Doctrinal discussion from Catholic Church thread

[Londo_Jowo]

Some things I've never understood when it comes to Christianity is how a person who has been evil all their life can accept Jesus as their savior and ask forgiveness for their sins will be allowed in heaven yet someone who has lived a good life, helped people when they could would be condemned to hell if they haven't accepted Jesus as their savior.

Also along the same ideas why are Jews given a pass into heaven if they don't accept Jesus as their savior? Because Jesus and his parents/family were Jews?

 

[Retro Rob]

What denomination are you? Jehovah's Witness?

Actually, I just consider myself a student of the Bible, though I've considered much of their material.

Why do you ask?

 

[Retro Rob]

I agree with what you are saying!

but I also will tell you that is where the word - FAITH come in.....if we take what I am saying as the protestants would; then lets use a verse out of the scriptures...Ephesians 2:8 -- For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God. .......

The whole issue of religion boils down to one word in my opinion -- Faith......

We can talk all day about proof or lack of proof yet in the end we will truly know one way or the other when we have passed on.....

Is "faith" evidence, or we just supposed to accept the word of God without needing any proof?

You can't have faith in something you don't believe exists, you can't believe something exist without evidence. Seems as if you're offering blind faith.

I paritally agree with you needing faith, but I can equally understand why non-believers call Christianity gullibilty, and using "faith" in god as a crutch when they can't explain the unexplainable.(hence, the trinity doctrine) So in order to reconcile this with their doctrine, they simply say we must believe becasue it's beyond human comprehension.

Doc Savage, this is the main reason why I don't consider myself a fellow "Christian". Though, I can be wrong about it generally speaking, but something I don't think Jesus offered was blind "faith" seeing all the miracles and such to prove he was the Christ. He provided evidence, not just demand a goup of Jews believe in him without him doing anything, and then dash to pieces those who questioned him.

Sorry, I am just personally irritated by this -- the Church, IMO, has done much more harm than good to Christianity over the centuries and are doing more harm in modern times with their inability to properly explain a central part of their doctrine, the trinity, yet they expect you to believe it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Some things I've never understood when it comes to Christianity is how a person who has been evil all their life can accept Jesus as their savior and ask forgiveness for their sins will be allowed in heaven yet someone who has lived a good life, helped people when they could would be condemned to hell if they haven't accepted Jesus as their savior.

Also along the same ideas why are Jews given a pass into heaven if they don't accept Jesus as their savior? Because Jesus and his parents/family were Jews?

The jews rejected Jesus a long time ago, in fact, they really had him killed. From that point on, the Mosaic Convenant had been broken with them. Their rejection of Jesus primarily revolved around the fact that they wanted Jesus to relieve them from the Roman yoke of dominance - they also felt like since they were decendants of Abraham, they didn't need anyone to die for them, so they rejected him.

Jesus said their house was "abandoned to them" and that he would give it to a nation "producing it's fruits".

In short, they have no pass into heaven. They rejected Jesus, so they were rejected.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Actually, I just consider myself a student of the Bible, though I've considered much of their material.

Why do you ask?

The reason I ask is that the concept of trinity is a widely held tenet within mainstream Christianity. Your belief is outside the pale of orthodoxy...which begs the question: "What denomination do you belong to?"

 

[Retro Rob]

The reason I ask is that the concept of trinity is a widely held tenet within mainstream Christianity.

I understand, fair point.

Mainstream Christianity teaching a lot of things I can't wrap my mind around.

1) Hellfire -- does not 1 John 4:8 say God is Love? Why would a loving God enternally punish people who already paid for their sins in death - Romans 6:23. What sin could we commit that causes God to tourment "souls" forever?

2) Trinity - aren't there several occasions when Jesus prayed to God? Before raising Lazarus, he prayed to God, before his death in the garden of Gethsemane, he prayed to let his death pass, "not as I will, but you will". Was Jesus praying to himself?

This is to name a couple. Mainstream Christianity even adopted pagan traditions such as Christmas and Greek philosophy which includes plato's teachings of the "soul being separate" and the afterlife, and they still say these are Christian teachings and teach people in their Churches to that effect.

This is my issue -- they're making bad things good and are refusing to abandon these things because they've become traditional teachings and people have grown accustomed to them.

I don't want anything to do with mainstream Christianity.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't want anything to do with mainstream Christianity.

You know...if you do anything...you've got to be true to yourself. This applies to everybody...you, me, agnostics, atheists, etc. One really can't fault another for taking this path in my opinion.

But who are we to judge God?

My brain only weighs about 3 pounds and I personally don't think it's up to the task.

 

[Retro Rob]

You know...if you do anything...you've got to be true to yourself. This applies to everybody...you, me, agnostics, atheists, etc. One really can't fault another for taking this path in my opinion.

But who are we to judge God?

My brain only weighs about 3 pounds and I personally don't think it's up to the task.

Yeah, true. However, I felt I needed to support my reasons for rejecting mainstream Christianity -- I didn't just want to voice my opinion without backing it up.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Yeah, true. However, I felt I needed to support my reasons for rejecting mainstream Christianity -- I didn't just want to voice my opinion without backing it up.

If that's the case...where's your evidence supporting your position on the trinity. I think your position is very weak.

 

[Retro Rob]

If that's the case...where's your evidence supporting your position on the trinity. I think your position is very weak.

Quick question before I answer -- you believe in the Trinity or no?

I think this is important before making my case to you.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Quick question before I answer -- you believe in the Trinity or no?

I think this is important before making my case to you.

I believe that God is much more complex than I can possibly imagine. Does that answer your question?

 

[Retro Rob]

I believe that God is much more complex than I can possibly imagine. Does that answer your question?

A yes or no would have been sufficient...:\

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

A yes or no would have been sufficient...:\

Sorry. I don't think it's that simple.

 

[Retro Rob]

Sorry. I don't think it's that simple.

Look, I understand that.

The reason I asked becasue your views kinda helps determine how deep (or shallow) evidence needs to be. If you already accept the trinity as doctrine, then it would be tougher for me to convince you otherwise, whereas if you don't, then it makes it a little easier.

I suspect you are leaning toward the doctrine, hence, the reason I was motivated to ask.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Look, I understand that.

The reason I asked becasue your views kinda helps determine how deep (or shallow) evidence needs to be. If you already accept the trinity as doctrine, then it would be tougher for me to convince you otherwise, whereas if you don't, then it makes it a little easier.

I suspect you are leaning toward the doctrine, hence, the reason I was motivated to ask.

Actually, I don't think you understand where I'm coming from.

Anyway please give it a shot...I'm interested to see what you come up with.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I don't think the trinity is any more confusing or mysterious than understanding that the leaf of a clover is at once the clover and a leaf.

How can one provide proof for a book of fiction?

The assumption upon which these discussions are built is that there is some degree of facticity/trustworthiness to the bible.

Enterprise >> star-destroyer btw.

Some things I've never understood when it comes to Christianity is how a person who has been evil all their life can accept Jesus as their savior and ask forgiveness for their sins will be allowed in heaven yet someone who has lived a good life, helped people when they could would be condemned to hell if they haven't accepted Jesus as their savior.

I had the same questions and these are the answers I came up with, I don't argue that they are THE answers as I'm always learning, and I must admit that I'm outside the main-stream in my denomination (Baptist) in some of my conclusions:

No one is free of other-hurting self-serving lust or pride*, thus no one lives a good life; but by grace through faith some are saved. That said, while Jesus is the only way to Heaven (his sacrifice was needed to bridge the gap between God and man), I'm not sure that a buddhist or even raging atheist will not be accepted into heaven in the same way anyone else is saved: By grace.

I am sure, though, that if someone is living a lifestyle of sin*, be they Christian or not, this verse applies:

"By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."

This is how your questions were answered for me; I hope that helps, but I don't presume to have answered your questions for you.

 

[Retro Rob]

Actually, I don't think you understand where I'm coming from.

Anyway please give it a shot...I'm interested to see what you come up with.

True, I may not understand where you're coming from. Please explain, sir.

At any rate, I will just be quick: I follow the source, Jesus, when it comes to this.

John 17:3 When praying "this means eternal life.. taking in knowledge... of the only true God and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ". If he was God, why would he refer to another "being" as being the True God?

John 14:28 where Jesus himself admitted the father is greater than him.

I can't find one passage where Jesus said he was God. The remark "I and the Father are one" was reference to he and God being in one accord (agreement) in regards the care of his Father's sheep.

Johm 20:17, he said he is ascending to the father.... to my God and your God.

For now thats it... outside the fact that the Trinity wasn't accepted until after the Bible was completed, sometime toward the closing of the 4th Century, which probably means the early Christians didn't teach it. To add, the Church was already embroiled with the Pagan Roman form of worship anyway.. no telling what they were willing to accept.

EDIT: In Matt 4:1-11, Jesus was speaking with the devil, even Satan recognised who Jesus was when he said "If you are a Son of God"... Also, when ending that conversation, Jesus said "it is God alone you must worship". Again, Jesus made a distinction between he and God.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

In existential philosophy there is the epistemic (thinking) the empiric (seeing) and the ontologic (being); This trinity of aspects of a dasein (individual) can and does reference one-another (ie. seeing interacts woth believing) but this does not mean they don't all describe manifestations of a single entity.

True, I may not understand where you're coming from. Please explain, sir.

At any rate, I will just be quick: I follow the source, Jesus, when it comes to this.

John 17:3 When praying "this means eternal life.. taking in knowledge... of the only true God and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ". If he was God, why would he refer to another "being" as being the True God?

John 14:28 where Jesus himself admitted the father is greater than him.

I can't find one passage where Jesus said he was God. The remark "I and the Father are one" was reference to he and God being in one accord (agreement) in regards the care of his Father's sheep.

Johm 20:17, he said he is ascending to the father.... to my God and your God.

For now thats it... outside the fact that the Trinity wasn't accepted until after the Bible was completed, sometime toward the closing of the 4th Century, which probably means the early Christians didn't teach it. To add, the Church was already embroiled with the Pagan Roman form of worship anyway.. no telling what they were willing to accept.

EDIT: In Matt 4:1-11, Jesus was speaking with the devil, even Satan recognised who Jesus was when he said "If you are a Son of God"... Also, when ending that conversation, Jesus said "it is God alone you must worship". Again, Jesus made a distinction between he and God.

This is all circumstantial and easily explained as Jesus referring to God-head and not their unity. It would have greater weight if John chapter 1 didn't unambiguously contradict your ambiguous reading of the previous verses.

This seems to be a very sticky thorn in the side of your intpreation: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." Could you please address this?

 

[Retro Rob]

This is all circumstantial and easily explained as Jesus referring to God-head and not their unity. It would have greater weight if John chapter 1 didn't unambiguously contradict your ambiguous reading of the previous verses.

Actually, why don't you prove he was referring to godhead, or are you attempting to rewrite history by putting words in his mouth?

Would you kindly address why this is ambiguous: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."?

Ok, so one passage explains the entire Gospel, I see.

Re-read.. it says "the word was WITH God". In light of the verse I stated, how can he be WITH God, while at the same time IS God?

Verse 18 of John says "No man has seen God, but the son explains him" in short.

So, if we haven't seen God at anytime, how can the Son explain him, if the Son is God and we can see him (Jesus)?

 

[OrByte]

True, I may not understand where you're coming from. Please explain, sir.

At any rate, I will just be quick: I follow the source, Jesus, when it comes to this.

John 17:3 When praying "this means eternal life.. taking in knowledge... of the only true God and the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ". If he was God, why would he refer to another "being" as being the True God?

John 14:28 where Jesus himself admitted the father is greater than him.

I can't find one passage where Jesus said he was God. The remark "I and the Father are one" was reference to he and God being in one accord (agreement) in regards the care of his Father's sheep.

Johm 20:17, he said he is ascending to the father.... to my God and your God.

For now thats it... outside the fact that the Trinity wasn't accepted until after the Bible was completed, sometime toward the closing of the 4th Century, which probably means the early Christians didn't teach it. To add, the Church was already embroiled with the Pagan Roman form of worship anyway.. no telling what they were willing to accept.

EDIT: In Matt 4:1-11, Jesus was speaking with the devil, even Satan recognised who Jesus was when he said "If you are a Son of God"... Also, when ending that conversation, Jesus said "it is God alone you must worship". Again, Jesus made a distinction between he and God.

When Jesus prays in Gethsemane, it is clear that it is a man praying for mercy to his God.

Do you think God would ever doubt his own plan?

there is always a clear distinction between God in Heaven and Jesus, the son of God sent down to die for mans sin.

I think your question is based in unknowing the nature of God. and that is fine, no one knows the true nature of God. Or that God can place himself in and amongst man, to sacrifice his perfect creation (man is created perfectly) for the sins of the people.

Why does it have to be some sort of visable/tangible power of God to place himself in Jesus Christ? OR that the holy spirit needs to be some visable/tangible entity that walks along side jesus?...when in fact the holy spirit is a representation of everything that God is/was/will be?

empirical evidence will not work in this area of faith, because it is faith that permits the LACK of understanding the nature of God. And it is faith that makes it possible to understand how God/Jesus/Holy Spirit are one.

When Jesus was with his disciples, there were no halos. There were never any halos. To them, he was a man. He was a teacher, even to the most devote disciple, only after Jesus's resurrection was it evident that he was more than that

Every time Jesus did something omnipotent (walk on water, quell the stormy seas, etc etc) the disciples trembled in fear. Because they were witnessing a man that did the supernatural.

It was never something that Jesus walked around with an "I am God" sticker on his chest.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Actually, why don't you prove he was referring to godhead, or are you attempting to rewrite history by putting words in his mouth?

Because a fair reading of the verses you presented is ambiguous.

Re-read.. it says "the word was WITH God". In light of the verse I stated, how can he be WITH God, while at the same time IS God?

Because it says "and the Word was God". I have now given you both centuries old metaphor (clover) and a modern existential philosophical explanation of the trinity that makes it possible for something to be both three things and one thing. Your responses don't address these points, or even seem to consider them, they simply shout at me while totally ignoring half of the verse presented.

 

[Retro Rob]

Because a fair reading of the verses you presented is ambiguous.


Because it says "and the Word was God". I have now given you both centuries old metaphor (clover) and a modern existential philosophical explanation of the trinity that makes it possible for something to be both three things and one thing. Your responses don't address these points, or even seem to consider them, they simply shout at me while totally ignoring half of the verse presented.

My problem is that you all have a history of stealing pagan traditions and calling it Christian. Christmas celebrating and Greek Philosophy, things you haven't addressed, are just two of them. Did Jesus tell his followers to remember his birthday? No, it was his death. Did Jesus advise yall to kill non-believers? He admonished to "Love neighbor as self", yet blood fills the early Church.

It so happen that the Trinity dogma came mainstream 300-400 years after the Apostles died, along with the rest of the so-called "Christian Traditions" you guys still teach till this day.

This stuff is deeply ingrained in Christendom, along with their meddles in Politics (also something Jesus didn't do, nor his Apostles). Yet, there are plenty so-called "Christians" running for office and attempting to influence law-making.

You all have zero credibilty when it comes to proper Biblical interpretation.

EDIT: In fact, Christianity sprang from Judaism. Judaism was Unitarian, and you guys are Trinitarian? Sound like you're deviating from the truth.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

My problem is that you all have a history of stealing pagan traditions and calling it Christian.

That's a fair criticism, and if you would like to point out such situations I'm likely to agree that there's a doctrinal problem

Christmas celebrating and Greek Philosophy, things you haven't addressed, are just two of them.

Christ is a stumbling block to the greek: the but that stumbling block is exactly the problem you are having, the illogic of being and being with simultaneously (as in John 1) is what was upsetting the greek.

Did Jesus tell his followers to remember his birthday? No, it was his death. Did Jesus advise yall to kill non-believers? He admonished to "Love neighbor as self", yet blood fills the early Church.

If Zeus mantained dogma by the romans then it would be in the name of Zuse the major trade-channel of the "holy lands" was fought over, and in the name of Zuse that the spanish would have murdered natives. People use ideology to kill; the ideology doesn't matter for people who utilize it for their own enrichment.

It so happen that the Trinity dogma came mainstream 300-400 years after the Apostles died, along with the rest of the so-called "Christian Traditions" you guys still teach till this day.

Who are 'you guys'; a typical rhetorical move to de-individualize and thus dismis is to refer to a collective 'you' that someone disagrees with. I'm not saying this is intentional, but rather that it's likely helping support your unwillingness to accept that individuals can have ideas that differ from your own without being controlled by, or necessarily answerable for, 2000 years of church history. While roman Catholic dogmatic law did not recognize the trinity, the fullness of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is where the doctrine of the trinity started. And the doctrine of a multiple-united creator starts in genesis.

This stuff is deeply ingrained in Christendom, along with their meddles in Politics (also something Jesus didn't do, nor his Apostles). Yet, there are plenty so-called "Christians" running for office and attempting to influence law-making.

Jesus didn't tell his followers to NOT be involved in government or politics; particularly, since we vote we are responsable to vote our conscience and vote for those that represent our conscience.

You all have zero credibilty when it comes to proper Biblical interpretation.

What evidence do you have to support my, personal, inability to 'properly' understand scripture? Why do you have credibility and I don't? It seems you're just name-calling and insulting in place of providing well-thought-out ideas.

You've already admitted you've got JW by training; I'm more than willing to accept the JW premises and THEN argue my point. By hiding why you actually believe what you are saying you make it impossible to talk to you at your own level; thus you don't "risk" an argument you might lose.

You're giving me the "party line" so that the underlying faith-assumption can not be exposed. This is the height of intelectual dishonesty.

EDIT: In fact, Christianity sprang from Judaism. Judaism was Unitarian, and you guys are Trinitarian? Sound like you're deviating from the truth.

Abraham bowed down and tithed to Melchizedek, who Hebrews establishes IS Jesus. Further, "we" is used in Genesis when speaking of creation. Finally, the divinity of the Messiah to come is well established in Isaiah.

One more time, so you have a chance to show yourself to be an honest broker:
RM:that verse says 'the word was with God' how can you say it was God if it was WITH God

Me: Because that same verse also says "and the Word was God".

I have now given you both centuries old metaphor (clover) and a modern existential philosophical explanation* of the trinity that makes it possible for a being to be both three things and one thing. These are perfectly logical explanations of why we are as unitarian as Torah Jews.

*The epistemological chain for this philosophy, from modern to ancient, is Heidegger <- Kierkegaard <- Paul <- Solomon

Fact 1: I have presented verses that you have not answered.
Fact 2: You have said there are piles of proof, but you have failed to provide those piles

You all have zero credibilty when it comes to proper Biblical interpretation.

Fact 3: You have lowered the level of this conversation by being insulting; assuming your own "credibility" while denying my own.

You've literally dismissed me as worthless here for no other reason than it serves to maintain your world view. Does this self-serving pride give you any pause at all? If not I understand, and see why you would deny the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

 

[werepossum]

So, ones actions have absolutely nothing to do with it?

Confessing "Jesus is lord" is all that's needed no matter what?

You have to realize that before you believe something in your heart, you have to be at least practicing your "faith" to the extent that it reaches you heart, or that "confession" means absolutely nothing. This includes living a morally upright life, including the rejection of homosexuality.

Personally and no offense to you, but a fundamentalist reading of the Bible and strict literal interpretation has done a huge disservice to the Bible and as heaped great reproach on the Book and is probably the one of the main reason people reject it. An example of the is the erroneous teaching that Jesus is God and that God sacrificed Himself, to himself, for himself, and resurrected himself. I can easily see why Atheist laugh at this.

Creationism is derived the exact same way. So no, I reject your stance that "believing" in your heart is all that is needed to become a Christian, because it's false, and undermines the entire Bible.

I'm more of the opinion that Jesus was an aspect of G-d but had to be mortal, suffer as do mortals, for a time to become the Redeemer. Just as (at the time) mortals gave sacrifice to G-d, so did G-d give a sacrifice to the mortals. Therefore Jesus is divine as a part of infinity is still infinity, but separate from G-d from conception. I've never really understood why the Holy Spirit needs to be a separate being rather than an inherent and integral part of G-d, but Christians tend to get agitated if one asks and are pretty much divided into Unitarians and Trinitarians so I just try not to think about it. LOL

I understand more now about your rejection of homosexuality as immoral - you're more of a Unitarian, correct? More of an Aryan, Jesus as prophet but not divine? Within that context, considering homosexuality as immoral makes more sense as the Old Testament would be considered still G-d's Law, along with dietary and other similar restrictions. I've always found it amazing that people who claim that belief in Jesus as the Redeemer is sufficient for salvation (of which I am generally one) reject homosexuality as immoral considering that to our knowledge, it's a subject on which He never spoke. I do agree that accepting Jesus' teachings and attempting to live by them is a necessary part of accepting Jesus as the Redeemer - but again, it's not to our knowledge one of His concerns. Personally I am agnostic about the morality of homosexuality as I have a hard time believing that a G-d of love would create people who are naturally and totally only attracted to the same sex and then deny them that kind of relationship, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, whilst the rest of us pursue happiness with His blessing. Seem kind of a dick thing to do, so since it doesn't affect me personally I'll leave it to the individual and the Creator.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I've never really understood why the Holy Spirit needs to be a separate being rather than an inherent and integral part of G-d, but Christians tend to get agitated if one asks and are pretty much divided into Unitarians and Trinitarians so I just try not to think about it. LOL

There is a LOT more hermeneutic support for dismissing the divinity of the Holy Spirit that the divinity of Jesus. That said, when I experienced the fullness of the spirit, the trinity became a non-question.

reject homosexuality as immoral considering that to our knowledge, it's a subject on which He never spoke.

It's because Paul's texts are clearly translated as including homosexuality as a fruit that indicates a person is not rooted in Christ. This, though, is a political translation of a term referring to the rape of children; and Jesus was VERRY strongly against hurting children. In this way the pauline texts against 'homosexuality' make much more sense, and align much better, with the teachings of Christ.

That said: when paul went to the rest of the apostles and told them of the grace by faith he was preaching, they said that he should still tell the people that they should not eat strangled meat and should follow sexual morality. I think this stipulation was for health reasons; a God-given jewish insight into proper cleanliness. As it is fairly clear that we'd have no problem with mad-cow if we followed Kosher law regarding beef, and anal sex was a major health-negative until condoms and antibiotics (ie, it was a lust that caused others to be hurt... though the same could be said of procreative sex)