Originally posted by chancremechanicIf that is so, then how much more difficult is it to believe that "real" forgiveness of sins can be administered in sacramental form through a sinful priest?
Yes, the Bible was written by imperfect human beings, but it was made infallable by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit....when inspired by the Holy Spirit, even imperfect man can become perfect...this statement will, no doubt, start another tirade from the Bible-haters...but that is what one must believe in order to use the scriptures for daily living...something that I have trouble doing, and that I readily admit....
Here's another verse: "Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed." (James 5:16)
Many Catholics I know have a fundamental difficulty in confession because it means they have to open themselves up to a (possible) stranger.
I'd hate to have to pick the best. But as for the worst... If you go strictly by the amount of time that radio preachers spend criticizing denominations, the L.D.S. church (Mormons) would have to be it. A big point is always made about how Mormons supposedly believe that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, and about how Joseph Smith made heavy use of Freemason symbology when he invented L.D.S.
Originally posted by Paul DiracActually, if you go by pure airtime given to demonization, that award would go to the Catholic Church.
I'd hate to have to pick the best. But as for the worst... If you go strictly by the amount of time that radio preachers spend criticizing denominations, the L.D.S. church (Mormons) would have to be it. A big point is always made about how Mormons supposedly believe that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, and about how Joseph Smith made heavy use of Freemason symbology when he invented L.D.S.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou are right about the verse in James, but it says "confess sins to each other"...I've never had a Priest confess his sins to me...
If that is so, then how much more difficult is it to believe that "real" forgiveness of sins can be administered in sacramental form through a sinful priest?
Here's another verse: "Therefore, confess your sins to one another a ...[text shortened]... means they have to open themselves up to a (possible) stranger.
...and, a Priest cannot 'forgive' one of their sins, unless the person transgressed the Priest....only Jesus can forgive impersonal sins....in my opinion
not saying you're wrong...just saying that Catholicism is by no means THE Church that best represents Christianity....in my opinion, of course
The last part of your post described me as a youth...and even today....prayer and forgiveness are intensly personal to me and my redeemer...
Originally posted by chancremechanicAs you know I am not a Bible-hater. I have serious problems with terms like "inerrant" or "infallible" for several reasons. I have no trouble with seeing the Bible as "inspired." No where does the Bible describe itself as inerrant. It says that it is useful for instruction, correction and the like. If you say that the bible is infallible, you are going to be in a position of having to defend contradictions in it. You also forget that it is a book of poetry, literature and is by itsx very nature open to interpretation. Finally, to say something is infallible creates a situation of idolatry. Why would one even need God if the Bible is infallible?
Yes, the Bible was written by imperfect human beings, but it was made infallable by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit....when inspired by the Holy Spirit, even imperfect man can become perfect...this statement will, no doubt, start another tirade from the Bible-haters...but that is what one must believe in order to use the scriptures for daily living...something that I have trouble doing, and that I readily admit....
Originally posted by darvlayWhich christian sect is the best? I would have to say the Gnostics. Why, you may ask? Because the Gnostic branch of christianity died out many hundreds of years ago. They no longer exist. A branch of christianity that is no longer practiced is far and away the best. Having said that, I've always been a little partial to the Marcionites as well. For the very same reason, of course.
I'm curious to know the truth. Let's hear it.
And no replies saying, "Tra-la-la, we are all God's children and we are equal in his glorious eyes." Bull-honkey! If that were true then Man would have no problem unifying the church under one big pan-Christian authority. This is a debate.
Why is one particular sect of Christianity God's ...[text shortened]... e the one true faith is completely delusional and is in need of psychoanalysis.
Any comments?
Plus it's always interesting to see how radically different christianity might have turned out if one of the other competing groups had gained ascendancy prior to the Council of Nicaea. The reason christianity took on it's present form has more to do with politics than with theology. It could have turned out very differently.
Originally posted by rwingettRob, I think you could find a home with the Unitarian Universalists. They are as "freethinking" as it gets in terms of religion.
Which christian sect is the best? I would have to say the Gnostics. Why, you may ask? Because the Gnostic branch of christianity died out many hundreds of years ago. They no longer exist. A branch of christianity that is no longer practiced is far and away the best. Having said that, I've always been a little partial to the Marcionites as well. For the ver ...[text shortened]... orm has more to do with politics than with theology. It could have turned out very differently.
Originally posted by darvlayWhat makes you think God is overly impressed with any man made
I'm curious to know the truth. Let's hear it.
And no replies saying, "Tra-la-la, we are all God's children and we are equal in his glorious eyes." Bull-honkey! If that were true then Man would have no problem unifying the church under one big pan-Christian authority. This is a debate.
Why is one particular sect of Christianity God's ...[text shortened]... e the one true faith is completely delusional and is in need of psychoanalysis.
Any comments?
denomination?
Kelly
Originally posted by kirksey957I don't understand your logic, Kirksey, in that if God wants us to use the Bible as a guide for living a righteous life, whay would He make it infallible? God cannot make mistakes, so if He inspired the Bible it must be right...right???....now, here's the kicker: fallible man interprets the messages of the Bible and implements them into his preferred way of life: sexual immorality, greed, corruption, religious war, religious zealotry, etc.
As you know I am not a Bible-hater. I have serious problems with terms like "inerrant" or "infallible" for several reasons. I have no trouble with seeing the Bible as "inspired." No where does the Bible describe itself as inerrant. It says that it is useful for instruction, correction and the like. If you say that the bible is infallible, you a ...[text shortened]... llible creates a situation of idolatry. Why would one even need God if the Bible is infallible?
I did not 'forget' that the Bible contains poetry, literature, etc...however, to say that the Bible is "open" to interpretation is asking its messages to become distorted by individuals who want to twist the Truth to fit their "religion"....why would the Bible become an object of idolatry by saying that it is infallable?...unless one "whorshipped" the Bible instead of the God who inspired it...
Is the Bible 100% correct and should its words be taken literally? I
don't know, but I won't attempt to skew any of its messages to fit into a lifestyle that I would find immoral...God would be the final judge, not me...Peace
Originally posted by chancremechanicHere's the point I think Kirk is making. There are inspired parts of the
I don't understand your logic, Kirksey, in that if God wants us to use the Bible as a guide for living a righteous life, whay would He make it infallible? God cannot make mistakes, so if He inspired the Bible it must be right...right???....
Bible (for example, the parable about the mustard seed), but there are
other parts which are not inspired (like the part where God sends a bear
to maul 42 children because they called Elisha 'Baldy'😉.
Similarly, there are parts of the human experience which are inspired
(like Rosa Parks' standing up for her rights, or the guy who blocked the
tanks at Tiananmen Square).
Or other parts of other Sacred (or Secular) texts which, too, have
revelatory messages.
If God had 'written' the Bible, it would be one thing. But He didn't.
Human experience authored the Bible. Human experience put the
Bible together (the Roman Catholic Bible) and then took it apart
(the Protestant Bible), added to it (Mormon Bible), and reinterpretted
it (Moslem Bible). A lot of it is very beautiful; we should all strive
to benefit from all of the Revelation in all of the texts, even if we
have a preferred one, one which touches us most.
Nemesio
Originally posted by pcaspianOkay, please don't lump all of Protestant belief in with Henry VIII and his divorce problem. Protestant belief started with Luther, Calvin, and all the people who arose during that time to protest the might of the Catholic church.
No, not the case. Whilst I agree with the protestant belief in divorce (should one's partner cheat on him/her), I realise the protestant faith originated from Henry VIII and for the wrong reasons.
[/b]
I am not Xian, but I was raised Lutheran, so I had to take exception to this drivel. Henry VIII. Pshaw!
Originally posted by pcaspianUm. I didn't notice this before. The 'Protestant Faith?' Do you mean the
Whilst I agree with the protestant belief in divorce (should one's partner cheat on him/her), I realise the protestant faith originated from Henry VIII and for the wrong reasons.
Anglican tradition? Surely Luther was being grumpier to the Pope earlier
than Henry? That was the origin of Protestism proper, although there were
many forerunners to the movement which gave Luther's (and subsequently
Henry's) gestures more weight.
Did you mean the Protestant understanding of divorce?
Nemesio
Originally posted by chancremechanicI am open to the possibility that God makes mistakes and is in the process of learning.
I don't understand your logic, Kirksey, in that if God wants us to use the Bible as a guide for living a righteous life, whay would He make it infallible? God cannot make mistakes, so if He inspired the Bible it must be right...right???....now, here's the kicker: fallible man interprets the messages of the Bible and implements them into his prefer ...[text shortened]... to fit into a lifestyle that I would find immoral...God would be the final judge, not me...Peace
Originally posted by rwingettI think you could go to a UU church and talk about separation of church and state, problems with the nature of God, study some Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine and it would " all be good." You might hear a Bible verse now and then but it won't kill you.
I've heard that said before. Tell me more.