New Year's Resolutions...

kelly1

Season's blessings to all!

Next year, one of my resolutions will be to waste less time arguing on this board about the merits of Christianity and of Catholicism in particular. I sympathize with the sentiments expressed by Cantab in this thread.

From what I can see, the majority of threads are generally take a negative view of Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular. Even the threads that start off positive, soon get derailed by people who only want to argue.

I would be great for instance to see a thread about spirituality. e.g. how Christians here go about avoiding sin and growing in virtue and get closer to Jesus. Something positive for a change would be good. I have often thought about starting such threads but I just know as soon as I mention things such as the intercession of the saints/Mary, confession etc that I'm going to be attacked for my beliefs.

Any chance people could tone down their attacks on the Catholic Church next year? I don't go attacking Lutherans or evangelists etc. A bit more tolerance here would be much appreciated.

God bless,
Noel.

philologos

kelly1, you need to stop viewing all criticisms of Catholicism to be an attack. I don't wish to attack the Catholic Church, I wish to discuss certain teachings, but I consider Catholics to be fully in every sense of the word my brothers and sisters in Christ.

As far as I'm concerned, the tone might be a bit high at times, and I like you would want all parties involved to review the tone of the discussion to be less confrontational and to be less a case of one arguing against eachother, rather than just reasoning or discussing over certain points.

I hear you in a sense, but I think criticisms are also to be welcomed.

Húrin

I agree, there is a bit too much of a "Christianity justification forum" vibe about this place. I consider it a mistake to be posting in here at all. I don't need to go on the internet to talk to other Christians, so it's really a procrastination from the real work I should be doing on the computer for college.

kelly1 wrote: »

From what I can see, the majority of threads are generally take a negative view of Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular. Even the threads that start off positive, soon get derailed by people who only want to argue.

Yes, and nearly every argument ends up to be the same it seems.

Any chance people could tone down their attacks on the Catholic Church next year?

I don't think that there is much attacking against the Catholic Church on here except from the same people attacking Protestants. I think sectarianism is vile so I hope never to fall into it.

philologos

Húrin wrote: »

I agree, there is a bit too much of a "Christianity justification forum" vibe about this place.

Although that does have positives for when I enter into discussions with atheists about my faith in public also, so there are positives to this sense of justifiying Christianity too.

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

kelly1, you need to stop viewing all criticisms of Catholicism to be an attack. I don't wish to attack the Catholic Church, I wish to discuss certain teachings, but I consider Catholics to be fully in every sense of the word my brothers and sisters in Christ.

Fair criticism is fine but too many people are too quick off the mark when it comes to attacking the Church and very slow to defend it. People still go on about the Crusades, the Inquisition and the selling of indulgences as if it were still happening today. You don't hear people condemning the Salem witch burnings or the protestant burning of heretics.

I believe that many churches e.g. Preybyterians are actively turning people away from the Catholic Church and not just preaching the gospel.

Nexty year I'll be spending more time praying and less time arguing around in circles and getting frustrated and annoyed in the process.

[/RANT]

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

Fair criticism is fine but too many people are too quick off the mark when it comes to attacking the Church and very slow to defend it. People still go on about the Crusades, the Inquisition and the selling of indulgences as if it were still happening today. You don't hear people condemning the Salem witch burnings or the protestant burning of heretics.

I believe that many churches e.g. Preybyterians are actively turning people away from the Catholic Church and not just preaching the gospel.

Nexty year I'll be spending more time praying and less time arguing around in circles and getting frustrated and annoyed in the process.

[/RANT]

Yes, I agree that the Crusades, the Inquisition etc get mentioned too much, as for the sale of indulgences, I brought it up, as a means of explaining how Protestantism came into emergence when it was accused of being a system of circular reasoning.

The Catholic Church today, is a very very different Church to the Catholic Church of the time of the Reformation, and as such it wouldn't be accurate to criticise the Church under Benedict with the same tone.

As for Catholics coming to Presbyterianism I know that this is true, as I know someone who was a Catholic who is training to be a Presbyterian minister, however that aside, I don't think that it is so much that more Reformed churches are snatching Catholics. I know that many ex-Catholics have joined the Anglican church as a result of marriage, or out of curiosity in a lot of cases. However recently there was a case of a Church of Ireland pastor's wife joining Catholicism, so it works both ways.

Fanny Cradock

Well, in fairness, I believe that there were 'only' 19 deaths (19 too many) associated with the Salem Witch Trials.

That aside, yes, I believe that the RCC does get a disproportionately rough time here - from all quarters. That said I believe that much of it is valid criticism (if often inappropriately delivered) if it's within the context of the precepts of the broader Christian faith. Where most non-Catholics will have a bone to pick with the RCC surround the beliefs and practices that are though of as lying outside the bible, or actions that fly in the face of it. Certainly, these are failings not unique to the RCC nor even religion.

As for this being a 'Christian justification forum' - the the goal of this forum is not to have a Christian 'pow-wow', rather it is dedicated to topics relating to Christianity, irrespective of an individuals religious beliefs. Often though, it really is Christians on the defensive. However, I struggle to think of a time when it was not.

No doubt the majority of regular Christian visitors to this forum find that it can become tiresome having to constantly justify your beliefs. And with regards to boards.ie as a whole, we are probably a unique group in this aspect. But such is the nature of this, and probably all religious fora on the internet.

Despite all the above, we must remember that debate is healthy, and I'm sure we have all learned many new things in the process of these debates. Indeed, you would imagine that most regulars here have been forced to question their beliefs at one point or another. On a personal level, I now have a more robust faith after engaging in these bouts.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

You don't hear people condemning the Salem witch burnings or the protestant burning of heretics.

<cough> here's one post of mine in which condemns, sideways-like, the two Other posts deal with the two issues separately.

kelly1 wrote: »

Even the threads that start off positive, soon get derailed by people who only want to argue.

Again, in all fairness, Noel, if you look back at the forum over the last couple of years, you'll see that christian-only threads tend to be quiet, introspective affairs with agnostics and atheists generally staying out (for as long as possible anyway), and believers of non-OP strands of christianity generally tip-toeing around carefully, if they're there at all in any numbers.

The sad fact is that most of us enjoy a good solid discussion (is that the right word?) and the medium of the internet allows us to pace and direct our responses more carefully than we might in a more heated face-to-face situation.

I'd also echo, round-aboutly perhaps, some of what Fanny said: that this and The Other Forum have helped to clarify the issues involved and come to what I hope is a better understanding of what religion is, how it operates, and what people do with it. But to change my opinion on quite a few things too, and certainly rarely, if ever, to use it to reinforce my beliefs.

Anyhow, if you find the winds that blow through this forum too chilly, then this forum might be more to your taste -- it's run by an occasional boardsie named "MichaelG" and he and Cantab seem to share pews on most topics.

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

Season's blessings to all!

Next year, one of my resolutions will be to waste less time arguing on this board about the merits of Christianity and of Catholicism in particular. I sympathize with the sentiments expressed by Cantab in this thread.

From what I can see, the majority of threads are generally take a negative view of Christianity and the Catholic Church in particular. Even the threads that start off positive, soon get derailed by people who only want to argue.

I would be great for instance to see a thread about spirituality. e.g. how Christians here go about avoiding sin and growing in virtue and get closer to Jesus. Something positive for a change would be good. I have often thought about starting such threads but I just know as soon as I mention things such as the intercession of the saints/Mary, confession etc that I'm going to be attacked for my beliefs.

Any chance people could tone down their attacks on the Catholic Church next year? I don't go attacking Lutherans or evangelists etc. A bit more tolerance here would be much appreciated.

God bless,
Noel.

I'm sorry if anyone's feelings get hurt in the debates, but Truth has that effect when it confronts our errors. However, our initial hurt should give way to happiness if we love truth rather than our prejudices. We all need to increase in our knowledge of the Truth.

Sure, we will also be upset when Error confronts the Truth - but is it not good that we are free here to present what we believe to be the truth and to refute error? Those of us who are Christians will remember the example of the apostles and evangelists of the NT church - reasoning, persuading, refuting with all who were willing to engage.

The key must be speaking the truth in love, Ephesians 4:15a. If our hearts are set on doing good to our hearers, rather than just winning an argument, then 2009 will be a profitable year for us all.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

Even the threads that start off positive, soon get derailed by people who only want to argue.

As most if not all of the regular posters to this forum are aware it is perfectly possible to start a CHRISTIAN RESPONSE ONLY thread on this forum. As most of them are probably also aware most if not all of these threads receive very little interested and die quick deaths.

The "derailing" of threads by people who only want to argue, is the this forum

Which isn't really surprising for a forum about a 4 thousand year old religion with an omnipotent deity at its head. What else would you guys discuss ...

Puck

I'm wondering if it's too late to turn this thread around into a positive thread about new year's resolutions. We get a lot of "here's what's wrong with this place" posts, some of them come from me. I used to co-moderate this board so I know a lot about the problems it has but the potential this place has for being something positive to the Christians and non-Christians alike keeps me coming back after repeated disappointments and frustrations.

I do recall there being a thread (maybe even started by yourself kelly1) about "Non-Catholic Spirituality" or something which I remember being quite a positive sharing of practices and ideas between the non-Catholics and the Catholics. It proved to be quite helpful to me in my own prayers. It worked by being honest answers to an honest question (not a set-up for an argument or a trap). We can get along, don't be discouraged.

On the topic of new years resolutions I will be starting the new Bible-in-a-year reading plan I got with my ESV Study Bible (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/devotions/esv.study.bible/). I also plan on going through the Heidelberg Catechism (http://www.wts.edu/resources/heidelberg.html), which is written in a very devotional style and rather nicely arranged into 52 sections called Lord's Day 1, Lord's Day 2, and so on; so I can cover a short section every Sunday. Also I find one of my biggest, most persistent and most disgusting sins is my own pride so I'm going to combat this by asking more questions of people. My normal practice when I don't know something is to go away and quietly research it until I have found my answer, this is a good thing but if you're like me and that is often all you do it can create the illusion of self-sufficiency and that does nothing for cultivating humility, which is something I badly need. So I plan on being honest and upfront about my ignorance and humbly asking for help and information.

Asiaprod

Puck wrote: »

We get a lot of "here's what's wrong with this place" posts, some of them come from me. I used to co-moderate this board so I know a lot about the problems it has but the potential this place has for being something positive to the Christians and non-Christians alike keeps me coming back after repeated disappointments and frustrations.
-

+1. Thats the only reason I spend so much of my time moderating here. I have learned a lot from both sides. As long as I continue to learn, I will continue giving it 100%. One has to take the good with the bad.

MrPudding

I plan to cut down on fast food and generally try to eat healthier. I also intend to try to be a better father & boyfriend and try to squeeze in a bit more charity work.

MrP

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sorry if anyone's feelings get hurt in the debates, but Truth has that effect when it confronts our errors. However, our initial hurt should give way to happiness if we love truth rather than our prejudices. We all need to increase in our knowledge of the Truth.

Sure, we will also be upset when Error confronts the Truth - but is it not good that we are free here to present what we believe to be the truth and to refute error?

I also have a right a right to refute what I believe to be error. I believe it is an error to rely on the bible alone for guidance. Obviously you don't accept that despite the bible saying that the Church is the foundation and pillar of the truth. I believe this shows your prejudices as does a statement such as

"I hold the Mass to be a blasphemous fable".

God bless,
Noel.

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

I also have a right a right to refute what I believe to be error. I believe it is an error to rely on the bible alone for guidance. Obviously you don't accept that despite the bible saying that the Church is the foundation and pillar of the truth. I believe this shows your prejudices as does a statement such as

"I hold the Mass to be a blasphemous fable".

God bless,
Noel.

See Noel, "The Church" is what we are having difficulty in understanding what you mean.

The Church does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church, but rather to the global church to me anyway. Originally before Catholic was used in the RCC context, it meant universal. Infact it's still said in the Anglican Church as a part of the Nicene Creed. The Church isn't just the RCC, nor will it ever be.

kelly1

Thanks for the positive input Puck.

One of my resolutions is to spend more time praying and wasting less time watching cr*p on TV and farting about on the net.

I have a tendency to be lazy or to procrastinate when it comes to prayer. When I miss prayer, I become spiritually weak which tends to lead to sin. So I'm going to make prayer a priority.

God bless,
Noel.

michael_23

I have every good intention of improving my handwriting this year. It has been reduced to a scrawl.

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

See Noel, "The Church" is what we are having difficulty in understanding what you mean.

The Church does not refer to the Roman Catholic Church, but rather to the global church to me anyway. Originally before Catholic was used in the RCC context, it meant universal. Infact it's still said in the Anglican Church as a part of the Nicene Creed. The Church isn't just the RCC, nor will it ever be.

The problem with your statement is that it makes that Church self-contradictory and disunited. The Church is One Body with One faith.

Eph 4:3 Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Can there be one faith and therefore one body if one group believes in transubstantiation or the priestly authority to forgive sins and another group denies it? That's not true unity. It's partial unity at best.

kelly1

michael_23 wrote: »

I have every good intention of improving my handwriting this year. It has been reduced to a scrawl.

Ha

I used to have good writing until I went to college and had to take notes at lightning speed.

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

The problem with your statement is that it makes that Church self-contradictory and disunited. The Church is One Body with One faith.



Can there be one faith and therefore one body if one group believes in transubstantiation or the priestly authority to forgive sins and another group denies it? That's not true unity. It's partial unity at best.

The problem with your statement is that the Early Church wasn't just one unit. Many churches claim to have Apostolic creation, such as the Armenian Apostolic Church (Jude, and Barnabas), the Mar Thomas Church (Thomas), The Jewish Church (James the Righteous). People also dispute whether or not Peter was definitely the first Bishop of Rome. This church was of many different traditions and practices. However they all held pretty much the same beliefs.

Likewise, I have practically the same beliefs as you, or of other denominations, I just choose to practice my faith differently, as some of my more Pentecostal friends practice their faith differently from me.

We should be of one mind, and I truly wish we were, this is why it's just even more divisive for the Pope to claim that Catholicism is the one true church, when it was the Protestants who encouraged Christianity in general to return to Biblical truth after apostasy.

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

I also have a right a right to refute what I believe to be error. I believe it is an error to rely on the bible alone for guidance. Obviously you don't accept that despite the bible saying that the Church is the foundation and pillar of the truth. I believe this shows your prejudices as does a statement such as

"I hold the Mass to be a blasphemous fable".

God bless,
Noel.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say: if you think you have the truth, put it up here. It will do us good if it is indeed the truth, and if it's not we may be able to help you see more clearly. No need for anyone to be silenced.

As to the Bible and the Church, you should note that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not the originator of it. She is the body that presents God's truth to the world. She is as subject to the truth as is the rest of mankind.

The body of men who invented their own doctrines and substituted them for God's truth, and imposed them on men's consciences by intimidation and force - they do have a claim over those 'truths'. They are welcome to them.

The true Church remains submitted to God's word.

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, that is what I was trying to say: if you think you have the truth, put it up here. It will do us good if it is indeed the truth, and if it's not we may be able to help you see more clearly. No need for anyone to be silenced.

Fine but would you accept that you might actually learn something from the Catholic faith?

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to the Bible and the Church, you should note that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not the originator of it.

Agreed. The Church only teaches that truth as taught by the Apostles which was revealed by Christ. The problem is that people can't question the bible and ask it to give a true interpretation of its writings. That's why the truth is entrusted to the Church primarily and not the bible. The bible is a record of some (not all) of the Church's teachings. The Church is alive and dynamic but the text of the bible is static.

On another question, would you accept that the True Church, whatever that is, must have existed continually since the time of Christ and still exists today? Christ promised that the Church would never be destroyed.

wolfsbane wrote: »

She is the body that presents God's truth to the world. She is as subject to the truth as is the rest of mankind.

Given that different churches teach different doctrines, you must be speaking of a particular church I presume?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The body of men who invented their own doctrines and substituted them for God's truth....

Are you making the assumption that the NT records everything that Jesus taught the Apostles?

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

wolfsbane

Here's a resolution I hope to remember throughout 2009:

"I will not be a dupe, patsy, pushover, sucker, fall guy for anyone".

This thought was impressed upon me when reading a friend's article which dealt with the legacy of Edward L. Bernays (1891-1995), a nephew of Sigmund Freud. He was the father of spin-doctoring, serving many of the famous and powerful - US President Eisenhower and Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel 1969-74, for example. Indeed, despite being Jewish, his book Crystallizing Public Opinion was a key influence on the life and work of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.

His book, Propaganda (1928) has many insightful comments:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Fine but would you accept that you might actually learn something from the Catholic faith?

Yes, as I'm not familiar with every theological question that might arise. No doubt some RC theologians have thought though issues I have not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
As to the Bible and the Church, you should note that the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth, not the originator of it.
Agreed. The Church only teaches that truth as taught by the Apostles which was revealed by Christ.

If only.

The problem is that people can't question the bible and ask it to give a true interpretation of its writings.

They can by the Holy Spirit who dwells in every true Christian. He leads us into more light. He gives us ability to 'test the spirits whether they are of God':
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

That's why the truth is entrusted to the Church primarily and not the bible.

The Church is the sum of all true Christians, not the organisation called the Roman Catholic Church. And especially not one man in that organisation who claims that he alone can determine what is true and what is not. And most certainly not a man and his predecessors who have presided over countless acts of wickedness - murder, rape, buggery, simony, etc. God destroys any church that does such things.

The Bible is a record of some (not all) of the Church's teachings.

The bible is the record of all the Church is required to teach.

The Church is alive and dynamic but the text of the bible is static.

Yes, God's word remains the same. And the Church has to live it out in many different societies and ages.

On another question, would you accept that the True Church, whatever that is, must have existed continually since the time of Christ and still exists today?

Yes. As I have explained before, it was not an organisation, but the body of believers in every place and time. They met in local churches, and these local churches recognised and had fellowship with their brethren in local churches elsewhere.

Christ promised that the Church would never be destroyed.

And that has been fulfilled. In every tribe, language and nation, God has His people. His people are the true Church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
She is the body that presents God's truth to the world. She is as subject to the truth as is the rest of mankind.
Given that different churches teach different doctrines, you must be speaking of a particular church I presume?

No, for I did not say they did it perfectly. They all present the essential truth, and differ on secondary issues until the Spirit leads them into more light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The body of men who invented their own doctrines and substituted them for God's truth....
Are you making the assumption that the NT records everything that Jesus taught the Apostles?

Not at all. Paul in fact tells us he had received information from Christ that he was not permitted to pass on. My point was that nothing outside Scripture is to govern God's people. The idea of hidden knowledge passed on via an elite and only brought to light when they think fit - that is Gnostic rather than Christian.

Noel, if the RCC is the true Church which Christ has nurtured from the beginning, then His warnings to the erring churches in Revelation 2-3 are a fiction. Since His word is true, the RCC is the imposter, the false Church, the Babylonian alternative to God's New Jerusalem:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=17&version=50

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=21&version=50

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

They can by the Holy Spirit who dwells in every true Christian. He leads us into more light. He gives us ability to 'test the spirits whether they are of God':

So why does the Holy Spirit dwell in you and not in me? Favouritism?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Noel, if the RCC is the true Church which Christ has nurtured from the beginning, then His warnings to the erring churches in Revelation 2-3 are a fiction. Since His word is true, the RCC is the imposter, the false Church, the Babylonian alternative to God's New Jerusalem:

Oh dear, here we go

Do you also believe that the Pope is the anti-christ?

Which verses are you basing your claim on?

philologos

wolfsbane, do you think a church cannot come back out of apostasy? Just out of curiosity, and secondly do you not think it is possible for Roman Catholics to be filled with the Spirit, or to acheive salvation?

If the answer is no in both cases, I don't agree with you.

BravoSierra

New Year Resolution:

To objectivley find out if Christianity was once legitimate and if so formally pledge myself to my Creator.

kelly1

BravoSierra wrote: »

New Year Resolution:

To objectivley find out if Christianity was once legitimate and if so formally pledge myself to my Creator.

Once? You mean it isn't now??

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

They can by the Holy Spirit who dwells in every true Christian. He leads us into more light. He gives us ability to 'test the spirits whether they are of God':

How do you know it is the holy spirit that is dwelling in you and not the devil, or some kind of neuro-chemical imbalance?

MrP

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

How do you know it is the holy spirit that is dwelling in you and not the devil, or some kind of neuro-chemical imbalance?

MrP

Mr Pudding, you have been sailing close to the line for some time now, and you are crossing into troll territory more often than is good for you and the board. Fanny Cradock has already warned you about this on a previous occasion. This is your last inthread warning. Let's not start 2009 with a banning.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

Mr Pudding, you have been sailing close to the line for some time now, and you are crossing into troll territory more often than is good for you and the board. Fanny Cradock has already warned you about this on a previous occasion. This is your last inthread warning. Let's not start 2009 with a banning.

Wolfie is very keen to point out that what others feel is wrong and is the result of the devil or poisoned teaching or whatever. I have asked on several occasions why he is so sure he is right and the other are wrong, even though they both claim the same evidence for knowing their way is the truth. This question was not went to be trolling, it is a genuine question which I, and others, have asked numerous times and still not received an answer for. I am sorry if you feel it was trolling, I can assure you that was not the intention. I am genuinely interested in understand how Wolfie knowshe is right when the very people he thinks are poisoned know they are right for exactly the same reason as him.

Perhaps you think the neuro-chemical comment was a bit trollish. I agree that it could appear to be, again, that was not the intention. If you look over some of the comments made by Wolfie in the past, particularly about how he would behave were god not in his heart, he describes the behaviour which society generally deems to be unacceptable and get labelled as sociopathic or worse.

So, I apologise if I came across as trollish, it really was not the intention.

Happy New Year, and I will try harder.

MrP

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
They can by the Holy Spirit who dwells in every true Christian. He leads us into more light. He gives us ability to 'test the spirits whether they are of God':
So why does the Holy Spirit dwell in you and not in me? Favouritism?

He does dwell in you if you have truly repented and trusted in Christ alone for salvation. You may well have, despite being a member of a church that teaches otherwise. I do not know your heart. If you are relying on your works or your church membership to help justify you, you are lost.

The Holy Spirit dwells in all whom God has chosen in eternity past and called and justified in the present.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Noel, if the RCC is the true Church which Christ has nurtured from the beginning, then His warnings to the erring churches in Revelation 2-3 are a fiction. Since His word is true, the RCC is the imposter, the false Church, the Babylonian alternative to God's New Jerusalem:
Oh dear, here we go

Do you also believe that the Pope is the anti-christ?

Which verses are you basing your claim on?

No, I don't. Many Christians have done so historically, based on the wickedness of the papacy. The Baptist preacher, C.H. Spurgeon once said that the pope's behaviour would at least cause him to be arrested on suspicion if a hue & cry were issued for Antichrist.

I however agree with most believers today that Antichrist is more likely to be one who will destroy the papacy as a competitor:
Revelation 17:12 “The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. 13 These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. 14 These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful.”
15 Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. 16 And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. 18 And the woman whom you saw is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.”

I don't wish to be dogmatic with the symbolism of Revelation, but simply make the point that the RCC is much more accurately described by the Babylonian whore than the Bride of Christ.

wolfsbane

Jakkass wrote: »

wolfsbane, do you think a church cannot come back out of apostasy? Just out of curiosity, and secondly do you not think it is possible for Roman Catholics to be filled with the Spirit, or to acheive salvation?

If the answer is no in both cases, I don't agree with you.

I see no reason why a church cannot be recovered. A new Reformation in the RCC would be wonderful. I just think it will suffer the same fate as the last one - rejection and excommunication.

I do indeed believe many Roman Catholics are saved, and therefore are filled with the Spirit.

wolfsbane

MrPudding wrote: »

How do you know it is the holy spirit that is dwelling in you and not the devil, or some kind of neuro-chemical imbalance?

MrP

1. The same reason you know you exist and are not a part of a dream.

2. The practical outworkings of my religion - God's interventions on my behalf - confirm it. You might claim they are coincidental, but that would be too incredible to accept given the specific details.

3. The Spirit dwelling in me confirms the word of God (the Bible) as totally true, and the God it reveals.

You might say the devil could be masquerading as the Spirit and telling the truth. But that makes no sense:
a. Why would Satan confirm me in the Truth?
b. The Bible specifically rules out a Christian being so misled.

Húrin

wolfsbane wrote: »

This thought was impressed upon me when reading a friend's article which dealt with the legacy of Edward L. Bernays (1891-1995), a nephew of Sigismund Freud. He was the father of spin-doctoring, serving many of the famous and powerful - US President Eisenhower and Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel 1969-74, for example. Indeed, despite being Jewish, his book Crystallizing Public Opinion was a key influence on the life and work of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.

His book, Propaganda (1928) has many insightful comments:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html

Ah yes, Ed Bernays, one of the twentieth century's great unheralded enemies of free thought and friend to capital.

Ed Bernays wrote:

THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

Jakkass wrote: »

wolfsbane, do you think a church cannot come back out of apostasy? Just out of curiosity, and secondly do you not think it is possible for Roman Catholics to be filled with the Spirit, or to acheive salvation?

If the answer is no in both cases, I don't agree with you.

Indeed, this "whore of Babylon" kind of idiocy is what caused so much violence in this country.

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

1. The same reason you know you exist and are not a part of a dream.

2. The practical outworkings of my religion - God's interventions on my behalf - confirm it. You might claim they are coincidental, but that would be too incredible to accept given the specific details.

3. The Spirit dwelling in me confirms the word of God (the Bible) as totally true, and the God it reveals.

You might say the devil could be masquerading as the Spirit and telling the truth. But that makes no sense:
a. Why would Satan confirm me in the Truth?
b. The Bible specifically rules out a Christian being so misled.

So, the same reasons as the people you think are poisoned have. Right.

MrP

wolfsbane

MrPudding said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
1. The same reason you know you exist and are not a part of a dream.

2. The practical outworkings of my religion - God's interventions on my behalf - confirm it. You might claim they are coincidental, but that would be too incredible to accept given the specific details.

3. The Spirit dwelling in me confirms the word of God (the Bible) as totally true, and the God it reveals.

You might say the devil could be masquerading as the Spirit and telling the truth. But that makes no sense:
a. Why would Satan confirm me in the Truth?
b. The Bible specifically rules out a Christian being so misled.
So, the same reasons as the people you think are poisoned have. Right.

MrP

Wrong!

They will of course share point (1) with us, but will have great difficulty in squaring their beliefs/practices with the Bible ( point 3). The appeal they often make is to a fallible Bible, inserting their 'enlightened' modern wisdom in place of its flawed/antiquated theology. Or they say they believe in an infallible Bible, but won't allow it to say anything contrary to their evolving theology. They become masters of the Bible, rather than the Bible mastering them.

Even point (2) is problematic for many - the idea of an interventionist God. Some do accept the concept, others go for the prayer brings calm & focus concept that allow us to resolve our problems without God's help.

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

MrPudding said:

Wrong!

I don't think so, but then I would not expect you to agree.

wolfsbane wrote: »

They will of course share point (1) with us, but will have great difficulty in squaring their beliefs/practices with the Bible ( point 3).

Except they don't. They believe that their beliefs and practices are fully in line with the bible.

wolfsbane wrote: »

The appeal they often make is to a fallible Bible, inserting their 'enlightened' modern wisdom in place of its flawed/antiquated theology. Or they say they believe in an infallible Bible, but won't allow it to say anything contrary to their evolving theology. They become masters of the Bible, rather than the Bible mastering them.

I would imagine that they would agrue that the spirit in their hearts has shown them that this si the way.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Even point (2) is problematic for many - the idea of an interventionist God. Some do accept the concept, others go for the prayer brings calm & focus concept that allow us to resolve our problems without God's help.

Point two would have been interesting but then PDN made a comment. He believes that god, his god, which I think might also kind of be yours, I have lost count at this stage, will sometimes answer the prayers of people that are not praying to him but are praying to a false god. Personally I think this is an underhanded and dispicible thing to do, but what do I know. So even if you are seeing things which you think are being done by god, you god. You might be praying to the wrong god and the real god is answering them anyway. That or it is merely coincidence.

I am sorry but your arguement does not really hold water. The points you make above are made by the very people you say are poisoned, and they make them just as convicingly as you. And please remember, they nor indeed you are squaring yor beliefs and practices with the bible, each of you are squaring your beliefs and practices with your interpretation of the bible. If christianity was simply following the bible it would all be the same.

You simply cannot know that you are not following a poisoned path, something which you accuse many other christians of following.

MrP

wolfsbane

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't think so, but then I would not expect you to agree.

Except they don't. They believe that their beliefs and practices are fully in line with the bible.

I would imagine that they would agrue that the spirit in their hearts has shown them that this si the way.

Point two would have been interesting but then PDN made a comment. He believes that god, his god, which I think might also kind of be yours, I have lost count at this stage, will sometimes answer the prayers of people that are not praying to him but are praying to a false god. Personally I think this is an underhanded and dispicible thing to do, but what do I know. So even if you are seeing things which you think are being done by god, you god. You might be praying to the wrong god and the real god is answering them anyway. That or it is merely coincidence.

I am sorry but your arguement does not really hold water. The points you make above are made by the very people you say are poisoned, and they make them just as convicingly as you. And please remember, they nor indeed you are squaring yor beliefs and practices with the bible, each of you are squaring your beliefs and practices with your interpretation of the bible. If christianity was simply following the bible it would all be the same.

You simply cannot know that you are not following a poisoned path, something which you accuse many other christians of following.

MrP

Your main error is assuming the Bible cannot be correctly understood, that all is guesswork. You would not accept that statement of most literature, not even of the posts here. You would say there are some parts of them that are open to debate as to their meaning, but most of them are understandable using the common hermeneutical principles.

So too the Bible. Some things are indeed difficult to understand - but the essentials are not. Those who disagree on the essentials are not being honest with the Bible.

Indeed, as I pointed out, many of them hold the Bible to be in error on points, or hold that their interpretation determines the Bible sense, not the Bible their interpretation. You disagree, so maybe you will give me examples of these Bible-believing errorists?

As to God answering prayers made to other gods, I can't image such a scenario. Examples? I can think of one praying to the unknown God, saying "If you are really there, please hear." Is that what you meant?

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

He does dwell in you if you have truly repented and trusted in Christ alone for salvation.

I trust in Jesus and the Church He founded. Christ is the Head of the Church and therefore without Him is nothing. All authority and power that the Church has comes from Christ. The Co-operates with Christ, it does not try to replace Him.

wolfsbane wrote: »

You may well have, despite being a member of a church that teaches otherwise.

Seems you're not that well versed with the teachings of the Church. The Church teaches that all salvation comes from Christ. The grace which comes from the sacraments is from Christ alone. No man can produce grace.

MrPudding

wolfsbane wrote: »

As to God answering prayers made to other gods, I can't image such a scenario. Examples?

Are you asking me for examples? I don't believe in gods and I most certainly do not believe in prayers how could I possibly give you examples?

wolfsbane wrote: »

I can think of one praying to the unknown God, saying "If you are really there, please hear." Is that what you meant?

No. The example was, a man is praying to his god, not your god one of the several thousand other wrong gods, but your god will answer his prayers on occasion. Very nasty thing to do, but hey, who are we to question him. It was PDN that mentioned he believed god would on occasion answer prayer that were not actually directed at them.

MrP

MrPudding

kelly1 wrote: »

I trust in Jesus and the Church He founded. Christ is the Head of the Church and therefore without Him is nothing. All authority and power that the Church has comes from Christ. The Co-operates with Christ, it does not try to replace Him.


Seems you're not that well versed with the teachings of the Church. The Church teaches that all salvation comes from Christ. The grace which comes from the sacraments is from Christ alone. No man can produce grace.

<INSERT RANDOM CATHOLIC>, please allow me to apologise in advance for using you as an example.

Wolfie, <INSERT RANDOM CATHOLIC> is a perfect example. As far as one can tell on the the internet, he appears to be a genuinely good person. Obviously his beliefs are not to my taste, but he appears genuine. You obviously believe his beliefs are poisoned. How can you explain that he obviously believes, like millions of others, that he is on the correct path?

MrP

Fanny Cradock

Let's not personalise this by using a 3rd party example to your debate. It's not fair on Noel.

wolfsbane

MrPudding wrote: »

<INSERT RANDOM CATHOLIC>, please allow me to apologise in advance for using you as an example.

Wolfie, <INSERT RANDOM CATHOLIC> is a perfect example. As far as one can tell on the the internet, he appears to be a genuinely good person. Obviously his beliefs are not to my taste, but he appears genuine. You obviously believe his beliefs are poisoned. How can you explain that he obviously believes, like millions of others, that he is on the correct path?

MrP

Sure. Remember my point: or hold that their interpretation determines the Bible sense, not the Bible their interpretation.

That means they cannot point to the Bible to support their claims, but point to their Church to support their interpretation of the Bible.

Their belief they are on the right path is not based on the same foundation as mine.

wolfsbane

MrPudding wrote: »

No. The example was, a man is praying to his god, not your god one of the several thousand other wrong gods, but your god will answer his prayers on occasion. Very nasty thing to do, but hey, who are we to question him. It was PDN that mentioned he believed god would on occasion answer prayer that were not actually directed at them.

MrP

I agree with you - it would be a very confusing tactic. I see no support for it in the Bible.

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

I trust in Jesus and the Church He founded. Christ is the Head of the Church and therefore without Him is nothing. All authority and power that the Church has comes from Christ. The Co-operates with Christ, it does not try to replace Him.


Seems you're not that well versed with the teachings of the Church. The Church teaches that all salvation comes from Christ. The grace which comes from the sacraments is from Christ alone. No man can produce grace.

Noel, this is just more sleight of hand by the papacy. Like saying there is only one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ, and then saying there are many between Jesus and man. Both can't be true.

So one cannot trust in Christ alone, and trust in the Church. Not even the apostles claimed a part in our justification:
1 Corinthians 1:11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

kelly1

wolfsbane wrote: »

Noel, this is just more sleight of hand by the papacy. Like saying there is only one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ, and then saying there are many between Jesus and man. Both can't be true.

So one cannot trust in Christ alone, and trust in the Church. Not even the apostles claimed a part in our justification:

You seem to have forgotten that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins:

John 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Aren't we justified when we are cleansed of sin? Therefore the apostles had a part in the justification of sinners. They exercised their God-given authority to forgive sins.

Amazing how so many people ignore tradition when it is supported in scripture:

2 Thes. 2:15 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 Tim. 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Noel, this is just more sleight of hand by the papacy. Like saying there is only one mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ, and then saying there are many between Jesus and man. Both can't be true.

So one cannot trust in Christ alone, and trust in the Church. Not even the apostles claimed a part in our justification:
You seem to have forgotten that Jesus gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins:

No, I hadn't forgotten that. You seem to think that power was also given to every Roman priest also, but you did not give a text for that.

Anyway, we must ask what did the Lord mean by this statement. Did He mean God was obliged to forgive all that the apostles forgave, even if they sinned by forgiving the unrepentant? I think not. Was the Lord thinking of a confessional and Peter and the apostles sitting hearing confessions and then absolving the pentitent or not? I think not.

The power Christ was giving them was by their words, their teaching, to bring salvation to men. Those who repent and believe their words will be forgiven, those who do not will not.

When the church meets it proclaims the apostolic word.

Aren't we justified when we are cleansed of sin? Therefore the apostles had a part in the justification of sinners. They exercised their God-given authority to forgive sins.

How does the Bible say we are justified? By faith - by believing the apostolic word. Not by some confessional. As I said above, this is the part the apostles 'play' in our justification. They have no part beyond bringing the message. Every Christian has such a part whenever they tell others about Christ.

Amazing how so many people ignore tradition when it is supported in scripture:

Quote:
2 Thes. 2:15 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 Tim. 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Every Christian believes in the traditions taught by the apostles in the Bible record. That's all God decided we needed. No Gnostic hidden ones emerging hundreds or thousands of years later claiming to be apostolic. Especially not from an institution notorious for its wickedness and idolatry.

Why do you give it such credibility, Noel? Surely you see how different from the NT church it is? Do you really think those changes were for the better? Or that God would tolerate such perversion of His truth and depravity of behaviour?

Fix you eyes on Christ, Noel, and you will not defend the indefensible. You will reject it and follow Him wherever He leads.

wolfsbane

Húrin said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
This thought was impressed upon me when reading a friend's article which dealt with the legacy of Edward L. Bernays (1891-1995), a nephew of Sigismund Freud. He was the father of spin-doctoring, serving many of the famous and powerful - US President Eisenhower and Golda Meir, Prime Minister of Israel 1969-74, for example. Indeed, despite being Jewish, his book Crystallizing Public Opinion was a key influence on the life and work of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.

His book, Propaganda (1928) has many insightful comments:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html
Ah yes, Ed Bernays, one of the twentieth century's great unheralded enemies of free thought and friend to capital.

Yes, that's why I posted it; as a warning that the elites of this world know how weak human nature is and are skilled at exploiting it.

Indeed, this "whore of Babylon" kind of idiocy is what caused so much violence in this country.

Not in my experience. A sober examination of the RCC was enough to warn both religious and non-religious Unionists against going into a United Ireland so dominated by priestcraft. Those who thought otherwise were soon disillusioned by the way the Free State and later Republic developed.

If this forum is any indication, many here recognise the nature of Irish state since independence. Thankfully, things have greatly improved over this last decade or so. But as late as 1990 I had one Irish brother, who engaged in southern politics, warn me against thinking the State was free of Rome.

In our late troubles, unlike the 1920s, religion figured very little. It all came down to an ethnic thing, albeit the enemy were helpfully grouped as either RC or Prod. For my own side, I knew of nobody who fought against republicans because they were Catholic. No one had 'heretic' on his mind when he thought of them - they were national enemies, no matter their religion.

I assume that applies to the republican/nationalist side too - it was Britishness not Protestantism they opposed.

kelly1

Wolfsbane, let's agree to disagree, eh? I'm speaking but you ain't listening!

wolfsbane

kelly1 wrote: »

Wolfsbane, let's agree to disagree, eh? I'm speaking but you ain't listening!

I'm listening, just not agreeing.

But I thank you for your gracious and honest answers.