The pick and mix philosophy

Stabshauptmann

I recently had a discussion with someone about the census. Basically the discussion was along the lines that I think it stupid so many people who arent Catholic put down on the form that they are. Seriously its stupid to lie to a stranger on a confidential form and it defeats the purpose of the census. I know this is an inclusive christianity forum, but I think you'll understand the point and how it can be applied to other denominations.

Anyway my friend completely disagreed and said that they had a right to say they were a Catholic if they wanted. I probed a little and the friend said:

They dont believe in the forgiveness of sins
The Devil
The afterlife
The special role of the clergy
Transubstantiation
The second coming
The Church's view on sex outside of marraige
(there might have been more).

Now as far as Im concerned, that person is not a Catholic.
Theres a consistent message from the media that you can just live a good life and that's enough (it's often portrayed that believing in God isnt necessary to get into heaven).

For those of you Christians of another denomination can you for the sake of the argument make a hypothetical friend and detract from their beliefs all the important doctrines of your faith.:)

Am I crazy, or is it ridiculous for people to pick and mix what they like about a religion and claim membership. Im not trying to judge and this isnt about what will happen in the afterlife. I just think its crazy, and to be quite frank Id be annoyed as a Catholic to think of a person give lip service to the church who really fundamentally disagrees with it.

What are other peoples view on this?

philologos

I believe in a full Bible personally. However sections of the Law of Moses have been fulfilled by the New Covenant of Jesus. Asides from that all does apply. If I may quote the Anglican stance on the Torah.

Church Of Ireland - Articles of Religion wrote:

7. Of the Old Testament
The Old Testament is not contrary to the New: for both in the Old and New Testament everlasting life is
offered to Mankind by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man.
Wherefore they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.
Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men,
nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no
Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

I cannot talk from a Catholic perspective. But I would honour the whole scripture. To see the rest of the COI stance on the faith: http://ireland.anglican.org/index.php?do=worship&id=14

Stabshauptmann

You dont need to be able to talk about Catholicism, just imagine a person who disagrees with the basic tennents of your faith claiming s/he is a member.

Then tell me how you feel about that.

Im gonna give this a go, what if someone told you they didnt believe in
The ressurection or God, but that Jesus had a pretty funky message.

How would you feel then about them saying they were CoI?

philologos

I'd find it a touch irritating. It is up to God to judge who is a Christian and who isn't a Christian however in the ultimate sense. All we can do is help those who are serious about committing themselves along I guess.

However I do not mind if people are Christian and use other sources other than the Bible to encourage their faith as long as it is not responsible in forming any doctrinal sources. I hear that the works of C.S Lewis in Christian apologetics are very good they are on my booklist.

Oh I noticed this (missed it in my first post)

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Im gonna give this a go, what if someone told you they didnt believe in
The ressurection or God, but that Jesus had a pretty funky message.

No matter what denomination they are these are essential doctrines. Not only do we have to honour the Father, but you cannot gain access to the Father without the Son according to the Gospel of John.

I would have no issue with that if they said they believed in the historical Jesus, but in the religious sense I'd be rightfully skeptical.

Splendour

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

I recently had a discussion with someone about the census. Basically the discussion was along the lines that I think it stupid so many people who arent Catholic put down on the form that they are. Seriously its stupid to lie to a stranger on a confidential form and it defeats the purpose of the census. I know this is an inclusive christianity forum, but I think you'll understand the point and how it can be applied to other denominations.

Anyway my friend completely disagreed and said that they had a right to say they were a Catholic if they wanted. I probed a little and the friend said:

They dont believe in the forgiveness of sins
The Devil
The afterlife
The special role of the clergy
Transubstantiation
The second coming
The Church's view on sex outside of marraige
(there might have been more).

Now as far as Im concerned, that person is not a Catholic.
Theres a consistent message from the media that you can just live a good life and that's enough (it's often portrayed that believing in God isnt necessary to get into heaven).

For those of you Christians of another denomination can you for the sake of the argument make a hypothetical friend and detract from their beliefs all the important doctrines of your faith.:)

Am I crazy, or is it ridiculous for people to pick and mix what they like about a religion and claim membership. Im not trying to judge and this isnt about what will happen in the afterlife. I just think its crazy, and to be quite frank Id be annoyed as a Catholic to think of a person give lip service to the church who really fundamentally disagrees with it.
What are other peoples view on this?

I get really annoyed at people who do this and quite frankly, I don't understand it. The only reason I can think of as to why people do this is that as a nation we Irish are very superstitous and people feel they are 'covered' if they do this. Same reasons they get their babies baptised.

I've more time for athiests who are honest in their beliefs.

Stabshauptmann

With my friend at least I get this whole keeping up with the jones vibe. I know my parents would never tell anyone Im not a catholic, they'd see it as a shame on the family

thevan1983

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Theres a consistent message from the media that you can just live a good life and that's enough (it's often portrayed that believing in God isnt necessary to get into heaven).

Can I just ask you to think on these for a second? They are all quotes from Gandhi.

1) "I am endeavoring to see God through service of humanity, for I know that God is neither in heaven, nor down below, but in everyone."

2) “I believe in the fundamental truth of all great religions of the world. I believe they are all God-given, and I believe that they were necessary for the people to whom these religions were revealed. And I believe that, if only we could all of us read the scriptures of different faiths from the standpoint of the followers of those faiths, we should find that they were at the bottom all one and were helpful to one another."

3) “An ounce of practice is worth more than tons of preaching.

What you wrote above is what really gets to me. Ordinary people all around Ireland and all around the world go out of their way to help others who may need it in loads of different ways. These people are real heroes. And I believe that if there is a God, that he will be saying “yes, they get it……..”.

I wrote a post the other day asking an open and honest question and was only hoping for some open discussion but with some people (not all), it turned into this Competitive Religion theme.

I just noticed that another person has posted up a thread asking “What is the point in all of this”? I am new to this part of the website and tried it for the first time the other day but I am inclined to agree with him/her.

With comments like the above, you can actually de-motivate people who are doing great things and that’s just harsh and pointless if you ask me.

PS Apologies if I have picked up what you are saying in an inaccurate way but it seems that there are a lot of people on this part of boards.ie that share what I believed to be your belief.

Dave!

I don't think Kaptain Redeye is saying that they're not good people...... but if all that's required to get into heaven is good works, then what's the point in all the different religions, denominations, sects, docrines, dogmas, rituals, etc.? I think that's what he's getting at. It seems utterly pointless to align yourself with a particular faith if you do not believe in fundamental aspects of its teachings. I think most Christians I know would believe the basic stuff, that Jesus was born, died, rose from the dead, and is now up in heaven. You can pray and talk to him, and when you die, if you're good, you'll go to heaven too.

Now, if you believe all that stuff, that would make you a Christian. There's no reason to choose a denomination beyond that.

Stabshauptmann

I was neither saying that those people arent good people, nor was I commenting on what may or may not be required to gain entrance to heaven.

I was simply wondering, is this self made philosopy, or The modern media philosophy (tm), a new sect?
I was also wondering why so many Irish people who have said philosphical view still claim to be a member of denominations which they seem to be in stark conflict with?
Is this claim in any way legitimate, can some body pick and mix what they like about a religion and claim to be an adherent?

philologos

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

I was also wondering why so many Irish people who have said philosphical view still claim to be a member of denominations which they seem to be in stark conflict with?

There are differing views within denominations.

For example, if I can look at the Anglican way of thinking:
1) Liberals, 2) Conservatives
Many bishops also fit into category 1, such as the current bishop of Oxford (I suggest that you take a look at the video of Richard Dawkins in discussion with him, very interesting).

On stances on homosexuality?
1) Yes, we need to make radical changes, 2) No, it's a sin in the Bible
1 has been adopted by the Episcopalian church of the USA, and I think the Church of England.

Transubstantiation?
1) High Anglicans, 2) Low Anglicans

Anglican Rosary?
1) High Anglicans, 2) Low Anglicans

High Anglicans sympathize with the Roman Catholic view of viewing things, and Low Anglicans fit into more of the mainline Protestant view. High Anglicans would encourage readings from the Apocrypha, whereas Low Anglicans would be more skeptical.

Baptism what options are avaliable?
1) Infant, 2) Adult at font, 3) Full immersal baptism when you feel ready

The Church of Ireland offers all three, the last being made availiable upon request.

There will always be differences felt in religion.

Also denominations change all the time based on their General Synods, the COI vote on things annually in Dublin as to what their stance should be on things.

kelly1

thevan1983 wrote: »

2) “I believe in the fundamental truth of all great religions of the world. I believe they are all God-given, and I believe that they were necessary for the people to whom these religions were revealed.

With respect, Mr. Gandhi was talking through his tail pipe:-

Hinduism, Christianity

---

Many gods, One God.
Re-incarntion, Death followed by judgement
The world is an illusion (maya), Good and evil are real
We are all divine, There is only one God.
impersonal god/ultimate reality, Loving, merciful Creator.
Caste system, Blessed are the poor.
Karma, Judgment
All religions valid, Only Jesus saves.

God bless,
Noel.

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

Hinduism, Christianity

---

Many gods, One God.

Hinduisms main text is monotheistic, they've got a many-gods-into-one-God thing going on much like your own Trinity.

If there is no reincarnation in Christianity then can you please explain how John the Baptist was Elijah?

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

If there is no reincarnation in Christianity then can you please explain how John the Baptist was Elijah?

John actually denied that he was Elijah. But he did come in the power and spirit of Elijah.

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

John actually denied that he was Elijah. But he did come in the power and spirit of Elijah.

If John wasn't Elijah then how can Jesus be the messiah? Eljah was to come again and in the NT Jesus claims it is John. This is reincarnation by any other name.

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

If John wasn't Elijah then how can Jesus be the messiah? Eljah was to come again and in the NT Jesus claims it is John. This is reincarnation by any other name.

Luke1:15 For he shall be great before the Lord; and shall drink no wine nor strong drink: and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. 16 And he shall convert many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias

John1:19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to him, to ask him: Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and did not deny: and he confessed: I am not the Christ.
21 And they asked him: What then? Art thou Elias? And he said: I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered: No.

Malachi 4:5 Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

I believe this refers to the end-times when Christ will come in Glory.

BrianCalgary

kelly1 wrote: »

Luke1:15 For he shall be great before the Lord; and shall drink no wine nor strong drink: and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. 16 And he shall convert many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. 17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias

John1:19 And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to him, to ask him: Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and did not deny: and he confessed: I am not the Christ.
21 And they asked him: What then? Art thou Elias? And he said: I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered: No.

Malachi 4:5 Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

I believe this refers to the end-times when Christ will come in Glory.

Well said Kelly1.

Malachi prophecies a different event. It prophecies about the 'Day of the Lord'. Not the coming of the Messiah.

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

Malachi 4:5 Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

I believe this refers to the end-times when Christ will come in Glory.

To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come and they did not recognise him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.

Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come and they did not recognise him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.

Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

Yes because John came in the spirit and power of Elijah and John denied he was Elijah. Reincarnation was totally alien to Jews. Is that all the "evidence" you have for reincarnation?

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

Yes because John came in the spirit and power of Elijah and John denied he was Elijah. Reincarnation was totally alien to Jews. Is that all the "evidence" you have for reincarnation?

Origen believed in it from this evidence, it seems fairly clear, Jesus is saying that John is Elijah.

SubjectSean

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

I recently had a discussion with someone about the census. Basically the discussion was along the lines that I think it stupid so many people who arent Catholic put down on the form that they are. Seriously its stupid to lie to a stranger on a confidential form and it defeats the purpose of the census.

Consider it this way. I was baptised Catholic but have lapsed. When the Church is asked how many members it has it counts people like me and so as far as the Church is concerned I am Catholic and there's no getting out of it. If I wanted to I could put down Catholic on the census and it wouldn't be a lie.

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

Origen believed in it from this evidence, it seems fairly clear, Jesus is saying that John is Elijah.

FYI:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Reincarnation.asp

Whatever "Way" you believe in, it's not compatible with Christianity.

Think about what you're saying. If reincarnation is true that Christ's death on the cross was in vain.

I was down this road about 5 years ago and thank God I turned back. You see I used to swallow junk about new-age, self-realization, yoga, theosophy, hinduism etc but it's all lies!

God bless,
Noel.

Stabshauptmann

SubjectSean wrote: »

Consider it this way. I was baptised Catholic but have lapsed. When the Church is asked how many members it has it counts people like me and so as far as the Church is concerned I am Catholic and there's no getting out of it. If I wanted to I could put down Catholic on the census and it wouldn't be a lie.

Some times they do, some times they dont. The Catholic Bishops Conference estimates that of the baptised catholic population 63 percent still practise (2004).

I think thats as good as admiting that some of us lapse. I think its very important that people fill out the census being as honest to themselves as possible. If you consider yourself a Catholic (or other religious denomination) then by all means put it down; but dont fill out the census as you feel you ought to to keep up with the neighbours

Stabshauptmann

kelly1 wrote: »

You see I used to swallow junk about new-age, self-realization, yoga, theosophy, hinduism etc but it's all lies!

God bless,
Noel.

wow. I know I should look around and accept the context of this statement but its still worded rather strong.

To say something is a lie or someone a liar implies that the person is being knowingly deceitful. Surely its just malice free difference of opinion?

I hope you wouldnt say something like that in a day to day conversation in the real world.

Stabshauptmann

SubjectSean wrote:

Consider it this way. I was baptised Catholic but have lapsed. When the Church is asked how many members it has it counts people like me and so as far as the Church is concerned I am Catholic and there's no getting out of it.

Ok so a question for all the Christians on this board (poll added). Do you think lapsed Christians should still be counted on the census as Christians?

personally I say no

kelly1

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

wow. I know I should look around and accept the context of this statement but its still worded rather strong.

To say something is a lie or someone a liar implies that the person is being knowingly deceitful. Surely its just malice free difference of opinion?

I hope you wouldnt say something like that in a day to day conversation in the real world.

I feel very strongly about this subject because I was a victim of false religions/spirituality.

What I said was that new-age, yoga, hindu doctries are lies i.e. falsehoods propagated by those who unknowingly do the devil's work which is to lure us away from Christ by various traps and snares.

When I came to realize the truth, I felt angry and hurt about being deceived and will always try to steer people away from error.

SubjectSean

kelly1 wrote: »

FYI:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Reincarnation.asp

Thanks Noel I know the orthodox view and I myself do not believe that individual souls transmigrate. However the fact remains that one of the early giants of the Christan church saw scriptural support for this doctrine.

kelly1 wrote: »

Whatever "Way" you believe in, it's not compatible with Christianity.

This is because Christianity has largely, but not completely, become incompatible with the Way.

kelly1 wrote: »

Think about what you're saying. If reincarnation is true that Christ's death on the cross was in vain.

As I say I don't hold with the transmigration of individual souls. However I do not see what bearing the validity of this doctrine would have on the death of Jesus as I do not believe he died for our sins but rather he died because of them.

kelly1 wrote: »

I was down this road about 5 years ago and thank God I turned back. You see I used to swallow junk about new-age, self-realization, yoga, theosophy, hinduism etc but it's all lies!

Noel you sound like a man who was seeking and wherever you find It then that is where It is. If other people find It in places where you could not then that does not make them liars, it only makes you seem ignorant of the nature of God.

kelly1

SubjectSean wrote: »

Thanks Noel I know the orthodox view and I myself do not believe that individual souls transmigrate. However the fact remains that one of the early giants of the Christan church saw scriptural support for this doctrine.

So why did you bring up the subject of reincarnation? Origen believed in the pre-existence of souls but not transmigration. The pre-existence theory was knocked on the head by the Council of Nicea.