that even one side sees as essential.

I want to underscore this: The fact that people or a given church see an issue as essential does not mean that God sees it as essential. The RCC once considered the geocentric view of the universe essential enough to burn a man at the stake for his views (Bruno) and force another to recant under threat (Galileo). It is safe to say that not only did God not consider that an essential issue, but the Creator certainly must have been dismayed and grieved to see the church take the utterly wrong side of the debate!

Don't get me wrong, I do understand that this is not a "Deposit of Faith" issue. I am just trying to illustrate how harmful it can be to treat as an essential something that is really a peripheral issue. I also would like you to see how truly few in number (and great in importance) the truly essential issues are.

I hope this has been a helpful explication of my views. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to expand on them.

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 21, 2000).]

Unless I missed something, I don't think anybody defined "infallible."

It doesn't mean "ineffable" (perfect, free from all imperfection).

In the sense that the Pope speaks infallibly (I don't think anybody ever claimed the institutional Catholic Church was "infallible" in everything), it is only when he speaks on behalf of the Council of Cardinals and the rest on a matter of faith and morals. Most of what the Pope says is NOT considered "infallible" in that sense, nor is it considered ineffable.

It can't be anything that outrightly contradicts sacred tradition in the Church. It doesn't mean whatever any Catholic says is actually God's sacred Word talking or that Christians or Catholic Christians are perfect people or always perfectly consistent in their behavior.

Sort of like does the United States past crimes mean that Americans are all bad people, or that the system of "Democracy" (as we call it) is inherently flawed and wrong and should be abolished? Does it mean that systems like Communism (who are totally against our system) are then correct? I think most would say no. So then why apply that standard to a religion or a church?

At one time, the US supreme court basically said, "yes, blacks are inferior, and slavery is acceptable" and they defended an institution most of us today find unspeakable and indefensible. Yet they still live here and approve of the system that did that very thing. And many today will point at the Abortion issue and others and say "look, they are NOT representing my views" yet they don't say to abolish or abandon the entire system outright.

Something to think about.

The RCC is not a dictatorship, but there is a hierarchy of spiritual authority. Ultimately, God is the final authority, but interpreting God's Word/Law is always up for grabs it seems. And most would agree that this is how the early Church portrayed in the NT was for most people at that time.

Ultimately, there is still this thing called "faith." You can make a convincing argument, based on history, statistics, trends, etc that a particular Church is "correct" or "more correct" than some other Church (or even religion, etc) but you cannot totally establish it as fact (as far as I know.. at least I haven't been able to yet.. if you can, let me know, I'd love to hear your arguments). So we could, I suppose ALL be wrong, but if that's the case, why even bother arguing about it? ; )

Even a denomination that says the buck stops with the Bible still has a problem. Who has authority to interpret the Bible correctly? Any fool can see that two people will interpret it differently on any given area just about. Obviously there are at least more than one interpretation for most if not all of the Bible. If there's anything I learned in my studies, it was that people disagree over most of the text we call "the Bible" and even on what books should be included in it.

Alot of good comments, as long as we can keep it civil, we can accomplish much in the way of discussion. At least we can get our ideas/opinions out! ; )

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Darth Kurgan (edited April 21, 2000).]

Kurgan--

This whole line of discussion was kicked off by your question as to people's religious/philosophical/cultish/spiritual affiliation/mindset. I posted:

I have continually tried to distill my beliefs to a pure first century Christianity, stripping away overlays of distortion and dead tradition. I try to continually rediscover and practice the living Christianity of Christ.

To which Conor posted:

It is my unwavering belief that [the Roman Catholic Church] is the complete and unchanged way of life Christ founded roughly 2000 years ago. It is that original Christianity Wiz was talking about.

I wanted to make sure that there was no misunderstanding of my position because of Conor's statement, and clarified that I do not consider the RCC to be synonymous with what I called "pure first century Christianity." While I respect the RCC, I believe that the historical RCC has added an overlay of belief and tradition and practice that did not exist in the church of Acts, the church of the New Testament letters of Paul, Peter, James, et al.

From that ensued a discussion in which Conor attempted to prove to me that the RCC is "the one true church." I have explained my belief, based on Scripture and personal experience and observation, that the actual "one true church" is the entire Christian church, roughly 2 billion people of all biblical Christian traditions, all of whom equally trace their lineage to Jesus and the apostles and the church of Acts.

I have posted strong criticism of the historical RCC not in an attempt to bash the church or frame it as inferior--I have specifically and repeatedly stated my respect and admiration for what the RCC is today. But the corruption and evil that was systemic in the RCC at the time of the Reformation is beyond question.

My point in stating so is to show that, contrary to what Conor keeps pressing on me, the RCC cannot hold itself up as infallible or ineffable or even superior to any other branch of Christianity--that the RCC is not "the one true church." All churches (including the RCC) are made up of fallible people, and even to some degree (as Jesus and Paul both predicted would happen) a certain number of evil and false people who are not genuine Christians.

So IMO no denomination or sect has the claim on the title "the one true church." It is a claim not supported by Scripture or history. That is the crux of the discussion, from my p.o.v.

Kurgan, you write:

Even a denomination that says the buck stops with the Bible still has a problem. Who has authority to interpret the Bible correctly? Any fool can see that two people will interpret it differently on any given area just about. Obviously there are at least more than one interpretation for most if not all of the Bible.

That is a common view, but I strongly, strongly, intensely disagree. I submit to you that from 95 to 99 percent of the Bible is clear and unambiguous. The statement that "Obviously there are at least more than one interpretation for most if not all of the Bible" is profoundly untrue from where I'm sitting. Passages that relate to essential issues of faith are very clear.

The passages that are disputable tend to be in more peripheral matters, and that is why there are denominations--minor variations over this or that nonessential issue. The essential issues are not disputable, which is why denominations that differ over small things are still able to cooperate together and embrace each other as fellow Christians. All Christian denominations and sects recognize the core issues of the Bible that are commonly accepted and easily understood.

I really detest this dangerous and false idea that the Bible is a big Rorschach test that we can read into as we please, that it is this big wad of Silly Putty that can be stretched and shaped any way we please. It really is a very firm and clear and unmistakeable document.

I think it is important to note that the Reformation took place not over a difference in interpretation of any Scripture, but over traditions and practices and beliefs that had accrued over hundreds of years following the close of the canon of Scripture.

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 21, 2000).]

Btw, Good Friday blessings to everyone. It's a profound, sobering, meaningful observance. But in the words of a saintly Black preacher, "It's Friday--but Sunday's comin'!"

--wiz

You have certainly made it clear what you believe, and I think I now get a lot of why you believe.

I still think most of your reasons are founded on misconception and error though.

Funnily enough, you say:


I really detest this dangerous and false idea that the Bible is a big Rorschach test that we can read into as we please, that it is this big wad of Silly Putty that can be stretched and shaped any way we please. It really is a very firm and clear and unmistakeable document.


I see you doing exactly this. I see you as taking obvious statements "For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed." Jn. 6:55 and twisting them to mean something Jesus could never have intended.

A great deal of your conclusions seem to hinge on the idea that the Reformers were trying to go 'back' to something pure. I have seen precious little (read: none) evidence that they were trying to go back to anything that ever existed. You say you will go into this, and I am really looking forward to what you could possibly post. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)

This is something I don't know for sure, but I'd wager the rituals and 'periphials' you talk of were well in place by the end of the first century, with the full blessing of the Apostles. The Eucharist certainly was, since the very first one happened before Jesus even died (yes I know you disagree with this).

How a Christian could be genuine and yet not part of the true Church is something I haven't really delved into, so I don't think I have a good explanation of the Church's teaching on the matter right now.

My thoughts on the matter are that in order for a Church to be the true one its teachings must totally in line with Christ's Will. I think being a genuine Christian owes a lot to our motivations. Are we trying to follow Christ to the best of our ability? Stumble though we do, and frequently.

Take the Thief. He had not heard Christ's teachings (maybe some, but certainly he hadn't been following Him around), but he knew enough to give himself to Christ. If he had survived, he would have found out what exactly Christ did teach and would have done his best to follow Him. He did not have the time, so he was saved because he gave himself to Jesus.

On a personal note, I'm sure that if I rejected the RCC and joined some other church, I would be rejecting Jesus because I would be leaving what I know to be His true Church. Does that mean everyone in that Church I joined is rejecting Jesus? I say no, because they do not know the RCC is the true Church.

As for being essential, you say this:


The fact that people or a given church see an issue as essential does not mean that God sees it as essential.


I can say this with equal conviction: The fact that people or a given church do not see an issue as essential does not mean that God does not see it as essential.

I am kind of going through your posts from the bottom up, so excuse me if the order seems a bit strange.

When you say one of the essentials is that Jesus died for our sins, I don't think you fully realize that the Eucharist is the actual sacrafice. The RCC believes it is real. I think everyone who doesn't celebrate the Eucharist as real is not obeying Christ fully. But they think they are, and that is everything.

Obviously, more will be accomplished here by praying for the grace of understanding. We have said our pieces, and I think I will simply pray this weekend unless other discussions come up. I strongly urge you to read 'The Fourth Cup' by Scott Hahn in that link on the second page. It is profoundly insightful.

I haven't forgotten you TAF.


I repeat, the essentials of Christianity are to love God and love every person, whether friend or foe. Now, many things follow from this.


Yes, many things do follow from this, including Jesus' command to 'obey my commandments'. It is the RCC view that the Non-RCC churches have interpreted Jesus' commandments and many truths believed by the Apostles incorrectly. We want them to come back to the truth.

First we must give ourselves to Jesus, then we must obey Him in all things. The RCC believes, for very good reasons, that Jesus founded a Church that had a Apostolic heirarchy to be its gaurdian and rituals designed to praise God (like churches, why would God's house not be glorious and magestic when possible?). We believe any church not following such teachings to be out of synch with Jesus' Will on the matter.

------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

Conor,

Even though you're a fine person, this is exactly the reason why I refuse to ever debate anything with you ever again. You refuse, let me repeat REFUSE to even CONSIDER the hypothetical possiblity that YOU might be the one who is in error. That's right, YOU. I think everyone here has been more than forthcoming in admitting their own imperfection, except for you. Basically, you're perfect and we're all freaking morons, isn't that right? We're stupid and you know better. It's at times like this Conor when I could just strangle you.

Let me hear you say it Conor...come on...say it. Let's hear you state for the board that it is possible that you could might be the one who is in error. Everyone, I wager that we won't ever see such a statement from Conor. I'll say it about myself though: I've been wrong, I'm probably wrong about some things today - probably even in this post, and I'm convinced that I'll be wrong about some things in the future.

I want to hear Conor come out and say that, with regard to the topic of this thread, it is possible that he could be in error rather than everyone else.

Let's hear it Conor. Either surprise me by admitting to the remote possibility that you could be in error about all this, or simply reinforce my current views about your close-mindedness. The ball's in your court buddy.


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...

*sigh*

I have admitted on a number of occasions that I have been wrong, and that I could be wrong. I admitted I was wrong about my definition of 'church'. I guess you weren't listening. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)

On this matter, I'm not talking about me. I'm not talking about predictions about sports or ideas about government. I am speaking about my Church.

I am a flawed human being, like everyone else. But unless I have incorrectly stated Catholic teaching on any matter then I am certain the chances of me being wrong are zero. None.

Not the answer you wanted I am sure, but you did say you wanted the truth. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/biggrin.gif)

------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

I've been thinking about my statement, and I'd like to modify it.

I firmly believe that I am right in this matter, and I have seen no evidence that would be at all valid against my reasons for believing so. But is there a chance...?

I don't know. For the sake of humility I should say there could be a chance. So I will, I don't see a how, but I will say there could be a chance I could be wrong about this.

I hope everyone will accept my modification. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/tongue.gif)

Well, I basically see no difference in your Christianity as opposed to Wiz's, except for certain things I hardly consider essential. Actually, I see them as downright pointless, except for what I have mentioned earlier about them being a celebration of your faith. From what I have read I have seen literally no evidence in the Bible to warrant any statement to say that a ritualistic celebration of your faith is necessary. Seriously, I fail to see how Wiz can love God, love Christ, follow his teachings, and still not be considered everything inherent in a Christian. At this point I'm sure your argument is that Wiz fails to interpret the teachings of Christ correctly. Now, many submit here that your exhaustive attempts of persuasion that everything your church teaches is entirely correct are far from convincing, so I see no harm in them holding steadfast to where they always have. Please, I know you have spent numerous hours presenting every fact you can possibly muster to qualify your assumption, and I admire that. I think all the facts have been presented now, and even then our interpretations of what you present we should interprate in the Bible disagree. Get that mouthful? I just don't think an agreement can be reached when you argue with certainty you are correct and we argue this is not the case. I think if any further discussion is to take place we leave this "certainty" behind. All you can give us right now is reason to believe Conor. Only we can decide whether or not we can go from there to declare it is impossible that we could be wrong.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

If anyone can show me where I missed something (again) but the Protestant Reformation happened because of differences of opinion over ecclesiastical authority, the translation of the Bible into vernacular tongues, the sale of indulgences, and over whether or not priests could marry.

Yeah, there were 95 theses, but those were the important points.

It was also over doctrine, as the Reformers insisted on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidela (sp?), two things that the RCC rejected.

Doctrinal differences and the authority issue were what split the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches earlier.

The Church of England was over divorce, and authority again.

So we can see politics enters into it as well as doctrine and other points.

As far as I know, there was no debate over "suppressing the truth" persecutions of scientists or heretics, or excesses committed during the crusades or what not.

Much as people like to point out the mistakes the RCC made in the past, it seems that most of them, even the biggest ones, were not addressed by the Reformers.

If I'm wrong, simply show me what I missed, thanks (anyone).

Is there any religious group that cannot claim to have ever commited any crimes in the name of religion in the past? Well maybe some Churches that have formed in the last 50 years or so (and haven't had a chance to do anything bad).. but other than that. This goes back to the "human institution" thing.
Do bad leaders and past mistakes invalidate an institution?

And if the institution is invalidated by this, are its teachings also invalidated?

Or is it like Jesus said of the Pharisees "do as they say, not as they do" ?

Kurgan

I do not, however, expect that Conor should question the church as potentially fallible. A good Catholic could never do that.

I think I see a bit of blindness on both sides here. No offense guys. ; )

I admit that my Church could be wrong, I could be wrong, and we ALL could be wrong.

Maybe there are actually 992 gods and they all hate us, and if we worship them, they will get mad and hurt us, and when you die, you don't go to heaven, or hell, you just turn into cotton candy. But these gods also want us to walk on our hands and dye our hair purple. If we fail to do this, they will kick our @#$@#.

We might all be wrong!

However, I have hope, that we can find something that is close to the truth, and hold onto that. As far as doctrinal arguments, I don't know if you can really ever convince somebody if they don't want to be convinced. The evidence itself can be interpreted.

I can SEE the Protestant viewpoint, and I don't agree with it, but I can see where they are coming from, where their mindset is. I can see people like Conor's viewpoint as well. However, I think I am not sharing either viewpoint of either person really.

I guess we all tend to erect our own barriers to what we see as stuff we need to protect and defend. And these are simply classic examples of debates and arguments we see here.

I mainly wish to hear other points of view so I can LEARN why they think what they think if it is different from my own beliefs. I also wish to see if there is anything in their own beliefs that I agree with, just for the sake of my own edification. If not, I at least will know how to talk to these people, with their beliefs in mind.

So that's why I do it, otherwise, it's kind of pointless unless you can convert people to your way of thinking every time.

Some people just like to argue for its own sake, and I guess that's okay too, but eventually you have to take a stand somewhere.

Oh and btw, I know some people like to say Confucianism, Taoism, or Hindu or Buddhist schools are NOT religion. Well then how do you define religion? For all practical purposes they are. Just because you don't worship a God or gods doesn't mean you aren't a religion. These aren't self-help movements, they are religious systems. And what's so "bad" about "organized" religion with a developed theology or system as opposed to Joe Shmo interpreting the Bible based on his own personal biases and wishful thinking? I don't think you can really say anybody is better or worse just based on how many people are in the group or how much money they have or how long they've been around (or you have to invalidate alot of systems that many people hold dear).

Well the whole Jedi thing seems to be a conglomeration of religious systems (it's got a sci fi twist of course). Humanist, Taoist, Confucianist, Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, and others I am sure. It's a metaphor for religion, in a fictional setting of course. We the use and misuse of spiritual power in a galaxy far, far away called "The Force."

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited April 22, 2000).]

As I finally get through this thread.. wow.

This is worse than Racism



I don't think this is a fair statement. Nobody is doing anything of the sort here. We are disagreeing over ideas. While I have seen implications from both sides that the other must be holding onto a system that is "evil" (which they may actually believe is true) I don't think anyone is actually condeming the other outright.

To say that another person does not love God is not something they can know from this message board. This judgement simply shouldn't be made. Judge not, lest you be judged they say. Everyone has a right to an opinion though, and by expressing your opinion, you can know what others think of your opinion. By asking questions, you can know what others think.

The facts can and are interpreted.

I will say, that the God Thread got very heated at times, yet it was not locked. I saw no need to do so, because we were doing alot of good. We had people bashing religion, and people bashing each other. However, we were able to work beyond that and most of the posters were mature enough to be able to rise above it and enter into more meaningful discussion.

This is just a phase, so don't let it bother you too much. We should all be conscious of our predjudices on the table. Realize that centuries of debate probably won't be resolved once and for all on this board, but we may all walk away with just a bit more understanding of the other fellow. This should be a lesson worth learning.

I think more good than harm can come of this, and so we shouldn't let little setbacks halt the process. If somebody hurt your feelings, say so, but realize that this kind of discussion can do that, if you aren't careful. We have to realize that others are often bound to disagree with us, often vehemetly. So be prepared to hear negative feedback at times.

Any comments?

Kurgan

I'm certainly ok with letting this rest.

There will always be other topics. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/biggrin.gif)

Kurgan--

Thanks for chiming in. You had been conspicuously absent till now. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)


...the Protestant Reformation happened because of differences of opinion over ecclesiastical authority, etc....
It was also over doctrine, as the Reformers insisted on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidela (sp?), two things that the RCC rejected....
As far as I know, there was no debate over "suppressing the truth" persecutions of scientists or heretics, or excesses committed during the crusades or what not.

You're absolutely right. I don't think anyone claimed that heretic-toasting or other excesses were at issue in the Reformation--at least I never said so. I think you inadvertantly smooshed two different lines of discussion into one. Yes, the Reformation split was about doctrine and authority, etc.

Where the corruption and excesses come in, at least where I introduced it, was in regard to Conor's claim that the church should be considered perfect in some ineffable and transcendent sense. He said that the church as an entity cannot be held responsible for the renegade actions of individuals, acting contrary to the deposit of faith of that church. I made the point that it was not renegade individuals, but the church qua church, acting quite officially and corporately, that elected corrupt popes (sometimes involving simony), burned innocent people as heretics, suppressed the truth, etc. These were not the actions of a few rogue individuals, but the actions of the church.

My point there is that I, as an outsider, can quite reasonably look at this history and conclude that the church is disqualified from claiming any sort of meaningful perfection. If it is perfect in its doctrine, that perfection should be reflected in its official actions. Clearly, there was a deep and lengthy low point in church history that reasonably undermine the claim of perfection. If the church is perfect in some ineffable way, what good is that to the people who are being oppressed, exploited, and burned at the stake?

I think it is a reasonable argument for me to make regarding my own view of the RCC. I would not expect Conor to agree, and I didn't ask him to. I only hoped that if he could just hypothetically step into my viewpoint for a moment, he would understand my pov, and this would lesson the need he seems to feel to convert me to RCCdom. I don't mind his evangelical (for lack of a better word! http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif) zeal, and I'm enjoying and learning from the discussion, but I am disappointed that he can't even grant that there is any degree of rationality to my pov.

Much as people like to point out the mistakes the RCC made in the past, it seems that most of them, even the biggest ones, were not addressed by the Reformers.

You're right. But that, as I explained above was not the point I was making. The mistakes of the past argument is related to the question of the RCC's perfection or fallibility, not to the merits or demerits of the Reformation. That's a separate (or at least semi-separate) issue.

Is there any religious group that cannot claim to have ever commited any crimes in the name of religion in the past?

That is, in a way, what I've been saying all along. All religious groups are comprised of human beings who are fallible. The RCC claims it is the perfect one true church, and Conor so believes. I do not. I think with good reason. Conor thinks I twist Scripture, ignore history, etc., but I am convinced in my own mind that I do not. And that, I think, sort of sums up the nub of the discussion.

Do bad leaders and past mistakes invalidate an institution?

No. I've stated in as many ways as I know how that I have enormous respect for the present day RCC. It is not invalidated by its past mistakes. But IMO, the concept that the RCC is doctrinally infallible and the one true church is fatally undermined by history.

And if the institution is invalidated by this, are its teachings also invalidated?

Not invalidated. But if the church claims its teachings are perfect and infallible, yet it officially, from the pope on down, has at times demonstrated incredible corruption, atrocity, injustice, oppression, etc., then we have to wonder what good it does for a church to have "infallible" beliefs alongside tyrannical conduct.

We go back to the James 2 issue: Faith without works is dead. If a church has perfect faith and atrocious works, what good is it? James 2:18--'But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.' I don't think it is a stretch at all to apply to a church the same principle God applies to an individual.

You quote my words:
I do not, however, expect that Conor should question the church as potentially fallible. A good Catholic could never do that.
Then say:
I think I see a bit of blindness on both sides here. No offense guys. ; )

Show me the nature of my blindness so that I may see. You say you admit that your Church could be wrong, maybe 992 gods, etc. But Conor does not, and that was the discussion we were having. I say all churches are infallible, from my pov, based on the evidence I can see. That's the only conclusion I can come to. And I believe the conclusion of RCC perfection is the only conclusion Conor can come to, in that even entertaining any contrary possibility is tantamount to blasphemy in his mind.

I could be wrong, and we ALL could be wrong.

I not only admit the POSSIBILITY, I'll go you one better: I know I AM wrong. About a lot of things. Which ones? I don't know yet. If I knew, I'd change them and then I'd be right. I am constantly, constantly finding out I'm wrong about something. Though my core values and beliefs are pretty tightly welded to the evidence I've uncovered in recent years, my peripheral views are in constant, even daily flux as new data streams through the information gates of my mind, providing continual correction and readjustment.

I can SEE the Protestant viewpoint, and I don't agree with it, but I can see where they are coming from, where their mindset is. I can see people like Conor's viewpoint as well. However, I think I am not sharing either viewpoint of either person really.

I agree with you. In past discussions, I've always found that you are able to ease yourself in and out of other people's points of view without ever relaxing your grip on your own.

Some people just like to argue for its own sake, and I guess that's okay too, but eventually you have to take a stand somewhere.

I've known people who like to argue for argument's sake. Devils' advocates, they call themselves, and I don't enjoy the company of people who enjoy taking the Devil's side of all arguments. But I know that Conor and I have both been pursuing this from a standpoint of intellectual honesty and sincerity. I have learned a lot from it, which is why I pursued it.

I was pretty sure that Conor was not going to convert me to RCCism, but at the same time I wanted to approach it with an attitude of sincere openness to new data.

I genuinely like Conor and admire and affirm his conviction, and appreciate the challenge he has been to my own intellect and the information I have gained from the exchange. I am filing these dialogues away on my hard drive for future reference.

Thanks for your insights, Kurgan.

--wiz

Conor--

I'm certainly ok with letting this rest.
There will always be other topics.


Are you saying you would prefer to let it rest? I can see the logic of that, in that if the point of the discussion was to alter my views, then it appears that we are not going to reach that hoped-for conclusion.

I have learned a lot and I think it has been a valuable mental (and spiritual) exercise. And I have my previously promised mega-post sketched out in my mind and was preparing to begin writing it after Easter.

But it is not something I have to do, and if you feel that the critical moment has passed and you have no great interest in pursuing the discussion further, i'm okay with that. Perhaps this discussion has, indeed, Petered out (wink-wink).

(**Collective groan!**)

Well, what do you expect on two hours sleep?

--wiz

Well, I would certainly be interested in any light you can bring to your statements that the Reformation was trying to get back to some original church.

Contrary to what it must seem, I am interested in what other people believe and why. If, at times, only for the reason that knowing the other side makes debate easier. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)

I think a rather large stumbling block here would be that you think the leaders of the RCC acting contrary to RCC teachings means the RCC is compromising itself. I think I can see why you would think this. Is it because you think anything the leaders of the Church do is by extension what the Church actually condones?

I of course don't see it that way. I simply see human frailty and greed in people who should know better. If you could find an example where the Pope nullified or changed previously concrete parts of the deposit of faith while speaking ex cathedra (I think that is the correct spelling) that would be different.



------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

If you could find an example where the Pope nullified or changed previously concrete parts of the deposit of faith...

Thou shalt not kill.

Enough said.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

I said when speaking ex cathedra (I don't have an exact definition of this at the moment, but I'm sure Kurgan does). The Pope isn't infallible in everything he does. We don't believe that way. We are assured he won't changed the actual teachings of the Church. He is still human and the choice to reject the teachings is still his. He just won't change them.

Besides, very few popes have been as bad as that. Overall the Cardinals have done a pretty good job of electing holy men to the position.

Which brings me to something else. TAF, you want to know why we think all the ins and outs of the Catholic Church are an intrinsic part of Christianity. The crux of it is, we believe in no uncertain terms that Jesus left behind the Apostles, with Peter at their head, to safeguard the Church and appoint successors to do the same. We believe the Pope is the steward of Jesus, and has authority over Christianity. If the Church decided this thing or that thing is important I think it would be wrong to reject them based on our own ideas of what we should do.

Did that make sense?

the proper translation is "thou shalt not murder", and there is no instance where the Pope has declared officially to the whole church that *murder* is okay in any circumstance. And if you mean to imply stuff about crusades and all, read the Old Testament. God has the Israelites fighting wars all the time. The crusades wasn't the best of ideas, but it started out as a good intention. That doesn't mean the Pope officially declared that murder is suddenly ok now...

NO. I'm shocked you think that way.

The crux of it is, we believe in no uncertain terms that Jesus left behind the Apostles, with Peter at their head, to safeguard the Church and appoint successors to do the same. We believe the Pope is the steward of Jesus, and has authority over Christianity. If the Church decided this thing or that thing is important I think it would be wrong to reject them based on our own ideas of what we should do.

If the Pope, in whatever circumstance decides to KILL, then that in itself destroys everything you stand by and I can't believe you still hold your position. You believe the Pope is the steward of Jesus, and he represents YOUR CHURCH, so his presentation to you of the doctrine you hold to so dearly should be perfect. The Pope, you say, is appointed to safeguard the Church, yet you openly admit the Pope can be corrupt. Are you so blind? I simply see no logic whatsoever in your argument. Let me put things so plainly for you, in hopes you will understand.

From your last sentence, you basically are saying we are corrupt individuals, incapable of interpreting the Bible for ourselves. It is un-christian to do so, in your point of view. So we lay this task in the hands of others, who you admit are corrupt individuals. For whatever reason (and you have given none, save they classify themselves as do you) these individuals preserve and should exemplify the teachings of Christ. Yet, as we have all seen, this is not the case.

I simply don't know what else to tell you Conor. This is in no way a matter of any Church. Buildings, priests, Popes, water sprinkled on your head, eating bread and drinking wine - what possibly does this serve towards a love for life, mankind, and God? Wait, let me rephrase that. Why are those things any better for a celebration of your faith than anything else?

Perhaps you are more entrapped in tradition than you could ever possibly understand Conor. You keep clinging to this one thing - that the doctrine of the RCC has been unchanged throughout the years. I think the customs and traditions have remained unchanged, but not the teachings of Christ. This is your problem. What is only necessarily left unchanged is how and what we should love and what it means if we live as did Jesus. Anything else is just custom and tradition of that time period. I really am interested in what you could possibly say to this.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

Ikhnaton-
I think you as well are properly misinformed. Prior to the coming of Jesus, things couldn't possibly be presented in perfection. God openly allowed for killing. Yet once Christ came, a lesson could be taught. You always turn the other cheek. Love your enemies, no matter what, and having faith in God will ensure your well-being and safety. How can any killing whatsoever serve a purpose? Even in self defense one can nearly always find a way around it. If every man on this earth knew that killing was wrong there would be no death, no destruction. Some of my fellow Christian friends nearly exiled me from their presence when I said I would never, under any circumstance, kill a man. Not even for the sake of my country, fighting in a war. "But there are always bad guys, always people we must kill to ensure safety, Democracy, etc." Well, if even one person thinks that way then there is at least one bad person in the world.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

Pardon me TAF, but I found your second post disturbing as heck. Since extreme examples usually make points clearer. Look at the Nazis. I for one am glad so many men thought stopping them was worth killing and dying for. Saying 'killing is always wrong, no matter what' is all well and good, but it isn't realistic in any but a perfect world. This world is not perfect. Such things as the Nazis must be stood up to.

If you can't see yourself killing someone in any circumstances, good for you. I will not condemn those that made it possible to debate on this forum and hold such views as Christianity and Democracy.

As for my views on Christianity, the steward role of Peter and his successors is inescapable for me and many, many others. The Pope's role is not to rule like a king. Nor is it to be perfect (although that would be nice). At many points during the history of Christianity heresies popped up and had to be dealt with. It is usual that a council is called to discuss and debate the issue and show why the heresy is incorrect or to resolve an issue that some may be confused about.

One similar case is the creation of the Bible. There were many, many writings floating around in the first four centuries. Most people had their pet writings that they considered inspired and there were many arguments about which writing were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Pope as steward of Christ has the ultimate decision in the matter of faith and morals, so he decided to call a council together (that of Carthage, 397) to decide once for all which books were canon. After much prayer and debate the books of the New Testament we see today were decided on and the Hebrew writings were added to them. Then the Pope used his authority to make the Bible finalized. He ended any debate, and everyone had no choice but to accept his decision.

Now, all Christians today accept the books of the New Testament as infallible and inspired by God. Based soley on that council and the Pope's (I don't recall his name at the moment) final choice in the matter. That Pope was certainly a sinner, yet every Christian today believes his decision was right, and that he could in fact speak for the whole of Christianity on the matter.
Does it matter which sins he committed? All sins are in opposition to church teaching. Some (very few) Popes were truly not fit for the role, that is a sad fact, but despite everything they did their authority as the steward of Christ in matters of faith and morals was never abused. Somehow the Holy Spirit managed to work around them and keep the keep the Church going through the bad times.

All the ritual and tradition in the Church serves a purpose. Whether it be to make better people out of ourselves or to help us worship God or for some other reason the Church decided they were for the best. I don't know the reasons for many of them, but I trust in the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church.

Please don't lump the Eucharist in with rituals and the like. We believe it is something entirely different, something Jesus commanded us to do, the partaking of the Passover sacrafice, the unblemished Lamb of God for the expiation of our sins.


------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

Conor--

Well, I would certainly be interested in any light you can bring to your statements that the Reformation was trying to get back to some original church.

You got it. I'll be posting it in a day or two.

Hope you and everyone else had a terrific Easter--our family sure did.

<font size=1>[Note to myself--don't forget to tell Conor the Barry McGuire story...]</font>

--wiz

I'm getting behind again.. I see I am responding to comments made much earlier in the thread.. doh!

Anyway, Wiz, thanks much for your comments. I don't expect you to agree with me on all issues. I am not in perfect agreement with people like Conor either. I do appreciate all of your comments, and that's why I started the thread (although I had intended merely a simple poll of what people identified themselves with, oh well, hehe).

The statement that "Obviously there are at least more than one interpretation for most if not all of the Bible" is profoundly untrue from where I'm sitting.

Apparently, for millions (if not billions) of people, WHAT the Bible says is very important. If it is God's word, then don't you think we ought to know what it says?

I am well aware that many denominations have a doctrine that says Scripture is unambigious. Surely if you believe the Holy Spirit moves a person to truth, that a person can be made to understand the Holy Word by God himself? That is, if I'm reading, and I think it means X, when in truth it means Y, wouldn't God simply make me change to the correct interpretation? (sorry, I had to correct my typo!)

Muslims say the same thing about the Qu'ran. God will make sure you have the correct interpretation.

But logically, can it really mean ALL of the things people say it mean? Not everyone who has an alternative interpretation takes it out of context. They would see the ENTIRE BIBLE in that light, and explain away contradictions. For example, those who believe in the Trinity vs. someone who does not, they will see passages in light of their belief, and downplay, or interpret symbolically passages that seem to disagree with their doctrinal belief. I'm not saying one is right or wrong, but they can't both be right, can they? I never said the bible can mean anything you wish it to mean, but certainly there are some pretty wild interpretations out there, and who are we to say that they are 100% wrong and on what grounds?

That is one belief (that scripture is unambigious, and/or that God will lead you always to the correct interpretation). Others would say, no, it is perfectly possible to interpret it incorrectly.

The trouble is, we didn't live through those events, and we can't ask the authors themselves, and most of us don't speak/read the original languages, so we are bound to have interpretations, and different ones at that.

I ask you, are Gnostics Christians? Yes, those guys are still around (maybe it would be more proper to say they RESURFACED because of the gnostic gospels that were recently discovered in the last century).
They certainly refer to themselves as Christians, in fact most would say they are the TRUE Christians. They actually comprise many sects. Some believe that yes, Jesus is God, but so are all of the elect. We are "pieces" of God. Aeons, they are called. The OT God, they say, is actually an inferior minor deity.

They have some really complex beliefs, including that matter is inherently evil, that not all can be saved (only the elect), that woman are not worthy of the heavenly glory, that there may be more than one God, that the rest of Christians are corrupt in belief and decieved, etc.

Can these folks be considered Christians? Some of them even deny that Jesus had a physical body. They say that he only appeared to die on the cross, but really did not.

So they would certainly disagree over "essentials."

It makes one wonder, what really is important? If it is what TAF said, then isn't also a Jew just as right as a Christian? And a Muslim? etc...

Clearly, there are more issues than can be simply cleared up by viewing the issue from ones own denominational point of view.

To somebody like Conor, there are essential issues, and to you, there are essential issues, and to a Gnostic, there are essential issues, and to a Jehovah's Witness, etc.

And are whackos like Charles Manson who say that the Book of Revelation is referring to the Beatles, are they also Christians? Do these guys miss the unambigious meaning of scripture, and if so, how do they do it if 95% of it is so clear?

If it's all so clear, how come most Christians, Jews and Muslims disagree over its meaning?

How can one passage means different things to different people?

In our classes we studied actual documented interpretations from people who sincerely believed they were true, and who had studied the bible for years, and yet were contradictory to one another. Example, we have the Secular Viewpoint, the Traditional Christian Viewpoint, the Traditional Jewish Viewpoint, the Critical Viewpoint, the Critical Religious Viewpoint, and these aren't even all the view points there are!

Examples: Traditional Christians believe that the New Testament is God's revealed word, and that the Old Testament should be interepreted in light of the New. That is, prophecies refer to Jesus in most cases, the Book of Revelation is to come in the future, etc. Yet they would not say that the Vedas or the Koran is inspired by God.

The Secular Viewpoint thinks the Bible is a series of historical hearsay's (not heresies) that represents outmoded and dangerous superstitious (if not downright dishonest) reporting of events distorted by legend, myth, etc. They don't think we should take the bible with any more salt than we would Greek Myths or tales about Knights slaying dragons or George Washington chopping down cherry trees. They point out contradictions as proof that it cannot be taken seriously in modern times (such as approval of slavery, subjugation of women, justification of genocide, etc).

The Traditional Jew would say that the New Testament is simply misguided (at best) or blasphemous (at worst). A man (Jesus) cannot be God. A man (Jesus or Paul or Peter or anyone else) cannot abolish God's law, which God said would be eternal (see Deuteronomoy). The Christians incorrectly say prophecies in the OT refer to Jesus, when they are misreading them. Most of them are in the past tense, and thus cannot refer to future events (thousands or hundreds of years in the future after they were written). Also, the things Jesus said and did would not prove he was God. At best they would prove he was a demon, trying to lure people away from the one true God.

The Critical Scholar would basically ask who wrote the stuff and who benefits. The Critical Scholar does not care whether or not God exists, or whether the prophets were true or not. The CS simply asks, was there any personal biases, or political motivations, or any kind of corruption of the message that took place in any way shape or form? The CS doubts every passage just about, on the basis of the motivations of the writers being less than pure and just in most cases.

The Critical Religious person basically waters down the message (as an opponent would say) in order to get at the "gist of the truth." They will say, yes, so and so said this is essential, but it all really boils down to being a good person and believing in God, etc, etc. As long as you know what they intentions of the writers were, you can get the spirit of what they were saying. Read between the lines. They often have more liberal interpretations of what stuff means. They will dismiss differences and contradictions as cultural things that are different now. They will take into account different writers and personal biases of some writers.

I think I personally fall between the Traditional Christian and the Critical Religious. I feel that the truth is important, and I try to account for problems in the text. I cannot see, how the text can be called unambigious, if there are so many conflicting interpretations, and so many hoops are needed to jump through in order to say there are NO PROBLEMS.

Why are people getting the "wrong" interpretations (if there is no wrong interpts, then doesn't it mean anything at all?)?
What are they doing wrong? Is God lazy, and not telling these people (surely not), is the devil fooling people? Are people just stupid? Or is the Bible simply unclear or are there indeed problems with the texts?

Something to think about. Certainly everyone has an opinion. This goes back to the "who is right" thing. Who's interpretation is right, and how would you know?

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited April 24, 2000).]

Oh btw, when I say "blindness" I am not saying anybody is "wrong" but I am pointing out that in some respects, both sides of this debate (basically Wiz and Conor) are not seeing each other's pov.

I think you guys both have a DESIRE to see the other guy's viewpoint, and this is good, however you seem, ultimately, at this point at least, failed to fulfil that desire.

Don't get me wrong guys, I know.. it's hard!

Wiz doesn't understand the importance of the "rituals" that Conor refers to, and Conor does not seem to want to step out of his "my Church is right" one. That, generically, is what I meant.

If you guys understood each other, you wouldn't still be arguing about this same issue. Would you? Because in the end, either one person admits they are wrong, or you both go your seperate ways (metaphorically speaking, I don't mean shun each other forever), and you end that particular argument (either in frustration at reaching no conclusion, or with gladness at acheiving a better understanding of each other's viewpoint).

The thing about these opposing viewpoints I studied in my Bible classes is not that one was right and the rest was wrong, but that the people that believed them all felt that their way was the right way, and that we, should try to recognize that, and thus be a better judge of the merits of each viewpoint. In other words, realize that just your own group, but EVERY group thinks they are right, and have a whole system laid out that explains everything. The trouble is that all the views can't be correct, so we have to look at each one objectively (as objectively as possible) to decide what WE think is the best one.

"Blindness" involves not thinking outside the box. It involves only seeing things from your own viewpoint (paradoxical as it may seem not to see from your own viewpoint). When you only think in terms of your own beliefs and not from the other guy's shoes, you have nearly no hope of understanding him. You'll just continue to say the same things, and never reach any kind of agreement or make any progress.

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited April 24, 2000).]

I believe I would follow the Joseph Campbell(The guy who lucas ripped off for the jedi code/force stuff) As the great inspirational leader in my semi/religious thinking. The belief in the self, and that god is in everyone..ect...that sort of thing.

Conor:
I don't ever expect to sway your view on seemingly justified killings as in such cases as the Nazis. I do not think it is in any way a gruesome sin, and I do consider it a necessary evil. Killing in that manner is not something Jesus would have done. We are human, killing in this manner may be inevitable, but like I said if even one person feels it is justified we will never rid ourselves from it.

All the ritual and tradition in the Church serves a purpose. Whether it be to make better people out of ourselves or to help us worship God or for some other reason the Church decided they were for the best. I don't know the reasons for many of them, but I trust in the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church.

Please don't lump the Eucharist in with rituals and the like. We believe it is something entirely different, something Jesus commanded us to do, the partaking of the Passover sacrafice, the unblemished Lamb of God for the expiation of our sins.

Yes, we all admit your ritual and tradition may serve a purpose. But your claim that it is the ONLY way to do things is weakly presented. You say you trust in the Holy Spirit that the things you do are correct, but again this supposed Word as been fed to you from the church. You don't want me to lump the Eucharist with what I perceive as all the other rituals I deem beautiful but NOT required. I can't. I will tell you why. Let me outline for you what it will take for me to believe your claim that your Church holds the complete, correct truth.

1)I want undeniable evidence that Christ outlined that there be one, true church that would spread the Word of God.

2)I want evidence that this church was charged with the task of not just teaching to love life, mankind, and God, but also to enforce rituals that are ESSENTIAL to following in Christ's footsteps. I want to know why these rituals, while you admittedly say sometimes don't seem to serve a purpose, contribute to a greater good. I want to know how the church could possibly pick and choose which ones were useful and which were not.

3)I want evidence that this church was formed, and with its arrival every documentary of the life of Christ was correctly interpreted.

4)I want evidence that this church could never have possibly undergone a change, never once presented the teachings of Christ incorrectly.

5)I want to know why you think your church is this church.

6)I want to know why only divinely ordained member of this church can interpret the Word of God correctly. This in itself seems unnecessary to me because members of the church like yourself must still interpret what they interpreted, and this defeats the entire purpose.

Those must all be answered. I don't think it will be hard for you to argue Christ wanted one church spreading the true word. I feel this church can exist, and not even with popes and priests and hymns and the like. These things are wonderful in spreading the word, but they are not The Word. From my perspective it is impossible for you to defend your beliefs, so I therefore will never hold them myself. All in all you are relying on your own interpretation of the Bible, your own views on what is right, and have faith in this church to the point where you feel it is a necessary part of you because it is church doctrine to believe so. This is the flaw I see in your church, that it is imperfect by claiming perfection in matters it will never have a means to prove.

Kurgan, I think this may tie in to your post. Obviously there are a vast number of interpretations of the Bible. The only contradictions I see, however, are when essentials are either incorrect or inessentials are claimed essentials. All in all everything lies in a decision we have to make ourselves. I wager that the 33% Christians of the 6 billion people living on this earth have not so much in common as we might think, and this is so extremely obvious because in the end everyone is different and everyone will do and believe things differently, even if they are presented the information from a pure source as Conor believes his church is.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

[This message has been edited by theahnfahn (edited April 24, 2000).]

Kurgan--

On Scripture interpretation, all the examples you cited (Gnostics, etc.) are people who Rorschach the Bible. They read into it instead of reading out of it. There is a plain and unambiguous sense to 90-plus percent of the Bible. What remains up for grabs is in areas that I, at least, consider non-essential and non-troubling.

What I consider essential is really a very basic core of beliefs about Christ. John 3:16, for example, is not a highly arguable text.

I recognize that anybody can read into anything whatever they wish, and they do. But I look at Scripture and say, Would a REASONABLE person come away with any understanding other than the surface understanding? Words mean things. The words of the Bible mean specific things. People can wrench and twist those words, and out of their own desire to invent their own religion, made in their own image, not God's, they will do so. The result is cults, everything from Gnostics to David Koresh & Co.

Re:
Wiz doesn't understand the importance of the "rituals" that Conor refers to, and Conor does not seem to want to step out of his "my Church is right" one. That, generically, is what I meant.

I submit that I have stated repeatedly that I understand why Conor considers these rituals and doctrines to be essential, even while I do not. I have repeatedly stated that I understand why he feels that way, why he can't believe any other way, and I accept it. I have repeatedly stated I am not trying to talk him out of his beliefs. I accept the fact that he must believe as he does.

I only reject his attempt to make me accept those beliefs for myself. You are simply wrong in stating I do not understand and empathize with his position. If you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have been very clear on this.

--wiz

Kurgan, I have observed wiz to be very fair and understanding with Conor throughout this entire debate, and I want to commend him on the way which he has conducted himself. I believe, Kurgan, that you have unfairly characterized wiz's behavior.

As wiz just stated, he has repeatedly stated that he understands how Conor feels, even if he doesn't agree with some of Conor's beliefs. Perhaps you didn't read the entire thread before posting your remarks?


------------------
VagabondNomad on the Zone...

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players...



[This message has been edited by Vagabond (edited April 24, 2000).]

I appreciate that, Vagabond.

Perhaps though, I was too defensive on that point.

In any case, I do respect Conor's passionate defense of his faith. I think there is a sense in which for Conor to adopt a contrary viewpoint, even for the momentary sake of argument, would feel like blasphemy to him. Conor can correct me if I'm mistaken, but I suspect that's part of the nub here. I would think it would be difficult for someone who is raised to trust the infallibility of the church's teachings to even entertain a hypothetical possibility that the church is wrong.

I don't think it's a matter of Conor saying, "I am infallible." I don't see Conor as personally arrogant in this discussion at all. I seem him as very committed to the defense of his church, which is virtually identical to his faith (by contrast, I make a clear distinction between church and faith in my own mind).

I hope no one gets the idea that I'm trying to suggest my position is superior to Conor's. I wanted to clearly distinguish my position (continually trying to align myself with what I see as pure first century Christianity) from Conor's (the RCC IS first century Christianity), because I felt that, early in this thread, Conor had (inadventently, and with no bad intentions) co-opted my words to support a position I did not support.

Thanks again, Vagabond.

--wiz

Conor—

The question you raised is: Why do I believe the Reformation was an attempt to return to a purer, more original Christianity?

In a way, this gets us right back to the original point that started this line of discussion. I wrote:

I have continually tried to distill my beliefs to a pure first century Christianity, stripping away overlays of distortion and dead tradition. I try to continually rediscover and practice the living Christianity of Christ.

To which you added:

Well I'm not sure what you'd want me to say about Catholicism. It is my unwavering belief that it is the complete and unchanged way of life Christ founded roughly 2000 years ago. It is that original Christianity Wiz was talking about.

I disagreed with that statement, and I responded to it because I wanted to make sure that there was no confusion that when I talked about a pure first century Christianity, that no one thought I was referring to Catholicism. I want to make very clear in this post as in all my previous posts that I have great respect for the Catholic Church of today, which has reformed many of the excesses and errors of the old Catholic Church. That process of reform began in what was called the “counter reformation,” in which the church attempted to clean its own house in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, and has continued in meaningful ways over the centuries.

But as much as I respect the Catholic Church, particularly in its strong stands for the family, morality, and the sanctity of life, I am convinced that I could never worship in the Roman Catholic mode nor could I embrace the Catholic doctrines. It is my conviction that doctrines such as transubstantiation and Purgatory have been added to the purity of original Christian faith. The Roman Catholic Church considers these doctrines to be essential the Christian faith. I am convinced that they are peripheral to pure Christian faith. In most cases, these doctrines are simply nonessential and harmless. In a few instances, I consider some doctrines to be misleading and capable of obscuring the reality of the Christian faith. I believe there are some Catholics who unfortunately place their faith in the peripherals and the traditions and tragically miss the reality of pure Christianity, because they are unable to see the reality behind the obscuring haze of tradition and peripheral doctrines. I will be specific.

INTRODUCTION: RESPECT WHERE RESPECT IS DUE

Before I go on, I want to again re-emphasize that my intention here is not to tear down anyone’s Catholic faith. I was asked a question, and I want to answer it thoroughly and candidly. I also want to underscore my respect for Catholics and Catholicism, and the acknowledge that there are some things of value in the Christian tradition that Catholics have retained and that many Protestants have lost. I do not claim that I or the Protestant denominations have any corner on the truth. I do not claim that Protestant churches or churches of any one denomination or sect are the “one true church” or that the Catholic Church is a false church. The one true church is the entire body of Christ, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc., in all its beautiful variety, reflecting the many-faceted diversity of humanity and human personality, which in turn reflects the rich and many-faceted image of God.

Do you remember the folk-rock singer Barry McGuire? He was probably before the time of most people on this forum. Barry used to be a lead singer with the New Christy Minstrels in the 1960s (he was the writer and lead singer of one of their big hits, “Green Green”). In 1965, he left the Minstrels and recorded a solo protest song, “Eve of Destruction,” which was the number 1 song for four months. Barry is a friend of mine, so when my daughter’s high school US History class was studying the era of the 1960s, I asked Barry and he agreed to come speak to the class about the ‘60s and “Eve of Destruction” (he was terrific, btw). Afterward, as I was driving him home, he was talking about the two singer-songwriters he travels and performs with, Terry Talbot and Terry’s brother, John Michael Talbot. Terry is a Protestant Christian and John Michael is a Catholic monk. Barry, who is a committed Christian, said that he had learned a lot about the Catholic Church in talking to John Michael, and was very impressed with many aspects of Catholicism, especially the respect for worship among Catholics. You walk into many (not all, but many) Protestant churches, and people come into the sanctuary talking and laughing as if they were walking into their own living room. But when a Catholic enters his church, there is a solemnity and respect that many Protestants have lost, as exemplifed in the crossing of oneself, the genuflexion, etc. Barry has a valid point.

So I do not believe that any one church or sect or denomination has the corner on the truth. Every Christian group seems to have something that others lack, and lack something that others have. (And, I must add, many add something onto pure Christianity that shouldn’t even be there.) But taken together, viewed in total from a God’s-eye view, I see the entire breadth and width and depth of Christendom to reflect the totality of what God intended Christianity to be, and to reflect the image of our amazing Creator.

WHAT IS THE ESSENTIAL TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY?

But what all true Christians, churches, denominations, and sects do have in common is the essential truth. What is essential to be a genuine Christian is really a very simple core truth. Beyond this simple core truth, everything else is truly peripheral. If you have this core truth, you have everything you need to belong to Christ. This core truth is best expressed in the words that Jesus Himself spoke to Nicodemus, John 3:16-17: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”

That is the entire Bible compressed to a single statement. Genesis tells us how sin and death entered the world, the entire Old Testament pointed to the coming Messiah, the four gospels told of the life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah, and the rest of the New Testament explicated how we are to live the Christian life. John 3:16 takes the entire sweep of Scripture and compresses it into its simplest and most indispensable essentials.

What do we do with the fact that there is structural disunity in the universal church? What do we do with the fact that there are many denominations and sects? Do we have to view one sect as true and the others false? No. All churches that teach the essential core truth are true churches, part of the overall one true Christian church.

Jesus himself seems to foresee the diversity of His future church in a parable that is related in all three of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). In Mark 4, He says:

30 …"What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it?
31 It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground.
32 Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade."

The mustard seed is the pure, essential faith out of which the Church, the entire body of believers, grows. The mustard plant spreads its branches. One branch is the Roman Catholic Church. Another is the Eastern Orthodox Church. (These two churches branched away from each other in the Great Schism, more than a century before the Protestant Reformation.) Other branches also branched away before the Protestant Reformation, into places like Africa and India. And there was a great branching away at the Reformation and beyond. But all grew from one mustard seed, one faith. All branches are part of the same plant. And the birds of the air—society and people of the world—perch in its shade; the Christian faith preserves and defends values and virtues in society, making society livable. Without the presence of the universal Christian Church in all its forms, human society would become unlivable, it would by a dystopian nightmare, worse than 1984 or Brave New World. So the church spreads its “shade,” its life-giving influence in the world.

[CONTINUED IN NEXT POST]

WHAT IS NON-ESSENTIAL TO CHRISTIANITY?

Conor, you and I have already discussed at length our different perspectives on The Eucharist. You hold that it is absolutely necessary to believe that the bread and the wine become, in a mystical and miraculous way, the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. That is what the RCC believes, and I understand and accept that. I am not trying to talk you out of believing that. I do not say that any Christian is in spiritual danger as a result of believing that. But I do not believe it and I have good logical reason for believing it.

I do hold to the importance of celebrating Holy Communion. We celebrated this sacrament at a profoundly meaningful Good Friday service at our church, and it was as always a powerfully moving and meaningful experience for me.

Though it was both a solemn and joyful experience that reminded me of what Christ suffered and sacrificed for me (as He intended it should be when He instituted Communion just before the cross), it was not a Catholic Eucharist, and I did not believe that I was partaking of the actual body and blood of Christ. Rather, I was symbolically sharing in and receiving the death of Christ.

You have given your reasons for believing as you do, including a lot of Scripture. Those Scripture passages support your beliefs, but they do not prove my beliefs wrong. This is not a contradictory statement. The Catholic Church has imposed an interpretation on those Scripture passages you cited that supports transubstantiation. But that is not the only interpretation; it is not, from my p.o.v. the most likely and reasonable interpretation. I think any person reading those passages you cited, coming from an unbiased point of view, could easily conclude that Jesus and Paul spoke in symbolic terms, not magical or miraculous terms. In Matthew 26, Jesus says:

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27 Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
29 I tell you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom."

And Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:

24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

You say that “This is my body” and “This is my blood” are literal statements. How is this possible? Jesus had not even died when He broke the bread and served the wine for the first time. His body had not yet been broken, His blood had not yet been spilled. To my thinking, He was very clearly speaking in symbolic terms, showing what was about to take place: His body was going to be broken like that bread. His blood was going to be poured out like wine. He wanted the disciples and all future followers to remember His sacrifice in a real and meaningful way, in terms of visually memorable symbols, and that is why He created these symbols or metaphors—for the sake of remembrance and instruction and inspiration. Paul explained the real nature of Communion when he wrote, “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.” In other words, it is a symbolic proclamation and observance, through bread and wine, not a literal consumption of the Lord’s flesh and blood. Paul goes on to say, “Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.” This refers not to the body and blood as transformed by some miraculous process, but to the literal body of Christ that was broken when nailed to a cross and pierced through the side, and the literal blood of Christ that poured out of His literal veins and flowed down the literal wood of that literal cross and soaked into the literal soil of ancient Palestine. A person who eats or drinks unworthily, without regard to the solemnity of the symbols, sins against what Jesus did upon the cross. As I see it, Paul refers to the body and blood of the Lord in terms of the historical event, not the ritual of the Eucharist.

There is nothing in Scripture or in any document or artifact of first century Christian history to indicate that belief in transubstantiation was accepted in the first century church. This doctrine is a later addition to the original church. I am convinced that Communion or the Lord’s Supper was practiced symbolically, not as the Eucharist, in the original church of the apostles in the book of Acts.

It is not logical to insist that Jesus, who often spoke in symbols and metaphors, as CLEARLY and UNAMBIGUOUSLY speaking in literal terms when He said, “This is my body, this is my blood.” This is the same Man who had said, “I will make you fishers of men,” “You are the salt of the earth,” “You are the light of the world,” “If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away,” “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye,” “You must be born again,” “Enter through the narrow gate; For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it; But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it,” “every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit,” “How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is with them?,” “Take My yoke upon you,” “You snakes! You brood of vipers,” “the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees,” “I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days,” “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,” “You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.”

When you place this statement of Jesus in context with everything else He has said, it becomes impossible to make a case that He MUST have been speaking literally. In fact, the symbolic view is much more logical, from an unbiased point of view.

Now, it certainly does no harm to believe that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ. It is a peripheral issue about which Christians reasonably differ. Yes, the RCC says it is essential, but that does not change the fact (from my point of view) that it is nonessential and peripheral. You might be wrong. I might be wrong. God alone knows. But my viewpoint DOES have logical merit.

PURGATORY

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." This is the doctrine of Purgatory. According to the RCC, Purgatory is a place of purification, not punishment, but since Purgatory entails suffering ranging most often described as an actual hellish, excruciating, painful fire, it is indistinguishable in the human mind from the punishment of Hell, except that it is temporary instead of eternal. Purgatory is one of a range of Catholic doctrines that entered the church long after the first century, and which are (IMO) not part of the original purity of first century Christian belief. There is no hint of the doctrine of Purgatory anywhere in the Old or New Testaments.

According to this doctrine, a person cannot enter Heaven until he is purified from sins that were not purged during life. Baptism, according to Catholic doctrine, purges sins committed up to that point; after baptism, according to the RCC, sins are purged by means of prayer, confession and absolution, penance, attendance at Mass, alms, and indulgences. Unremitted sins require the individual to suffer in purifying flames until he is cleansed enough to enter the presence of God. A person’s length of stay in Purgatory can range from mere hours to thousands of years. Think of that for a moment: thousands of years of hellish torment for a person who is a Christian believer, a person for whom Christ died. Such a concept makes no sense to me.

From the point of view of a person who seeks to follow pure first century Christianity, the faith that is revealed in the Bible alone, this doctrine is an ugly absurdity. The first and biggest problem with it is that there is no explicit foundation for it in the Bible. But there’s more:

The doctrine of Purgatory means that Christ didn’t finish the job on the cross. When He said “It is finished,” the Greek word that appears in the Gospel texts is tetelestai, which means, “The debt is paid in full.” If there is Purgatory, then Jesus did not pay the debt in full, and we are left to pay some of the debt ourselves.

Remember what Jesus said to the thief on the cross when the thief expressed faith in Him? Jesus told Him, “That’s great that you believe and Me—and you’re going to Heaven someday. But you know what? You’ve never been baptized, you’ve never made a full confession and received absolution, you’ve never received an indulgence from the church. You think getting nailed to a cross hurts? Wait till you get to Purgatory. I’m betting a thief like you is in for a good five or six thousand years of burning like a log in a fireplace. But when that’s over, boy, I’ll see you in Paradise.”

You remember that in the Scriptures, right? Oh, wait. Maybe I got that wrong. Let’s see. Oh, yes, it’s in Luke 23:43:

Jesus answered [the believing thief], "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."

Where’s the Purgatory in that verse? Can’t find it. I see an unshriven thief dying and arriving in Paradise, same day, and not a purgatorial flame in sight.

What Jesus did on the cross was perfect, sufficient, and final. It accomplished all the purification that will ever be needed. The Scriptures make this principle abundantly clear. Example, Ephesians 2:8-9:

For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast.

And Hebrews 7:27:

He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

I know that the RCC has workarounds to get past the Scriptural fact that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ, that His sacrifice was perfect and final, and that no works of ours can add to what He has already done. When you believe in the truth of Scripture alone, all the pieces fit together. But when you add nonbiblical doctrines like Purgatory, you have to come up with band-aid explanations to try to make those doctrines somehow jibe with the biblical truth. Catholics will say that Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross enabled forgiveness, and that Purgatory is not about forgiveness or punishment, but purification. But the witness of Scripture is that the cross of Christ not only saves but “saves completely” or “saves to the uttermost” (Hebrews 7:25). There is no need for further purification beyond what Christ already accomplished when He said, “It is finished, the debt it paid in full.”

During the time before the Reformation, Purgatory was a great money-making scheme for the corrupt Catholic church. The church dangled the idea that if people wanted to escape years or centuries of excruciating torture in Purgatory, they had to pay up. It was, in short, a racket. The idea of Purgatory was borrowed from Mesopotamian pagan religions. It took hold largely under a corrupt pope, Gregory, around AD 600. Though it was held over the heads of Catholic Christians for hundreds of years, it was not confirmed as part of the deposit of Catholic faith until more than twelve centuries after Christ, at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274:

If those who are truly penitent die in charity before they have done sufficient penance for their sins of omission and commission, their souls are cleansed after death in purgatorial or cleansing punishments .... The suffrages of the faithful on earth can be of great help in relieving these punishments, as, for instance, the Sacrifice of the Mass, prayers, almsgiving, and other religious deeds which, in the manner of the Church, the faithful are accustomed to offer for others of the faithful.

Note the reference to almsgiving, underscoring the profit motive of the doctrine. The church literally told its people “as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory.” Nothing could better demonstrate the corruption of this doctrine than that statement. Purgatory took root in the church during the corrupt period of the church and was confirmed in the deposit of faith during a corrupt period. Its inclusion in the deposit of faith was motivated by greed on the part of corrupt men (IMO).

[CONTINUED IN NEXT POST]




[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 25, 2000).]

The doctrine of Purgatory was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563) as the Church was under siege from the Protestant Reformation. The Council of Trent proclaimed:

Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the Sacred Writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils, and very recently in this ecumenical synod that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavor that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught and everywhere proclaimed by the faithful of Christ.

The doctrine of Purgatory is (IMO) an evil doctrine that not only diminishes the value of the sacrifice of Christ, not only inspires fear in the hearts of faithful Christians, not only extorts money from the faithful, but also becomes a rationale for the many excesses and crimes of the ancient RCC. The church leaders, reasoning from the doctrine of Purgatory that God was a fire-wielding torture master, had no compunction about inflicting torture and death against supposed heretics. Purgatory inspired the excesses of the Inquisition, where literal fire was used as a means of “purifying” the church. Here is an example of a Catholic doctrine that does no good, but only harm. Believing in Purgatory does not necessarily hinder the faith of an ordinary Catholic, but it brought untold emotional, spiritual, and physical suffering to millions over the centuries.

HOW THE REFORMATION RETURNED THE CHURCH TO ORIGINAL FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANITY

The doctrine of Purgatory is actually at the heart of the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther initially believed in Purgatory (he was steeped in Catholicism) but rejected the sale of indulgences to get oneself or one’s loved ones out of Purgatory. It was years years after the Reformation that he came to the conclusion that the doctrine of Purgatory itself was wrong.

Martin Luther held the Chair of Biblical Study at the Catholic University of Wittenberg. While preparing to teach the Old Testament in one of his classes, he was suddenly startled by the implications of a passage he had read many times before, Habakkuk 2:4: “The righteous will live by his faith.” The Catholic church taught that salvation was by faith plus works. But Luther discovered that in the Old Testament and in the New, salvation is by faith alone. As Paul writes in Galatians 3:11 (and reiterates in many ways, in many passages), “Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." And again, in Ephesians 2:8-9: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast.”

As he began teaching these new insights, a great intellectual and spiritual ferment took place at Wittenberg. The entire university faculty adopted Luther’s exciting new ideas about salvation by grace through faith alone. On October 31, 1517, Luther posted his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg. He hoped to further the dialogue that would spread this insight throughout the church. His intent was that the entire church would ultimately return to the original doctrine of the Old and New Testaments regarding justification by faith and not by works. If this would happen, then the entire church would practice original New Testament Christianity. People would be freed of the works that they were doing to gain salvation and deliverance for themselves and loved ones from Purgatory.

Again, Luther still believed in Purgatory at this time, but insisted (Thesis 27) that “they preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory,” and (Thesis 28) “it is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased; but when the Church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone,” and (Thesis 36) “any truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without indulgence letters,” and (Thesis 37) “any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters.” Conor, can you argue with anything that Luther states in these four theses? I find his reasoning impeccable.

As Luther’s ideas spread, the volume of sales of indulgences dropped precipitously, and income to the treasury of the church abruptly dried up. With greed as the primary motive, the church hierarchy became enraged with Luther, because he had overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple (and yes, I chose that metaphor with care and precision; Luther was obeying the example of his Lord). Luther had attempted to call the church to a discussion and reconsideration of a vile practice, the sale of indulgences. He did not attack the Pope or the church itself—only the indulgence pimps. He didn’t tell people not to buy indulgences, but as word spread of the 95 Theses, people figured out for themselves that they had been had, and they made up their own minds to stop being extorted by a corrupt church.

The enraged church responded by issuing a letter of excommunication in January 1521. A few months later, Luther was branded a heretic, and the order was given to kill him on sight. This was in essence putting a contract out on Luther’s life. The robbers who controlled the church were resorting to murder in order to maintain a profit in the collection box. (This supports the contention that theahnfahn made regarding the church and murder; Ike rightly noted that the Ten Commandments say, “Thou shalt not murder,” but the church was clearly guilty of murder in my view, affirming theahnfahn’s point.)

With a contract out for his life, Luther went into hiding and it was under those circumstances that the Lutheran Church was founded. Luther did not try to start a rebellious movement. He was driven out by a corrupt and greedy and power-drunk church hierarchy. The RCC has no one but itself to blame for the Reformation. It was not the pride of Luther that was at issue. It was the pride of an arrogant and corrupt church. At the heart of that arrogance and corruption was an evil doctrine called Purgatory.

So the error in the deposit of faith (which entered the church long after the first century) was intrinsically bound up with the corruption and evil and excesses of the church. Purgatory is a false doctrine that binds people in fear. The Scriptures are abundantly clear that such a thing as Purgatory could not exist. In Hebrews 9, we read:

26 … But now he [Jesus] has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment,
28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

To my thinking, the facts of that statement could not be more clear. Only by believing Church doctrine to be infallible could you come to the conclusion, in direct contradiction to Scripture, that such a thing as Purgatory exists. But there is no evidence that the church is infallible—in fact, there is much evidence to the contrary.

Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:8 notes that to be absent from the body is to be present—where, in Purgatory? No!—to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. And in Romans 5:1, he writes, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” If Purgatory lies ahead, you have no peace with God. But the genuine Christian has total peace with God because that peace was fully, finally, once and for all purchased on the cross by the perfect sacrifice of Christ.

There is more that I could say regarding other issues and doctrines that the RCC has added on top of the simple purity of New Testament Christianity (first century Christianity), but these are good enough examples to make the point. I doubt that this will end the discussion—it will probably only trigger more debate. That’s okay.

Again, I’m not trying to convert anyone. I am only explaining—FROM MY OWN POINT OF VIEW, BASED SOLELY ON THE INFORMATION AND RESEARCH I HAVE—why I believe as I do, in answer to your question, Conor. So please do not think that I am attacking your faith, your present-day church, your beliefs. I am only explaining my own beliefs, and showing the logic behind them. I think that, even if you reject my premises (as I’m sure you will), you have to agree that I have proceeded logically and rationally from those premises.

It is the premises where you and I differ. Your premise is that the church is infallible in its doctrine, and thus when the infallible church declares itself to be the one true church, then this must be so (it is, I submit, a circular argument). My premises are that the Scriptures are the sole authority for matters of faith, that they can be understood by all, that no church is infallible or perfect, and that doctrines that are not founded in Scripture are not to be trusted.

It is my conclusion that every Christian is equally a member of the one true church, which is the universal church, that every Christian is an equal follower of Jesus and an equal heir of the apostles. It is my conclusion that every sect and denomination is just a branch on that great mustard plant that sprouted from an initial mustard seed of faith when a fisherman became a “rock,” when the very first Christian (though not, I’m convinced, the first Pope) when he made the first-ever profession of faith in Christ: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).

--wizzywig

Wonderful arguments wiz. Wish I had the time to comment on all of them. I just want to add that I don't think you mean ALL Christians when you speak of the true church. Some may follow under a corrupted, false representation of Christ, and some may merely say they are Christian ignorant to the fact that they are not. Like Conor said before, we must always use the most extreme examples. This may be why he is having such a hard time understanding you, because he is only viewing the extreme outer cases, only viewing that 25 followed by however many zeros of other Christian faiths he sees as corrupted.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

Thanks, ahnfahn.

I just want to add that I don't think you mean ALL Christians when you speak of the true church. Some may follow under a corrupted, false representation of Christ, and some may merely say they are Christian ignorant to the fact that they are not.

I think that's an insightful statement. There's no question that some who call themselves "Christians" are not, either due to ignorance or deliberate deception. If you look at some of the corrupt Popes of times past, for example, it becomes clear that even some of those who have been deemed to be the "No. 1 Christians" among us were almost certainly NOT Christians at heart, NOT people who belonged to Christ and followed Him with a sincere heart.

This is no surprise, since Jesus warned us about such people. Matthew 13:

24 ¶ Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field.
25 But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away.
26 When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.
27 "The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?'
28 "'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?'
29 "'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"

The wheat, Jesus later explained, represented true believers, and the weeds are false believers. So every church consists of wheat and weeds. The weeds are often difficult to distinguish from the wheat, but will eventually be revealed.

I did overgeneralize when I said that the one true church is "all Christians." More specifically, it is all genuine Christians, who truly belong to Christ and follow Him by faith.

--wiz




[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 25, 2000).]

Yes, you did present everything in a logical and rational manner. And yes I do reject almost every single premise of yours. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif) But best of all, I know why I reject them.

Obviously you also reject the books Luther ejected from the OT.

"For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." 2 Macc 12:44-46

That is a proof text. There is no rational way to escape the fact the people prayed for were not in heaven or hell. That they were going to Heaven but were not there yet. There are many more, and I will mount my defense of Purgatory soon.

You also say a couple times things like 'Bible alone'. That is a big Protestant thing. Obviously Catholics don't believe in the Bible alone, but that revelation was Traditional as well.

"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you. 1 Cor 11:2

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." 2 Thess 2:15

Where are your traditions passed on by mouth? Your church wasn't there to hear them...

I notice you had not one quote from any early Christian outside the Bible to back up your claims to the early Church. I have a book called Early Christian Writings that holds many letters from the leaders of the early Church. Including St. Ignatius, who lived at the end of the first century. They were Catholic to the core. I'd be interested if you have any evidence that the Apostles believed as you do. And if they did, why didn't they pass their beliefs to their successors?

I can see why you believe as you do (for the most part), and I know you are just presenting your case, but it still amounts to attacking my Church, whatever your mindset.

------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

I'll get to some of the recent responses soon, but I do have a comment on an interesting post.

Joseph Campbell. Yes. We were actually discussing him in NT class the other day. Theosophy. Basically alot like a Neo-Gnosticism in many ways, and very similar to "New Age" (which is also very Gnostic in nature).

It was funny, because our professor was saying how you could interpret alot of movies in the last century as Theosophic or Gnostic in nature (like Star Wars, the Wizard of Oz, and I added the Matrix).

Of course whatever viewpoint you take, you can view the movies in light of your own beliefs. Some would see "Groundhog Day" as a movie promoting Hindu or Buddhist ideals for example. Theosophy delves into ideas like spirits and reincarnation, etc.

I did mispeak something earlier. Aeons don't necessarily mean people. They really mean ages (New Age I think recognizes this definition, although I don't know for sure). Basically the essense of Gnosticism is this:

Matter is evil. The universe can be divided into two elements that are in constant conflict, Spirit (good) and Matter (evil). The good principle is pure spirit, and that is the good God (which is both male and female in many Gnostic circles, or simply female), although it tends to be a very male-centered faith (because females produce more flesh, which is evil and thus cannot be saved unless they forsake procreation and become "male"). The idea is that the Evil God, of matter, trapped pieces of the pure Spirit God into material bodies. Thus the way of salvation is to realize you don't belong "here" and you belong "up there" (with the pure spirits) and you need to disassociate yourself from things of the flesh and attachement to the flesh and matter.

They accept different gospels. Many of these were discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. The Gospel of Thomas was one of these, and is misrepresented in the movie "Stigmata."

Gnostics say the God (Yahweh) of the Bible is the evil God of matter, and an inferior deity. The "true" purely spiritual God, is either Jesus (depending on the group) or an independent mother Goddess who is aloof. She/He did not create matter, but the evil deity did. The way of salvation is realizing your divine spark within. So we are all "God" in their belief, or at least the "elect" are. The rest of the non-elect may be stooges for the evil God of matter.

The term "Gnostic" comes from the word "Gnosis" which means "to know. The opposite of "Agnostic" (not to know). The Gnosis is the thing that you attain, the knowledge that frees you from the matter you are trapped in. It is the realization that you are part of God (or a god yourself).

They also refer to Sophia ("wisdom") alot in their writings. I have read "The Trimorphic Poetenna(sp?)", "the Gospel of Thomas" and "The Second Treatise of the Great Seth" and I am reading some others, I'll let you know if there's anything else interesting that I can contribute on that subject.

But they consider themselves Christian, and in fact, THE TRUE Christians. The would accept even the Gospel of John and some other NT writings, interpreted of course in their own tradition.

Kurgan

Conor--

Obviously you also reject the books Luther ejected from the OT.

That is correct. Well, sort of correct. You tend to ascribe to Luther every Protestant "evil" (from your perspective). Luther is not individually and solely responsible for decisions such as the rejection of the Apocrypha. There is a valid (IMHO) Protestant rationale.

The Apoc. consists of 14 books, none of which are accepted by Protestants, 11 of which are accepted by Catholics, all of which were included in the Septuagint (the 3rd century BC Greek translation of Scriptures) but were not part of the original Hebrew scriptures. One of the 4th century church fathers, Jerome (one of the Catholic "doctors of the church") rejected the Apocrypha for the same reason the Protestants did: They were not part of the Hebrew scriptures.

Again, the Reformation reached back before the Vulgate, all the way to the original sources (the original Hebrew canon) in an effort to strip away late accretions (the Apoc. books are all of late authorship) and return to the original Hebrew canon of Scripture. These were steps of careful biblical scholarship, not prideful rebellion, in an attempt to purify and distill to original sources.

You cite a Maccabean (Apoc.) passage that conflicts with the NT passages I cited. I've gotta go with the NT.

When you write your defense of Purgatory, it would be interesting if you could address some of my criticisms of the doctrine. Don't consider that a demand or a challenge--whatever you choose to address is up to you. I am only saying it would be interesting to get your take on some things I raised, such as my view that Purgatory, which pictures God as a torture master, slanders God's true character and provided a rationale for the tortures of the Inquisition.

You also say a couple times things like 'Bible alone'. That is a big Protestant thing.

Of course I did, and I know that's a "big Protestant thing," but it is also what I referred to when I first stated, in my very first post in this thread, that my focus is on first century Christianity, NT Christianity. You have to go to the first century source, which is the NT alone, to determine what Christianity originally was, before it became encrusted with the barnacles of later tradition. This has been my thesis all along, and I have been totally upfront about it.

You cite NT passages referring to traditions. Until the NT was written, traditions and circulated letters were all that existed. By the end of the first century, the key traditions had all been solidified in the NT. No more oral traditions were needed after that point. In fact, after that point, oral traditions become dangerous to original truth, because changes, additions, and interpolations are added with time. That is exactly what took place. That is what produced doctrines like Purgatory.

Your church wasn't there to hear [the traditions]

My church is the universal Christian church, RCC, Orthodox, Protestant, etc. Yes, my church has been there from the beginning. My church began with Peter's profession of faith in Christ.

I'd be interested if you have any evidence that the Apostles believed as you do. And if they did, why didn't they pass their beliefs to their successors?

Yes. The best evidence. The New Testament. They passed along their beliefs in the NT. It is all right there. I don't mean that in a snide way. I mean that sincerely.

I can see why you believe as you do (for the most part), and I know you are just presenting your case, but it still amounts to attacking my Church, whatever your mindset.

The question you are actually asking me is why I am not a Catholic. The question practically demands a critique of Catholicism--if not present day Catholicism, at least ancient Catholicism. I don't consider a critique to be an attack, and I'm sorry, genuinely sorry (I mean I actually feel very badly inside) that you feel that way. I regret it, to the degree that I would be willing to simply read your response without any further response of my own, because it is genuinely not my wish to be hurtful to you in any way.

Again, I want to underscore the sense of respect and Christian brotherhood I have toward you, Kurgan, Ike, and toward all Catholics. Though we differ in these areas that you consider essential (and which I consider peripheral), I feel we are completely in sync on the few areas which, based on the Scriptures, I deem to be truly essential.

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited April 25, 2000).]

There is a plain and unambiguous sense to 90-plus percent of the Bible.

That is your belief, but it is without basis from where I stand <-- editorial insertion. I don't wish to say "I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong." I don't know that. YOu admitted you could be wrong, and I admit I could be wrong. I am saying, based on the evidence available to me, and thinking as a rational human being, not being thrust upon by any human authority, I totally disagree with your statement above. However, based on statistics, your statement is without basis, because most people don't agree on what most of Scripture means except pretty much within each denominational group.

What are you to say to all the people that don't share the same interpretation of the bible you do? That they are stupid and aren't reading the text correctly?

I'm sure if you grab any sect or group, they read INTO the text, even if they do so only slightly.

If somebody were to take everything in the bible at face value and absolutely literally, they would be utterly confused. Why? Because if you take that route, there are definate contradictions. So, you have to read into it, to avoid those contradictions, and people have read into them differently.

In my classes, we have covered about 80% of the entire bible, and EVERY SINGLE BOOK has at least four possible interpretations (from the viewpoints I mentioned). People take their assumptions with them as they read. And if you read the whole bible, you have to reconcile the differences between the books and the ideas presented.

I know that some churches have a doctrine tha states that Scripture is unambigious. That is,the text is clear, and that's that. If you hold this belief, I do not wish to offend you by saying I do not agree with this.

Some people believe that if something isn't in the bible, it's bad. Others believe that as long as the bible doesn't say anything about something, it's neutral, others say we have to interpret that stuff in the "spirit" of the bible, and still others say we should use our own judgement.

And this gets to ideas of inspiration. Did God grab the writers' hands and force them to put it out word for word? Did God just give them the ideas and they could put it into their own words? Or did people just write what they THOUGHT (Based on their own fallible logic and faith) what God wanted people to know? Or something else?

All things to consider. But if you want my opinion, based on the evidence, Scripture is ambigious, or else most people are just stupid and have gotten it wrong (or, but this is not my view, the Bible is simply thrown together and self-contradictory, and you'd be an idiot to believe it all).

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited April 29, 2000).]