Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't see it that way at all. Hedonism could be defined as the pursuit of one's pleasure, or happiness...it all depends on your point of view.
I'll bite. Obviously.
http://www.desiringgod.org/library/what_we_believe/christian_hedonism.html
http://www.christianhedonism.org/
1 edit
These are cute, but they fail to address one of the main problems with just such a premise. Namely, the sin nature's warping of proper standards. If pleasure is to be sought over all else, is the highest good, the highest value God's glory, or my self-fulfillment?
Granted, God's glory is true self-fulfillment, but that must be the highest (and only) value first, in order for there to ever be self-fulfillment.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm saying there's an inconsistency in holding Jesus as Christ/Saviour/Messiah while rejecting the Church. (One can hold to him as a good teacher or Rabbi - but that wouldn't be 'Christian' in the normal sense of that word.)
You're no Christian if you'd reject Christ simply because you couldn't have your Catholicism.
Or are you saying that rejecting Catholicism entails rejecting Christ?
All Christological doctrines shared by Christians have their origins in the teachings of the Church. One can only accept them to be true if one accepts the teaching authority (Magisterium) of the Church. One cannot even turn to the Bible because the New Testament was composed by and for the Church.
One can take up heretical "Christian" viewpoints (Arianism, Gnosticism, Modalism etc.) - but all of these originate in the 2nd cent. AD. If one looks at the Apostolic Christian community in the 1st cent. AD - it is distinctly Catholic (I'm surprised at how many Evangelical and other Protestant pastors convert to Catholicism for precisely this reason).
So, objectively speaking, yes - rejecting Catholicism entails rejecting Christ. Subjectively, however, people can reject Catholicism and remain Christian because they are either unaware or unmindful of the contradictions this entails.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDid you read the links before you replied? I'm not trying to be cute or clever, they might provide answers to your dilemma. Remember, I personally think it's all trite and over-the-top nonsense.
These are cute, but they fail to address one of the main problems with just such a premise. Namely, the sin nature's warping of proper standards. If pleasure is to be sought over all else, is the highest good, the highest value God's glory, or my self-fulfillment?
Granted, God's glory is true self-fulfillment, but that must be the highest (and only) value first, in order for there to ever be self-fulfillment.
Originally posted by lucifershammerOops.
I'm saying there's an inconsistency in holding Jesus as Christ/Saviour/Messiah while rejecting the Church. (One can hold to him as a good teacher or Rabbi - but that wouldn't be 'Christian' in the normal sense of that word.)
All Christological doctrines shared by Christians have their origins in the teachings of the Church. One can only accept them ...[text shortened]... ristian because they are either unaware or unmindful of the contradictions this entails.
Originally posted by David CI did read the various links. The creator of the site strikes me as one who is merely trying to be clever with words. Part of the problem is immediately seen; however, the deeper one goes into such a position, the farther one travels from the given path.
Did you read the links before you replied? I'm not trying to be cute or clever, they might provide answers to your dilemma. Remember, I personally think it's all trite and over-the-top nonsense.
Lies are funny, that way.
Originally posted by lucifershammerGnosticism predates even Christ. You let your popes define your view of Christ and then you argue that since people don't follow your pope's view they don't follow Christ, when in fact it's your pope that they don't follow. AND, last time I checked, none of the popes had arisen as the Christ.
I'm saying there's an inconsistency in holding Jesus as Christ/Saviour/Messiah while rejecting the Church. (One can hold to him as a good teacher or Rabbi - but that wouldn't be 'Christian' in the normal sense of that word.)
All Christological doctrines shared by Christians have their origins in the teachings of the Church. One can only accept them ...[text shortened]... ristian because they are either unaware or unmindful of the contradictions this entails.
Originally posted by frogstompCertainly Gnosticism as a movement may have predated Christ. But one cannot, for obvious reasons, argue that Gnostic Christianity predates Christ. And if one asks when Christ was assimilated in the Gnostic viewpoint, that would, at best, be in the latter stages of the Apostolic era.
Gnosticism predates even Christ.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat an arrogant viewpoint. The New Testament was written by and for the Catholic Church? Give me a break. That's nonsense.
So, objectively speaking, yes - rejecting Catholicism entails rejecting Christ.
You are claiming that, as a matter of fact, all Lutherans and other Protestants who claim to accept Christ are ignorant or deluded, and that they all believe in a contradiction. You are claiming that, as a matter of fact, Lutheranism is an untenable faith.