You can't leave out Romans 3:23.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity
- Thread starter PaulF
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
You can't leave out Romans 3:23.
Check out Siegfried and Roy's explanation of how people evolved from amoebas.
T.Lex, I was enjoying the debate and did not intend disrespect. I hope the discussion causes spiritual growth and not discouragement.
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" -- Romans 3:23
When Paul wrote Romans, Jesus had already lived, died, and resurrected. Paul knew about Christ's mother, Mary. She was a faithful Jew; our sister in Christ. She was not an exception to God's Word; ALL of us are sinners, flawed, and therefore need a savior. She ought not be "Hailed" as a sinless human. More importantly, Catholics should not teach such dangerous and misleading doctrines about the nature of sin. The scriptures speak for themselves on this.
Last edited:
One of my law professors likened constitutional strict constructionists to Protestants and constitutional "living document" loose-constructionists to Catholics (and of course, this is a "by and large" comparison that is not meant to be perfect or all-encompassing).
Like a strict constructionist believes the Constitution means exactly what the framers said and meant at the time, a Protestant believes that the Bible means what it says without later interpretations, additions or clarifications.
The "loose constructionist" believes that the Constitution is a "Living Document" where judicial interpretation changes the meanings over time to comply with the ideas of the Constitution, though not necessarily the text as originally written. Likewise, Catholics believe that the Pope and various Diets and pronouncements can add to the Scripture and change and amend the understanding over time with authority equal to Scripture.
Like I said- not a 100% accurate comparison, but an interesting way of thinking about issues.
Like a strict constructionist believes the Constitution means exactly what the framers said and meant at the time, a Protestant believes that the Bible means what it says without later interpretations, additions or clarifications.
The "loose constructionist" believes that the Constitution is a "Living Document" where judicial interpretation changes the meanings over time to comply with the ideas of the Constitution, though not necessarily the text as originally written. Likewise, Catholics believe that the Pope and various Diets and pronouncements can add to the Scripture and change and amend the understanding over time with authority equal to Scripture.
Like I said- not a 100% accurate comparison, but an interesting way of thinking about issues.
re: Catholic doctrine vs. the Bible
Let's leave aside the debate over whether such prayers, specifically the ones to Mary, fit the definition of worship. Let's focus strictly on this question: "Is it biblical to ask any deceased human, or an angel, for a favor directly through prayer?"
We have ample reason to ask for prayer from the living. We are supposed to be praying for each other, and requesting prayers. All examples of prayer in the bible are prayers sent directly to God. We have not seen any biblical evidence that we can invoke our saintly ancestors for extra help in reaching God. In thousands of verses, the bible shows nobody praying to Abraham, Moses, Jacob, David, Adam, after their respective deaths, or asking them to intercede. To the contrary, we have indication that invoking the dead is condemned.
I understand that people do this with good intentions, but we know where those lead. At some point we need to point to a chapter and verse.
According to Catholic doctrine, confessing to a priest is not optional. Confession is a holy sacrament in and of itself, and an obligation before communion. A person who never "goes to confession" would be disobedient and unworthy of participating in Eucharist. Here's what U.S. Catholic published on the subject:
"Finally, we are obligated to go to confession because participation in the Eucharist is our greatest joy and privilege, as well as a duty (at least once a year, preferably during the Easter season, but that's just the bare minimum). To participate worthily, we must be free of mortal sin." -- U.S. Catholic, Vol. 77, No. 6, p. 46
We can only go from the details we are given in scripture. Christ says he completely redeems us. Faith in him, by the grace of God, makes us pure, blameless, and holy. We've been promised salvation.
"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace that he lavished on us." Ephesians 1:7
"All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure." 1 John 3:3
Is Christ deceiving us? Is his blood not enough? Will He burn His children with fire?
If we doubt his promises, is that not an admission of faithlessness? Remember, faith is the vehicle to salvation. Purgatory is an insidious way to sew distrust in Christ!
Let's leave aside the debate over whether such prayers, specifically the ones to Mary, fit the definition of worship. Let's focus strictly on this question: "Is it biblical to ask any deceased human, or an angel, for a favor directly through prayer?"
We have ample reason to ask for prayer from the living. We are supposed to be praying for each other, and requesting prayers. All examples of prayer in the bible are prayers sent directly to God. We have not seen any biblical evidence that we can invoke our saintly ancestors for extra help in reaching God. In thousands of verses, the bible shows nobody praying to Abraham, Moses, Jacob, David, Adam, after their respective deaths, or asking them to intercede. To the contrary, we have indication that invoking the dead is condemned.
I understand that people do this with good intentions, but we know where those lead. At some point we need to point to a chapter and verse.
According to Catholic doctrine, confessing to a priest is not optional. Confession is a holy sacrament in and of itself, and an obligation before communion. A person who never "goes to confession" would be disobedient and unworthy of participating in Eucharist. Here's what U.S. Catholic published on the subject:
"Finally, we are obligated to go to confession because participation in the Eucharist is our greatest joy and privilege, as well as a duty (at least once a year, preferably during the Easter season, but that's just the bare minimum). To participate worthily, we must be free of mortal sin." -- U.S. Catholic, Vol. 77, No. 6, p. 46
We can only go from the details we are given in scripture. Christ says he completely redeems us. Faith in him, by the grace of God, makes us pure, blameless, and holy. We've been promised salvation.
"In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace that he lavished on us." Ephesians 1:7
"All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure." 1 John 3:3
Is Christ deceiving us? Is his blood not enough? Will He burn His children with fire?
If we doubt his promises, is that not an admission of faithlessness? Remember, faith is the vehicle to salvation. Purgatory is an insidious way to sew distrust in Christ!
Last edited:
My friend in Christ, I am absolutely comfortable in my religion and my faith journey. I did not reach this point on the path lightly, or without examining my own conscience, or without thinking critically about my faith. You cannot do anything to distort my spiritual growth. You, calling me a heretic, says more about you than it does of me.
Yet, I will admit, at a personal level, your fully-formed sentiment is discouraging, disrespectful, and divisive. It reveals that you are not interested in learning, or growth, or even civility on this topic. In one fell swoop, you showed that you are only interested in being right-ier than the rest of us.
I do not have all the answers, but I have my own answers to your questions. I am more than willing - and I believe I've shown this over the years - to support my positions. But now, it isn't even worth it to engage with you on this. You are firm and comfortable in your own faith, and that is a good thing.
Romans 12:3-5 said:
We will likely engage in political issues, where I believe we both have something of value to offer from different perspectives, but this Comparative Religion topic will likely be fruitless.
ETA:
Tonight I had the unusual opportunity to attend Mass and say a couple decades of the rosary. I generally don't believe in coincidences, so I tried to sort out what God intended. (Particularly since the sister leading the rosary started out with the imperative that we should answer "Yes" when God asks something of us.) The second reading included the Romans verse I quoted. I found it apt.
Last edited:
Where does that put the Orthodox?
If we all truly wanted to practice as they did in the very beginning of the church, we'd be arguing over which Orthodox church is older.
Reminds me of a joke an Orthodox Priest told me when we were sitting next to each other on a flight from Chicago. (Somewhat ironically, I had just argued a death penalty case earlier that day.) So an Orthodox practitioner was stranded on a deserted island. Finally, in answer to his prayers, a boat came to rescue him. When his rescuers found him, they saw that he had built 2 churches out of palm trees.
"Why are there 2 churches?" they asked.
"Well," he replied, "This church is the church I go to. That one is the one I don't go to."
(Hey - there aren't that many Orthodox jokes out there, so they don't necessarily HAVE to be funny.)
Very interesting thread. I'm glad INGO had the guts to allow civil debate on religious ideas.
And now for something completely different... I attend a Mennonite Church. I am not Mennonite myself. They know my views on self-defense, which stands starkly in contrast to their stance on pacifism. They firmly believe we are called as Christians to "turn the other cheek" and to not use violence. They are guided by the idea that to defend oneself is a sin. They willingly choose to be a "sheep" in the face of aggression. I think it does help them with their focus on God's grace and protection. What do other members of INGO think?
And now for something completely different... I attend a Mennonite Church. I am not Mennonite myself. They know my views on self-defense, which stands starkly in contrast to their stance on pacifism. They firmly believe we are called as Christians to "turn the other cheek" and to not use violence. They are guided by the idea that to defend oneself is a sin. They willingly choose to be a "sheep" in the face of aggression. I think it does help them with their focus on God's grace and protection. What do other members of INGO think?
You had me stuck at the title. Will there be all things Hindu, Muslim, Jewish, Zoroastrian, or does 'religion' = Christianity. The merged discussions weren't limited to Christianity. Why the title?
I'm cool with it.
I mean, it isn't the path that calls to me, but I understand how they could arrive at that method of practicing their faith.
Like with so many (maybe all?) of the various flavors, they are emphasizing one aspect of God's grace. It is a totally legitimate grace to emphasize, but there are other parts that resonate more with me personally.
So, start one similar on discussing whatever religion you'd prefer to discuss.
1. FIFY
2. It ain't easy living like a saint.
haha
Yeah, but I see this thread as doing 2 things:
1) Letting Christians learn more about each other's faith sub-set; and,
2) Providing a place for non-Christians to learn more about Christianity (perhaps lurk while doing so).
Ideally, this would be a neutral venue for this kind of dialogue.
YUP! The best pizza in the world is made by Sal & Carmine (Roman Catholics) 102nd-103st Brdwy, NYC (Spanish Harlem). There is a rose there, but it's in a flower shop...
steveh_131
Grandmaster
T.Lex said:
He didn't necessarily call you a heretic. He was pointing out a few catholic prayers that contain heresies. Calling Mary sinless... isn't that a heresy in the face of the scriptures?
Semantically, I take it as an article of faith that she was. So, he considers me a heretic. How can that be interpreted any other way?
Moreover, if he considers it heresy (as you appear to), then there's no point in further discussion of the matter. You've already dismissed any counter-point.
steveh_131
Grandmaster
T.Lex said:
I think you're being rather dramatic with the term. Anybody with a misconception of the bible might be called a heretic, by that standard.
T.Lex said:
He's simply making the case that it is contrary to scripture. Which is the definition of heresy. If you think it's not, make your case. Maybe you're right and he's wrong.
I, for one, am genuinely curious how you reconcile this article of faith with scriptures that appear to indicate that it can't be true.
Which ones?
- Status
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here -
KellyinAvonBlue-ID Mafia Consigliere
Members online
- DoggyDaddy
- Riflemen14
- chuckp
- Dentoro
- Goodcat
- BeDome
- KLB
- d.kaufman
- Simon6101
- armalitesheepdog
- Shadow01
- bgcatty
- TriggerOutdoor
- Guffey
- Ted@
- Floivanus
- Ingomike
- buckwacker
- 66chevelle
- BAgun
- invent11
- mcoppers
- Greg1
- Chance
- Frank_N_Stein
- edwea
- traderjoe
- trip007
- TLHelmer
- KYLogger
- Creedmoor
- pewpewINpewpew
- Bighoss91
- cobber
- sumphead
- mcapo
- STFU
- mhs
- jamil
- jsx1043
- Luke9455
- ChrisK
- XDdreams
- KellyinAvon
- Chaddeous
- bobjones223
- Ozzy17
- slims2002
- Mgderf
- bigretic
