Don't agree with Protestant or Catholic religions

midlandsmissus

I believe in God and Jesus but don't like either the catholic or protestant religions:

The Catholic church seems to have completely strayed away from Jesus's teachings and is just focused on power and money. For example Jesus said both sexes are equal, so the notion that only men can be priests is very wrong. Also the images of priests driving round where Im from in flash cars and living in massive houses is etched on my mind.

I agree with some of the protestant teachings in that they were originally protesting against all the corruption and abused wealth in the catholic church. However they think that there is no point in good deeds. You can be as bad a person as you want - as long as you repent in the end and you have faith in God you're sorted. This just doesnt sit with me. I just really feel that we're here to try and be as good to each other as possible.

Anyway I believe in Jesus but dont agree with catholic or protestant religions, is there anyone else like this on here. Or is there similiar groups that I could talk to about it?

I often find if you talk to anyone in the catholic or protestant religion (especially catholic), they actually cant fathom being outside of their religion. The religion is the way it is, its always been done like that, no questioning. For example Id say 'but surely priests living in such wealthy surroundings is totally going against the christian teachings?' and they just look at you like 'I cant believe you said that, thats blasphemous - speaking against a priest, thats the way its always been done'

I guess I just want to meet people similiar to me.

Cheers.

Fanny Cradock

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I believe in God and Jesus but don't like either the catholic or protestant religions:

The Catholic church seems to have completely strayed away from Jesus's teachings and is just focused on power and money. For example Jesus said both sexes are equal, so the notion that only men can be priests is very wrong. Also the images of priests driving round where Im from in flash cars and living in massive houses is etched on my mind.

I agree with some of the protestant teachings in that they were originally protesting against all the corruption and abused wealth in the catholic church. However they think that there is no point in good deeds. You can be as bad a person as you want - as long as you repent in the end and you have faith in God you're sorted. This just doesnt sit with me. I just really feel that we're here to try and be as good to each other as possible.

Anyway I believe in Jesus but dont agree with catholic or protestant religions, is there anyone else like this on here. Or is there similiar groups that I could talk to about it?

I often find if you talk to anyone in the catholic or protestant religion (especially catholic), they actually cant fathom being outside of their religion. The religion is the way it is, its always been done like that, no questioning. For example Id say 'but surely priests living in such wealthy surroundings is totally going against the christian teachings?' and they just look at you like 'I cant believe you said that, thats blasphemous - speaking against a priest, thats the way its always been done'

I guess I just want to meet people similiar to me.

Cheers.

Without meaning to cause offence or devalue your experience, MM, it seems that you have very negative associations that are not necessarily grounded in a wider reality. As a non-denominational Christian (I don't really subscribe to any particular denomination as being the correct way of doing things) who has leanings towards the CoI (to mention one of a few denominations), I feel more able to talk about Protestanism than Catholicism.

The notion that all these Protestant churches and their partitioners do not vale good deeds is one that would fly in the face of my experience. On the contrary, I have seen that they are quite concerned with making a tangible difference in the local community (providing help to the homeless and those with various addictions) whilst also providing help in places like Africa and Asia. My experience tells me that it is untrue to say that Protestantism is concerned with simply saving souls. If this was their only concern then I wouldn't be interested.

Anyway, maybe you might find more of a home in Evangelical or Pentecostal traditions. While it might be argued that Protestantism and most especially Catholicism needs and injection of young people with boundless energy and fresh ideas, the same can't be said of the Evangelical or Pentecostal churches I've been to. PDN might be able to add more, but from what I've seen these traditions are very concerned with charitable outreach.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The notion that all these Protestant churches and their partitioners do not vale good deeds is one that would fly in the face of my experience. On the contrary, I have seen that they are quite concerned with making a tangible difference in the local community (providing help to the homeless and those with various addictions) whilst also providing help in places like Africa and Asia. My experience tells me that it is untrue to say that Protestantism is concerned with simply saving souls. If this was their only concern then I wouldn't be interested.

In my experience, I'd be agreeable here. I think good works are something they believe should certainly be done by a christian. However, not because it will save you, but rather its the right thing to do. They recognise that no amount of works could have saved us, but rather we are declared righteous by our faith. Only the dishonest twist this teaching into, 'I can do what the heck I want, and still get saved'. People who do this don't actually realise what faith actually is. Instead, they just think it means belief. I've seen alot of folk, religious and otherwise, foolishly call faith 'belief without proof'. Faith takes belief as a given, i.e. belief comes before faith. Faith is more about trust. We do according to the abundance of our hearts, and if our heart is full of Love, we will in turn do as love directs us to. If its full of hatread, we will do what hate directs us to. 'A tree will be known by its fruits', is a lesson Jesus gave us to identify who the chancers are.

O'Coonassa

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I believe in God and Jesus but don't like either the catholic or protestant religions:

I'm of a similar view but I don't believe Jesus was God or said he was in any sense other than Mansur Al-Hallaj and other mystics have meant it. I therefore don't believe in the Trinity and think it reeks of polytheism. I kind of think Christianity was hijacked first by Saul of Tarsus and then by Constantine the Great.

wolfsbane

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I'm of a similar view but I don't believe Jesus was God or said he was in any sense other than Mansur Al-Hallaj and other mystics have meant it. I therefore don't believe in the Trinity and think it reeks of polytheism. I kind of think Christianity was hijacked first by Saul of Tarsus and then by Constantine the Great.

Even if you stuck with just the Gospels, you would have big trouble defending your position. Or maybe you believe Paul and his friends corrupted the Gospels too?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

O'Coonassa

wolfsbane wrote: »

Even if you stuck with just the Gospels, you would have big trouble defending your position. Or maybe you believe Paul and his friends corrupted the Gospels too?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

I don't hold with John at all it is too unlike the synoptics and Thomas, the ministry of Jesus is too long and the place it was written too far away from Jerusalem in time and space. It's a Greek story complete with the logos of Plato that you just quoted and the whole gods-coming-to-Earth-as-humans motif.

Paul doesn't even quote Jesus. How likely do you find it that I would be a follower of somebody and never quote what they have said?

wolfsbane

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I believe in God and Jesus but don't like either the catholic or protestant religions:

The Catholic church seems to have completely strayed away from Jesus's teachings and is just focused on power and money. For example Jesus said both sexes are equal, so the notion that only men can be priests is very wrong. Also the images of priests driving round where Im from in flash cars and living in massive houses is etched on my mind.

I agree with some of the protestant teachings in that they were originally protesting against all the corruption and abused wealth in the catholic church. However they think that there is no point in good deeds. You can be as bad a person as you want - as long as you repent in the end and you have faith in God you're sorted. This just doesnt sit with me. I just really feel that we're here to try and be as good to each other as possible.

Anyway I believe in Jesus but dont agree with catholic or protestant religions, is there anyone else like this on here. Or is there similiar groups that I could talk to about it?

I often find if you talk to anyone in the catholic or protestant religion (especially catholic), they actually cant fathom being outside of their religion. The religion is the way it is, its always been done like that, no questioning. For example Id say 'but surely priests living in such wealthy surroundings is totally going against the christian teachings?' and they just look at you like 'I cant believe you said that, thats blasphemous - speaking against a priest, thats the way its always been done'

I guess I just want to meet people similiar to me.

Cheers.

You won't go wrong if you continue to seek to follow Jesus' teachings. Jesus told us the Bible is God's inerrant word, and gave us further teaching that completed what God had begun with the Old Testament Scriptures. Christ and His apostles gave us the New Testament Scriptures.

So you need to get a grasp of what the Bible teaches before you can assess how faithful any group is in following it. You have identified some good issues already; for example, the error of trusting in leaders and not allowing the Bible to be your guide.

As an example of the further teaching you need to find, take the very existance of priests. In the New Testament there is no Christian priesthood separate from the common Christian. All Christians are priests. But later generations saw the corruption of paganism enter professing church, and a priesthood was set up on Old Testament lines - altars, priest, offerings. The memorial meal we call the Lord's Supper became an offering of the literal body and blood of Christ.

The centuries just added to that burden of error and the powerful, persecuting organization took the place of the lowly, spiritual church of the New Testament. There were always believers who stood outside that corrupt edifice, and others who remained in, but the Reformation saw a dramatic rise in their numbers.

Today many of those who protested Rome's corruption have become corrupt themselves - but again there are those both within and without who seek to follow Christ where ever He leads. They are the sort of folk you need to meet and discuss with.

O'Coonassa

wolfsbane wrote: »

Jesus told us the Bible is God's inerrant word, and gave us further teaching that completed what God had begun with the Old Testament Scriptures. Christ and His apostles gave us the New Testament Scriptures.

I keep begging to differ but nobody wants to seem to address the issue of who actually wrote the Bible.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=475017379969914449

wolfsbane

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I don't hold with John at all it is too unlike the synoptics and Thomas, the ministry of Jesus is too long and the place it was written too far away from Jerusalem in time and space. It's a Greek story complete with the logos of Plato that you just quoted and the whole gods-coming-to-Earth-as-humans motif.

Paul doesn't even quote Jesus. How likely do you find it that I would be a follower of somebody and never quote what they have said?

Paul quotes Jesus from the gospel accounts:
1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

compare with:

Luke 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. 21 But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”
23 Then they began to question among themselves, which of them it was who would do this thing.

He also quotes Him from his encounter on the Damascus road:
Acts 8:3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”
Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

And indeed at subsequent times.

But since you reject all that Paul wrote, and I assume all that his companions Luke and Mark wrote, all that Peter wrote (since he commends Paul as a true apsotle of Christ), and all that John wrote (Greek invention) that leaves Matthew's Gospel. Do you take it to be the sole authentic Christian document? Or is it too spurious?

When you say you believe in God and Jesus, but reject all/nearly all of the New Testament, I take it your Jesus is found in other documents. Are you a Gnostic?

wolfsbane

O'Coonassa said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Jesus told us the Bible is God's inerrant word, and gave us further teaching that completed what God had begun with the Old Testament Scriptures. Christ and His apostles gave us the New Testament Scriptures.
I keep begging to differ but nobody wants to seem to address the issue of who actually wrote the Bible.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...17379969914449

I don't intend to spend an hour and three-quarters watching another 'amazing discovery' rip-off. I've watched too much of journalistic sensationalism on the Sky docu-channels. They appeal to the ignorant who won't be able to check their claims. I'm not able to check many of them - but those I can have proved them to be just opinionated propaganda pieces, claiming as 'facts' things that are at best open to dispute and at worst down right lies.

If you care to point out your reasons why the New Testament is not the documents of the New Testament apostles, I'll be glad to hear them. I will also be glad to hear on what you base your claim to believe in God and Jesus.

O'Coonassa

wolfsbane wrote: »

Paul quotes Jesus from the gospel accounts:
1 Corinthians 11:23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

compare with:

Luke 22:19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. 21 But behold, the hand of My betrayer is with Me on the table. 22 And truly the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom He is betrayed!”
23 Then they began to question among themselves, which of them it was who would do this thing.

He also quotes Him from his encounter on the Damascus road:
Acts 8:3 As he journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. 4 Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”
5 And he said, “Who are You, Lord?”
Then the Lord said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.[a] It is hard for you to kick against the goads.”
6 So he, trembling and astonished, said, “Lord, what do You want me to do?”
Then the Lord said to him, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

And indeed at subsequent times.

But since you reject all that Paul wrote, and I assume all that his companions Luke and Mark wrote, all that Peter wrote (since he commends Paul as a true apsotle of Christ), and all that John wrote (Greek invention) that leaves Matthew's Gospel. Do you take it to be the sole authentic Christian document? Or is it too spurious?

When you say you believe in God and Jesus, but reject all/nearly all of the New Testament, I take it your Jesus is found in other documents. Are you a Gnostic?

Not in the sense that I take you to mean it or in the sense modern Gnostics mean it. Perhaps in the sense that Origen meant it.

IMO the whole Bible is full of redactions that have been inserted to make it's disparate writings concur with each other. I do not think at all likely given the Jewish blood taboo that a Jew at a passover would be talking about drinking blood. It seems very far fetched.

As for Saul's alleged vision on the road to Damascus I don't for one second consider it genuine. Like I say the synoptics, Thomas and Q with their many layers of redaction are the closest we can get to the original facts of the case but I also hold Acts to be an important historical document. It says a great deal between the lines.

O'Coonassa

wolfsbane wrote: »

O'Coonassa said:

I don't intend to spend an hour and three-quarters watching another 'amazing discovery' rip-off. I've watched too much of journalistic sensationalism on the Sky docu-channels. They appeal to the ignorant who won't be able to check their claims. I'm not able to check many of them - but those I can have proved them to be just opinionated propaganda pieces, claiming as 'facts' things that are at best open to dispute and at worst down right lies.

If you care to point out your reasons why the New Testament is not the documents of the New Testament apostles, I'll be glad to hear them. I will also be glad to hear on what you base your claim to believe in God and Jesus.

Er...it's a channel four documentary by a British academic theologian who was raised a Christian and maintains his faith. There are interviews with both Jews and Christians, scholars and laymen. It really would save me a great deal of typing if you could please just give it a whirl. Even the Catholic Church no longer maintains that the various gospels were written by their alleged authors. No serious Biblical scholar does. If you watch the programme you'll understand why that's the case.

How can I not believe in God? There is no creation without it's creator. How can I not belive in a man who very clearly existed as a teacher of great repute?

wolfsbane

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Not in the sense that I take you to mean it or in the sense modern Gnostics mean it. Perhaps in the sense that Origen meant it.

IMO the whole Bible is full of redactions that have been inserted to make it's disparate writings concur with each other. I do not think at all likely given the Jewish blood taboo that a Jew at a passover would be talking about drinking blood. It seems very far fetched.

As for Saul's alleged vision on the road to Damascus I don't for one second consider it genuine. Like I say the synoptics, Thomas and Q with their many layers of redaction are the closest we can get to the original facts of the case but I also hold Acts to be an important historical document. It says a great deal between the lines.

All you have is an opinion based on what you find acceptable. Christians hold to the NT documents because of their internal witness, and the external testimony of the early church supports that. Your example of an unlikely detail shows your lack of knowledge of the documents: I do not think at all likely given the Jewish blood taboo that a Jew at a passover would be talking about drinking blood. It seems very far fetched. Consider what the apostles had already been told:
John 6:47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50 This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.”
52 The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For My flesh is food indeed,[h] and My blood is drink indeed. 56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. 58 This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

That had put off many of the Jews, for they did not grasp His meaning, even when He explained it:
John 6:60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”
61 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.

But the apostles were granted understanding and enduring faith:
John 6:65 And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.”
66 From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more. 67 Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Do you also want to go away?”
68 But Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69 Also we have come to believe and know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

O'Coonassa

wolfsbane wrote: »

All you have is an opinion based on what you find acceptable.

Indeed, that is all either of us can have. It is not that I have a lack of knowledge of the documents but rather that you hold John to be the innerrant word of God whereas I consider it to be the propaganda of an emergent orthodoxy that the historical Jesus would not have recognised.

The very notion of an allegedly Hebrew Jewish author talking about the "The Jews" as if they were some different nation to himself is just one clue that it isn't genuine. There are many others.

midlandsmissus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Without meaning to cause offence or devalue your experience, MM, it seems that you have very negative associations that are not necessarily grounded in a wider reality. As a non-denominational Christian (I don't really subscribe to any particular denomination as being the correct way of doing things) who has leanings towards the CoI (to mention one of a few denominations), I feel more able to talk about Protestanism than Catholicism.

The notion that all these Protestant churches and their partitioners do not vale good deeds is one that would fly in the face of my experience. On the contrary, I have seen that they are quite concerned with making a tangible difference in the local community (providing help to the homeless and those with various addictions) whilst also providing help in places like Africa and Asia. My experience tells me that it is untrue to say that Protestantism is concerned with simply saving souls. If this was their only concern then I wouldn't be interested.

Anyway, maybe you might find more of a home in Evangelical or Pentecostal traditions. While it might be argued that Protestantism and most especially Catholicism needs and injection of young people with boundless energy and fresh ideas, the same can't be said of the Evangelical or Pentecostal churches I've been to. PDN might be able to add more, but from what I've seen these traditions are very concerned with charitable outreach.

Hi Fanny Craddock,

Well thats interesting because I work right next door to a protestant church and two of their members often come in and talk to me. They were the ones who said directly to me that the protestant church believes there is no need at all for good works, that they are pointless, they used this example for me: 'Princess Diana doing all that landmine stuff- pure waste of time'.

As I have been talking to them for so long, I thought I was pretty well versed up on Protestant beliefs. So that is not a view shared by most protestants then? That good deeds are pointless? Cause thats the bit I really had trouble understanding

Cheers

Phototoxin

For many protestants faith is a verb that means doing good works.

Tim Robbins

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hi Fanny Craddock,

Well thats interesting because I work right next door to a protestant church and two of their members often come in and talk to me. They were the ones who said directly to me that the protestant church believes there is no need at all for good works, that they are pointless, they used this example for me: 'Princess Diana doing all that landmine stuff- pure waste of time'.

As I have been talking to them for so long, I thought I was pretty well versed up on Protestant beliefs. So that is not a view shared by most protestants then? That good deeds are pointless? Cause thats the bit I really had trouble understanding

Cheers

I'm an atheist but I'm so intelligent and well informed I think I might be able to shed some light on this.

"Protestant" is just an umbrella term. There is a huge range of theological views between Methodist, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptist etc.

If you come from a Roman Catholic background, you'll probably have noticed that rather than teach the various subtle differences between Luther, Welsey, Calvin etc they just lump them all together and refer to them as Protestant and there the discussion ends. Something similar is also done by various sloppy journalists in a political context especially on anything to with the North.

Very important to note is the fact that Protestants don't usually like to refer to themselves using that word. The much prefer to call themselves "Christians". Probally because they like to think of themselves as returning to the early Christian Church before the Romans corrupted it. This sits much better with them than the idea of their religion being nothing other than a derivative and spin off of a Church that was established for well over a 1,000 years before their's came along, with nothing knew to offer. What the Protestants usually don't point out is that their own Church founders Calvin, Henry and Luther were by today's standards pyschos. Luther and Calvin were found of witch burning, Luther wrote a book called "The Jews and their lies" which is no less biggotted than "Mein Kemp". And there's mud on Calvin as apparently his ego was responsible for some Spanish intellectual getting murdered. Henry was we all know didn't really have any family values. So yes RC was corrupt but there's plenty of mud on the reformed Churches.

[I've had several conversations with Church going Protestants, one of them a teacher in a Protestant school, who knew none of the above, except for Henry].

All the word Protestant really means is that Papal infallibility does not exist. After that there's quite a range of beliefs. (Which would even suggest even the word Christian is ambiguous and imprecise). Methodists for example would probably be a bit more liberal in the outlook than say Free Prebyertians (Paisley's gang). The mad thing about this and I know Noel will jump in here is many Catholics wouldn't even believe in Papal infallibility either.

In fairness, some Protestants place massive emphasis on helping the weakest and poorest others hardly any. In my experience, it's usually the full on evangelicals that place little evidence giving and humanitarian issues. But even there we are running into problems. There's different versions of evangelicalism, some full on wackos while others not so.

So whoever you were talking to was possibly only talking for a very small sub section of Protestants. The ones here are usually very passionate about what they believe in. They argue to death with atheists and somehow, through some amazing feats that I can't understand, don't change their opinion on really anything.

I would suspect you'd meet a different bunch in an average Protestant service.

Tim Robbins

Phototoxin wrote: »

For many protestants faith is a verb that means doing good works.

Disagree. It's a noun for someone who is in "protest" for the truth.

Húrin

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hi Fanny Craddock,

Well thats interesting because I work right next door to a protestant church and two of their members often come in and talk to me. They were the ones who said directly to me that the protestant church believes there is no need at all for good works, that they are pointless, they used this example for me: 'Princess Diana doing all that landmine stuff- pure waste of time'.

As I have been talking to them for so long, I thought I was pretty well versed up on Protestant beliefs. So that is not a view shared by most protestants then? That good deeds are pointless? Cause thats the bit I really had trouble understanding

Cheers

Are you sure they didn't mean that good works are pointless as a means to salvation in themselves? That is a Biblical understanding.

PDN

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I keep begging to differ but nobody wants to seem to address the issue of who actually wrote the Bible.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=475017379969914449

I'd be quite happy to discuss who actually wrote the Bible. I'm not interested in wasting time watching a video of Robert Beckford playing up for the media.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I'd be quite happy to discuss who actually wrote the Bible. I'm not interested in wasting time watching a video of Robert Beckford playing up for the media.

Playing up? That's a bit dismissive ain't it?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Playing up? That's a bit dismissive ain't it?

Yes, it's intended to be dismissive. He's forsaken serious theological discussion for grandstanding and headlining on Channel Four. A bit of cobbled together liberal theology actually appears daring to the poor luvvies who think it's something new.

O'Coonassa

PDN wrote: »

Yes, it's intended to be dismissive. He's forsaken serious theological discussion for grandstanding and headlining on Channel Four. A bit of cobbled together liberal theology actually appears daring to the poor luvvies who think it's something new.

What in particular do you find to be frivolous about his claims PDN? He merely seems to be echoing the concensus found amongst serious academic theologians. None of them seem to be labouring under the impression that the Pentateuch was written by Moses or that the four gospels of the NT were written by people who had known Jesus.

I really don't see how that can be considered 'liberal', even the Catholic Church goes along with a good deal of the analysis in the documentary and they're about the least liberal Church I can think of. He's clearly hit a raw nerve with you but your vitriol seems unwarranted given his approach to the topic. Are you dismissing the content of what he has to say as entirely without merit?

PDN

O'Coonassa wrote: »

What in particular do you find to be frivolous about his claims PDN? He merely seems to be echoing the concensus found amongst serious academic theologians. None of them seem to be labouring under the impression that the Pentateuch was written by Moses or that the four gospels of the NT were written by people who had known Jesus.

I really don't see how that can be considered 'liberal', even the Catholic Church goes along with a good deal of the analysis in the documentary and they're about the least liberal Church I can think of. He's clearly hit a raw nerve with you but your vitriol seems unwarranted given his approach to the topic. Are you dismissing the content of what he has to say as entirely without merit?

As I've already said. I'm not interested in wasting my time viewing that particular video, so I haven't a clue what he says on it. I've seen enough of Beckford's previous media activities to form an opinion without having to watch each new offering.

Your use of the word 'vitriol' seems inappropriate. All I've said is that I wouldn't waste my time watching a video of the guy. He hasn't hit 'a raw nerve' with me at all.

getz

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I believe in God and Jesus but don't like either the catholic or protestant religions:

The Catholic church seems to have completely strayed away from Jesus's teachings and is just focused on power and money. For example Jesus said both sexes are equal, so the notion that only men can be priests is very wrong. Also the images of priests driving round where Im from in flash cars and living in massive houses is etched on my mind.

I agree with some of the protestant teachings in that they were originally protesting against all the corruption and abused wealth in the catholic church. However they think that there is no point in good deeds. You can be as bad a person as you want - as long as you repent in the end and you have faith in God you're sorted. This just doesnt sit with me. I just really feel that we're here to try and be as good to each other as possible.

Anyway I believe in Jesus but dont agree with catholic or protestant religions, is there anyone else like this on here. Or is there similiar groups that I could talk to about it?

I often find if you talk to anyone in the catholic or protestant religion (especially catholic), they actually cant fathom being outside of their religion. The religion is the way it is, its always been done like that, no questioning. For example Id say 'but surely priests living in such wealthy surroundings is totally going against the christian teachings?' and they just look at you like 'I cant believe you said that, thats blasphemous - speaking against a priest, thats the way its always been done'

I guess I just want to meet people similiar to me.

Cheers.

dont class all the protestant churches as the same, some like the quakers are very different from the others -the quakers share a way of life rather than a set of beliefs,quakers seek to experience god directly within themselves,and their relationship with others and the world about them.the quaker way has its roots in christianity and finds inspiration in the bible and the life and teachings of jesus.quakers also find meaning and value in the teachings of others, and acknowledge that theirs is not the only way,[its well recorded that the quakers was the only church to raise large sums of money and open food kitchens to feed the starving in ireland during the famine] there is no record of the catholic church or the church of ireland doing anything, the other church that seem to do good is the salvation army[ est 1885] they are a evangelical christian church and exist to save souls,grow saints ?,and serve suffering humanity.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

As I've already said. I'm not interested in wasting my time viewing that particular video, so I haven't a clue what he says on it. I've seen enough of Beckford's previous media activities to form an opinion without having to watch each new offering.

Well I'm coming from a different angle. But I'd find someone like Beckford a hell of lot more challengnig than the loonies you usually see in the Dawkins and other channel 4 documentaries.

Which documentaries of his have you seen? And why are they useless?

PDN

getz wrote: »

[its well recorded that the quakers was the only church to raise large sums of money and open food kitchens to feed the starving in ireland during the famine]

That is a total falsehood. The Catholic Church, Church of Ireland, Presbyterians, Methodists and a number of others all ran food kitchens in the Famine. A small number required conversion - and were rightfully derided as promoting souperism, but most dispensed charity without such prejudice.

Most Christian churches engage in charitable work of some kind. These include setting up hospitals, drug rehabilitation centres, feeding the poor, running orphanages, AIDS education, digging wells in Africa etc.

midlandsmissus wrote:

Well thats interesting because I work right next door to a protestant church and two of their members often come in and talk to me. They were the ones who said directly to me that the protestant church believes there is no need at all for good works, that they are pointless, they used this example for me: 'Princess Diana doing all that landmine stuff- pure waste of time'.

You are managing to confuse two very different concepts:

1. Protestant churches teach that good works are useless when it comes to earning salvation. All the good works in the world will not help you get into heaven.

2. Most Protestants believe that good works are a result of salvation - that if we are truly disciples of Jesus then we should indeed be involved in good works. It is no accident that Protestants, based on their religious conviction, set up charitable bodies such as Dr Barnardos, the Salvation Army, Tear Fund, Oxfam, Christian Aid, the Samaritans etc.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well I'm coming from a different angle. But I'd find someone like Beckford a hell of lot more challenging than the loonies you usually see in the Dawkins and other channel 4 documentaries.

Which documentaries of his have you seen? And why are they useless?

I've seen him in a few videos. They all tended to follow a similar pattern. He presents one particular theory, usually one which theologians have been aware of for at least 100 years. He acts as if it is something new and presents it as if it is established fact. If he was middle aged and white then most people would just yawn. Because he's black and got dreadlocks then people think he's just made some great discovery.

I find it about as relevant as the dumbed down programmes about religion on the National Geographic and Discovery Channels.

midlandsmissus

Húrin wrote: »

Are you sure they didn't mean that good works are pointless as a means to salvation in themselves? That is a Biblical understanding.

Hi Hurin,

They did say that first of all, but then they went on to say 'that it is a complete waste of time doing good deeds at all, why bother when its not needed etc etc.'

They are a non demoninational protestant church and do call themselves protestants.

I guess its just my bad experience with one group

midlandsmissus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'm an atheist but I'm so intelligent and well informed I think I might be able to shed some light on this.

"Protestant" is just an umbrella term. There is a huge range of theological views between Methodist, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptist etc.

If you come from a Roman Catholic background, you'll probably have noticed that rather than teach the various subtle differences between Luther, Welsey, Calvin etc they just lump them all together and refer to them as Protestant and there the discussion ends. Something similar is also done by various sloppy journalists in a political context especially on anything to with the North.

Very important to note is the fact that Protestants don't usually like to refer to themselves using that word. The much prefer to call themselves "Christians". Probally because they like to think of themselves as returning to the early Christian Church before the Romans corrupted it. This sits much better with them than the idea of their religion being nothing other than a derivative and spin off of a Church that was established for well over a 1,000 years before their's came along, with nothing knew to offer. What the Protestants usually don't point out is that their own Church founders Calvin, Henry and Luther were by today's standards pyschos. Luther and Calvin were found of witch burning, Luther wrote a book called "The Jews and their lies" which is no less biggotted than "Mein Kemp". And there's mud on Calvin as apparently his ego was responsible for some Spanish intellectual getting murdered. Henry was we all know didn't really have any family values. So yes RC was corrupt but there's plenty of mud on the reformed Churches.

[I've had several conversations with Church going Protestants, one of them a teacher in a Protestant school, who knew none of the above, except for Henry].

All the word Protestant really means is that Papal infallibility does not exist. After that there's quite a range of beliefs. (Which would even suggest even the word Christian is ambiguous and imprecise). Methodists for example would probably be a bit more liberal in the outlook than say Free Prebyertians (Paisley's gang). The mad thing about this and I know Noel will jump in here is many Catholics wouldn't even believe in Papal infallibility either.

In fairness, some Protestants place massive emphasis on helping the weakest and poorest others hardly any. In my experience, it's usually the full on evangelicals that place little evidence giving and humanitarian issues. But even there we are running into problems. There's different versions of evangelicalism, some full on wackos while others not so.

So whoever you were talking to was possibly only talking for a very small sub section of Protestants. The ones here are usually very passionate about what they believe in. They argue to death with atheists and somehow, through some amazing feats that I can't understand, don't change their opinion on really anything.

I would suspect you'd meet a different bunch in an average Protestant service.

Hi,

I have to cpmpletely disagree with the bit in bold, as they certainly do call themselves protestants up here. Though I am in Northern Ireland so it is probably as much to do with distinguishing themselves from catholics.
There doesnt seem to be any baptist/methodist/quaker groups or churches around here, everyone calls themselves non-denominational protestants.

These people did say to me that 'doing good works at all' was a waste of time. Not for salvation, but at all. I guess some protestants must believe that then but not all.

I like alot of other bits about the ....I'll call it protestant religion, as I dont know enough about the differences in the sub groups, it makes alot more sense to me than the catholic religion. That good works bit was the one bit that was annoying me.

kelly1

My turn!

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The Catholic church seems to have completely strayed away from Jesus's teachings and is just focused on power and money.

I agree with you somewhat but it's important to distinguish between what the Church teaches and what "some members" practice. Remember Jesus said to the Jews about the Pharisees, "Do as they say but not as they do". The Church does teach the truth infallibly but that doesn't mean all members (of the clergy) always live according to the Gospel and of course they should. There are bishops and priests who are more concerned with promotion that the salvation of souls and they will be judged accordingly (very harshly I believe).

Then of course there are good and humble priests and bishops who live according to the Gospel and are concerned with winning souls for Christ. Too often they go unnoticed.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

For example Jesus said both sexes are equal, so the notion that only men can be priests is very wrong. Also the images of priests driving round where Im from in flash cars and living in massive houses is etched on my mind.

Men and women aren't equal but they are equal in dignity before God. Women aren't as physically strong as men and men can't give birth to children. Men and women have different roles within God's family.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Anyway I believe in Jesus but dont agree with catholic or protestant religions, is there anyone else like this on here. Or is there similiar groups that I could talk to about it?

If you don't have a visible community who share the same Lord and faith, why do you have? Jesus never intended Christianity to be an individualistic religion. The Christian family should share the same beliefs and goals and worship God together.

What kind of structure/organization, if any, do you think Jesus wants from us?

Tim Robbins

If he was middle aged and white then most people would just yawn. Because he's black and got dreadlocks then people think he's just made some great discovery.

Oh well then...

Húrin

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hi Hurin,

They did say that first of all, but then they went on to say 'that it is a complete waste of time doing good deeds at all, why bother when its not needed etc etc.'

They are a non demoninational protestant church and do call themselves protestants.

I guess its just my bad experience with one group

This would set my alarm bells ringing. They might be some right-wing American import.

To say that one should not bother with deeds is definitely not Biblical either.

Tim Robbins

Húrin wrote: »

This would set my alarm bells ringing. They might be some right-wing American import.

To say that one should not bother with deeds is definitely not Biblical either.

I agree. I am most suspicious of non - denoms.
Of course they have an interpretations / slant on the christians scriptures, it's impossible not to. They are just not stating what their leanings are.

Why not? Possibly because they'd then sound a sprung up new age version of Christianity or to many people more like a cult.

You'd be better off going for a version of Christianity where at least the leaders in it have to study in a university for a while.

wolfsbane

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Hi,

I have to cpmpletely disagree with the bit in bold, as they certainly do call themselves protestants up here. Though I am in Northern Ireland so it is probably as much to do with distinguishing themselves from catholics.
There doesnt seem to be any baptist/methodist/quaker groups or churches around here, everyone calls themselves non-denominational protestants.

These people did say to me that 'doing good works at all' was a waste of time. Not for salvation, but at all. I guess some protestants must believe that then but not all.

I like alot of other bits about the ....I'll call it protestant religion, as I dont know enough about the differences in the sub groups, it makes alot more sense to me than the catholic religion. That good works bit was the one bit that was annoying me.

I'm surprised at the absence of denominal Protestant in your area. Nearly every town I know has a Presbyterian, a CoI and maybe a Methodist church - or indeed several. I'm a Baptist and we have about 93 churches in NI.

If you wish to identify even your county, I will suggest a few possibilities.

Lurgan is my hometown and in it we have 1 Baptist, 1 non-denomiational Baptist, 1 Gospel Hall (Brethren), 1 Free Presbyterian, 2 Presbyterian, 2 Methodist, 3 CoI, 1 Quaker, 1 Salvation Army, 1 Nazarene, 1 Elim, and a few non-denominational Pentecostals.

Most of these are Evangelical and hold that good works are useless when it comes to earning salvation, but are the certain result of that salvation.

wolfsbane

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Indeed, that is all either of us can have. It is not that I have a lack of knowledge of the documents but rather that you hold John to be the innerrant word of God whereas I consider it to be the propaganda of an emergent orthodoxy that the historical Jesus would not have recognised.

The very notion of an allegedly Hebrew Jewish author talking about the "The Jews" as if they were some different nation to himself is just one clue that it isn't genuine. There are many others.

I can refer to my nation as the Ulster people, or others can refer to theirs as the Irish, the English etc. Josephus does so about his nation, the Jews.

When John refers to the Jews, he does so often as a shorthand of their leaders. So if I were refering to the British government in their discussions with the Irish government, I would use the British and the Irish. Nothing need imply either are my nation or not my nation.

But John had indeed a closer group-loyalty: the Christians were his people before all. Jews and Gentiles united in Christ.

The Jewish establishment certainly recognised the first Christians as fellow Jews, but heretics, followers of a false Messiah. That explains their violent response to them.

For your 'historic' Jesus to be true, all of the New Testament has to be false. What weight do your alternative documents have in comparison with them and the other histories we possess?