Does it matter who is more HOLY?

[SpiritMeadow]

I was reading some of the posts on here & find it all quite amusing. I think it’s great that some Christians don’t hate gay people … but I would also say it’s silly to think the bible doesn’t very clearly condemn homosexuality (because it does). I tend to agree with the inference of the OP, looking to historical context (given Paul never uses terms like temple prostitute, and while it may have been a common practice during those days, we’re not really sure & moreover we have no evidence Paul was addressing this practice) is subjective interpretation (in other words the bible could never remain unadulterated and Christians could never have an objective standard of morality under such an interpretation scheme).

I’ll be honest (as is my habit); I think it’s great to see the bible interpreted like this. As we move along we can subjectively interpret everything & there will be no objective standard or generally agreed upon truth in scripture. Then we can look to the only thing that really matters, our practical common sense (and not some fairy tale of an invisible friend).

If one reads the bible without more, it surely speaks against acts we identify as homosexual. However, it is a fallacy to read this bible in this fashion. Unless of course you come from the belief that the bible is somehow different from any other historical writing and the normal menthodology of determining meanings does not apply. If that is your position, then of course, you interpret the bible by what you understand of today’s meanings for words. That is most unfair to the writers who wrote. We should be making every attempt to understand what THEY MEANT, by examining the world as they understood it.

To read simplistically and literally like this is similar to the fundamentalists who claim that there are dinosaurs mentioned the in bible, the H-Bomb and airplanes. Plenty of Christians make that claim. They aren’t right of course, but thinking that somehow Paul understood homosexuality they way we do today, so that we must adher to his on the face statements makes as little sense. As any serious unbiased expert in the field will tell you.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

If one reads the bible without more, it surely speaks against acts we identify as homosexual. However, it is a fallacy to read this bible in this fashion. Unless of course you come from the belief that the bible is somehow different from any other historical writing and the normal menthodology of determining meanings does not apply. If that is your position, then of course, you interpret the bible by what you understand of today’s meanings for words. That is most unfair to the writers who wrote. We should be making every attempt to understand what THEY MEANT, by examining the world as they understood it.

To read simplistically and literally like this is similar to the fundamentalists who claim that there are dinosaurs mentioned the in bible, the H-Bomb and airplanes. Plenty of Christians make that claim. They aren’t right of course, but thinking that somehow Paul understood homosexuality they way we do today, so that we must adher to his on the face statements makes as little sense. As any serious unbiased expert in the field will tell you.

Well, I guess I should first note that I don’t read the bible anymore. However, be that as it may you seem like a nice enough person (who doesn’t want to hate anyone, which must be challenging as a Christian).

I do see your point about understanding scripture in a figurative sense (that’s probably how much of it was intended to be understood); but that seems like a weak argument with regard to homosexuality (or sexual immorality in general). The proscriptions against homosexuality (that I’ve read when I was a Christian) are abundantly clear (and from an unbiased standpoint I’m sorry to say your argument just doesn’t seem very reasonable).

Imagine, there’s this god who you guys believe created everyone. He must have created men who were predisposed to be pedophiles just as he created those genetically predisposed toward homosexuality. Moreover, under the express language of scripture he did this knowingly (it wasn’t just random biological mutations or some genetic aberration caused perhaps by poor prenatal care or whatever). As it is written in scripture your god created the wicked for destruction. What a guy (or perhaps what an insane poet to write such a thing)?

Sorry for the cynicism (but what can I say … I don’t have a taste for religion & in fact I view it as irrational and somewhat dangerous to humanity). At any rate … we might reasonably guess that Paul didn’t understand homosexuality as we do today, but obviously the way we understand homosexuality today is only because of increased tolerance (unlike the world Paul lived in). In other words contemporary homosexuality evolved from those very people Paul was writing about and against. It evolved because we became tolerant, which allowed those who are inherently gay to “come out of the closet” if you will; and lead gay lives (unlike the world of Paul). So we’re really right back to the starting block. Paul was writing against homosexuality. In fact we can be sure that he would be even more appalled by mass social tolerance of the gay lifestyle (Paul was extremely conservative by all the indications we have).

The gay lifestyle evolved. Back in those days Paul was writing against gay sex (that’s it as far as we can reasonably discern). However, to say you can be gay but you just can’t have gay sex would be I’m sure a deal breaker for gay people (I suppose what would be the point right … as a heterosexual I wouldn’t see much point in branding myself according to a sexual preference if I couldn’t have sex & I imagine gay people would take a similar view). So with respect IMO you’re just wrong on this one.

I hate to say this because you seem like one of the nicest people on this board; so please understand I disagree with your view in the most respectful way.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Well, I guess I should first note that I don’t read the bible anymore. However, be that as it may you seem like a nice enough person (who doesn’t want to hate anyone, which must be challenging as a Christian).

I don’t know what tradition you were familiar with, but I can surely tell you that mine doesn’t make it a challenge not to hate anyone. But then we don’t get all tangled in “love the sinner, hate the sin” either.

I

do see your point about understanding scripture in a figurative sense (that’s probably how much of it was intended to be understood); but that seems like a weak argument with regard to homosexuality (or sexual immorality in general). The proscriptions against homosexuality (that I’ve read when I was a Christian) are abundantly clear (and from an unbiased standpoint I’m sorry to say your argument just doesn’t seem very reasonable).

again, you are reading the words and placing your definition on them. In the world of Paul, there was no understanding that people were born that way. It was thought to be either–a pagan temple practice, an against nature feminizing of the male, thus giving up male power and acting “womanish” or was a power relationship involving men and boys. It was uniformly thought that such was the result of rampant passion unbridled and uncontrolled. Paul actual refers to this a number of times. It was never understood to be a thing one was born to be. It was not thought of as a loving, upholding practice, but only in the three ways explained above. So the words themselves, don’t mean what we would understand today as the norm. As I said early, the practices Paul was familiar with, most anyone would decry today as well.

Imagine, there’s this god who you guys believe created everyone. He must have created men who were predisposed to be pedophiles just as he created those genetically predisposed toward homosexuality. Moreover, under the express language of scripture he did this knowingly (it wasn’t just random biological mutations or some genetic aberration caused perhaps by poor prenatal care or whatever). As it is written in scripture your god created the wicked for destruction. What a guy (or perhaps what an insane poet to write such a thing)?

That is not a theological construct held by all Christians by a long shot. I don’t believe that God creates homosexuals or pedophiles or mass murderers. Genetics and life experiences create a personality, albeit that personality is infused with the Spirit of God, so I believe. Again, you are reading literally, and that is usually a wrong thing to do. If you are reading Plato or Aristotle, you would make similar errors. Words are best attempts and often quite faulty in explaining meaning of centuries ago. And moreover, those of us who believe the bible inspired, believe the writers wrote truth as they best understood it. Thus Genesis doesn’t truly explain how the universe was created, nor Noah and ark relate to a real happening, and based on science, there is no real possibility of an actual Adam and Eve. We take these as figurative, and as attempts by more primative people to explain God as they understood.

the way we understand homosexuality today is only because of increased tolerance (unlike the world Paul lived in). In other words contemporary homosexuality evolved from those very people Paul was writing about and against. It evolved because we became tolerant, which allowed those who are inherently gay to “come out of the closet” if you will; and lead gay lives (unlike the world of Paul). So we’re really right back to the starting block. Paul was writing against homosexuality. In fact we can be sure that he would be even more appalled by mass social tolerance of the gay lifestyle (Paul was extremely conservative by all the indications we have).

I would disagree. We became tolerate when we learned the true nature of homosexuality, its origins and that such people are no different in any way that anyone else. They love, live and love God equally to every straight person. I have no reason whatsoever to think that Paul would feel the same today. I would note that you may be relying on some books attributed to Paul as well, and there is much reason to believe that some of the NT books were not written by him at all, but were written by others attempting to expand Paul’s teachings to new situations in a manner they believed would be what he would have said. When Paul says that all are alike, men, women, slave, free, etc, that is not conservative, nor was his stance that Gentiles need not adhere to Jewish practices. I most certainly disagree that Paul was conservative.

However, to say you can be gay but you just can’t have gay sex would be I’m sure a deal breaker for gay people (I suppose what would be the point right … as a heterosexual I wouldn’t see much point in branding myself according to a sexual preference if I couldn’t have sex & I imagine gay people would take a similar view). So with respect IMO you’re just wrong on this one.

What am I wrong on? I don’t see you point here at all.

hate to say this because you seem like one of the nicest people on this board; so please understand I disagree with your view in the most respectful way.

No offense taken, there are precious few who can talk without being nasty here.I appreciate sincere dialog without all the denomination promotion. LOL. Since you have none, I guess we don’t have that problem!

 

[humble_in_doubt]

again, you are reading the words and placing your definition on them. In the world of Paul, there was no understanding that people were born that way. It was thought to be either–a pagan temple practice, an against nature feminizing of the male, thus giving up male power and acting “womanish” or was a power relationship involving men and boys. It was uniformly thought that such was the result of rampant passion unbridled and uncontrolled. Paul actual refers to this a number of times. It was never understood to be a thing one was born to be. It was not thought of as a loving, upholding practice, but only in the three ways explained above. So the words themselves, don’t mean what we would understand today as the norm. As I said early, the practices Paul was familiar with, most anyone would decry today as well.

I agree with you that Paul probably had no idea that people are born (at least in some cases) gay. I’m not sure how far science has gone in proving this notion; but I do know a genetic nexus has been found at least in many cases (though not all). Obviously I’m not a biologists so I can’t speak with any degree of authority on this; but I personally have no problem thinking it’s genetic in many if not most cases (there’s probably also other factors, but I’m not a shrink either so I have no clue).

What I’m saying is either Christians view scripture as divinely inspired or not. The commonly held notion is that scripture is infallible (at least insofar as the message its conveying, whether or not a certain passage or collection of passages is meant to be understood figuratively or literally). In other words as far as I know (and I’m pretty sure I’m right here) there is a distinction between literalism and the idea of infallibility.

Some Christian sects may supplant or add in tradition as an additional infallible source of doctrine (of course since some traditions, particularly Catholic traditions like Jesus’ hand print is on a particular outer church wall and other similar traditions have been proven wrong by simple carbon dating, it seems absurd to buy into that notion). Moreover, we know for a fact that the first six chapters of Genesis is not literal (since we know the earth is around 4 billion years old, the universe around 14 billion, and man has been around for millions of years, not merely 6,000). In addition, of course evolution is generally accepted as scientific fact.

So what is it then? If you view scripture as divinely inspired (even though some parts must be viewed as figurative) it shouldn’t matter what Paul’s understanding of homosexuality was (logically speaking anyway). If God told Paul it is sinful conduct then Paul merely relayed the message (it’s not necessary that God also explained human genetics to Paul).

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I agree with you that Paul probably had no idea that people are born (at least in some cases) gay. I’m not sure how far science has gone in proving this notion; but I do know a genetic nexus has been found at least in many cases (though not all). Obviously I’m not a biologists so I can’t speak with any degree of authority on this; but I personally have no problem thinking it’s genetic in many if not most cases (there’s probably also other factors, but I’m not a shrink either so I have no clue).

What I’m saying is either Christians view scripture as divinely inspired or not. The commonly held notion is that scripture is infallible (at least insofar as the message its conveying, whether or not a certain passage or collection of passages is meant to be understood figuratively or literally). In other words as far as I know (and I’m pretty sure I’m right here) there is a distinction between literalism and the idea of infallibility.

Some Christian sects may supplant or add in tradition as an additional infallible source of doctrine (of course since some traditions, particularly Catholic traditions like Jesus’ hand print is on a particular outer church wall and other similar traditions have been proven wrong by simple carbon dating, it seems absurd to buy into that notion). Moreover, we know for a fact that the first six chapters of Genesis is not literal (since we know the earth is around 4 billion years old, the universe around 14 billion, and man has been around for millions of years, not merely 6,000). In addition, of course evolution is generally accepted as scientific fact.

So what is it then? If you view scripture as divinely inspired (even though some parts must be viewed as figurative) it shouldn’t matter what Paul’s understanding of homosexuality was (logically speaking anyway). If God told Paul it is sinful conduct then Paul merely relayed the message (it’s not necessary that God also explained human genetics to Paul).

I guess we disgree on what inspired means. I take it to mean that each writer wrote what he believed to be true, from eye witness, from what was related to him by an EW, what he received in a “vision”, or what was commonly the “lore”, the unwritten oral tradition if you will. As to the Gospels, this led the writer to believe a certain thing about Jesus. Each Gospel writer believed a bit differently as we so clearly see, and was addressing a different audience. (I’m not attempting to speak slowly, I know you have a fair knowledge of what I am saying, but I’m merely laying out my argument logically.)

Each Gospel writer attempted to lay out his vision of Christ, using the materials at hand. He believed fully in what he wrote, but I can easily see that some stories were “pumped” up a bit to make a point, or reduced to do the same. Some were left out. John for instance relates stories about Jesus known apparently to no one else oftentimes.

The end result was they are not histories,not in the manner that we would demand today. They were documents attempting to convince others to believe as the writer did.

The letters of Paul are another matter. They are usually, but not always, addressed to believing communities he started. In most cases, he relates that he was told directly by Jesus what he teaches, but in most cases he is always taking that teaching and expanding it to deal with issues beyond the teaching. People are not all on the same page, others, reading perhaps other writings, are teaching other things. His teaching on women in Corinthians is vastly different than that of Timothy, and most don’t think Timothy was written by Paul at all. His earlier writings are not as theologically strong as his later ones, and that would be as would be expected. His theology, evolved as he used it, taught it and meditated upon it.

Paul, I would argue is less important that the Gospel writers, since it appears that they had something close to evidence that was commonly circulated among the believers, and we can assume some correctness in what Jesus actually said. Paul makes no such claim of course of meeting Jesus when alive, and never speaks directly to how he encountered Jesus as resurrected. Other than on the road to Damascus, and his own version is not quite the same as that of Acts.

Still Paul, and any NT writer is important because they are as close to the time as we can get. Their opinions are impacted by the earliest “christians” and we trust that they are trying to expand that learning to new issues in a way that is closest to the original understanding about Jesus.

I’m saying this poorly no doubt. Inspired means (trying to tell the truth, open to the Holy Spirit’s guidance). It doesn’t mean to me that they were necessarily in possession of all the facts needed to state it correctly. Still they remain wonderful examples of being a believer in the teachings of one Jesus Christ, risen Lord. We can learn much. As we try to apply them to today, we can do that best BY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY RELATED TO AND MEANT THEN. (I’m not shouting, but making a strong point.!)

BTW, I am thoroughly enjoying your posts on other threads. Some have grown weary of me, and have stopped responding, but I’m still reading them! LOL.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

I guess we disgree on what inspired means. I take it to mean that each writer wrote what he believed to be true, from eye witness, from what was related to him by an EW, what he received in a “vision”, or what was commonly the “lore”, the unwritten oral tradition if you will. As to the Gospels, this led the writer to believe a certain thing about Jesus. Each Gospel writer believed a bit differently as we so clearly see, and was addressing a different audience. (I’m not attempting to speak slowly, I know you have a fair knowledge of what I am saying, but I’m merely laying out my argument logically.)

Each Gospel writer attempted to lay out his vision of Christ, using the materials at hand. He believed fully in what he wrote, but I can easily see that some stories were “pumped” up a bit to make a point, or reduced to do the same. Some were left out. John for instance relates stories about Jesus known apparently to no one else oftentimes.

First let me say I fully agree, this is in fact what happened, but I’m not Christian so I can agree with you. I do think each gospel writer recorded a collection of what they heard and came to believe. None of it was inspired by any invisible god, but rather it is simply a collection of myths. The synoptic gospels all have a certain degree of continuum (since most scholars these days agree Mark probably wrote the gospel that Luke & Matthew used to write theirs).

However, you also have to realize your view is a radical departure from historical Christianity. The view has always been that scripture is infallible. Even the Catholics believe this (though they add that their tradition is also infallible). Even historical Anglicanism took this view (and was formerly very Calvinist in its understanding of scripture). However, the advent of Arminian soteriology threw Christianity in a new direction, one far more liberal and much more willing to redefine the meaning of divine inspiration than reformed protestantism ever was (IMO John Calvin’s Geneva and the American Puritans, also Calvinists, were the most conservative Christians in history).

Even most Catholics today are in accord with moderate mainline protestants. These are the facts, and I would simply say that modern Christianity (whether Catholicism or most other denominations) rails against scripture to the point where it’s almost become meaningless (nothing more than a collection of moral and subjective suggestions). As Nietzsche said … God is dead.

The letters of Paul are another matter. They are usually, but not always, addressed to believing communities he started. In most cases, he relates that he was told directly by Jesus what he teaches, but in most cases he is always taking that teaching and expanding it to deal with issues beyond the teaching. People are not all on the same page, others, reading perhaps other writings, are teaching other things. His teaching on women in Corinthians is vastly different than that of Timothy, and most don’t think Timothy was written by Paul at all. His earlier writings are not as theologically strong as his later ones, and that would be as would be expected. His theology, evolved as he used it, taught it and meditated upon it.

very nice explanation & I guess if I were to be a Christian I would agree with you. It’s funny the two groups that seem to dislike each other the most (the real conservative Presbyterian types & the Catholics) have more in common than they would ever admit. They both would find your view utterly heretical. That is, from what you say here, you do not think everything was divinely inspired, you think in some cases Paul was just writing what Paul believed. Both Catholics and conservative reformed protestants would say the Holy Spirit ensured that what was divinely inspired was preserved, and everything else was either lost or not canonized.

Paul, I would argue is less important that the Gospel writers, since it appears that they had something close to evidence that was commonly circulated among the believers, and we can assume some correctness in what Jesus actually said. Paul makes no such claim of course of meeting Jesus when alive, and never speaks directly to how he encountered Jesus as resurrected. Other than on the road to Damascus, and his own version is not quite the same as that of Acts.

Paul does state that Jesus told him many things, and in fact Peter affirms that the writings of Paul carry the divine weight of scripture. Like I said before I agree with you, but not for the reasons that would affirm your view among Christians.

I’m saying this poorly no doubt. Inspired means (trying to tell the truth, open to the Holy Spirit’s guidance). It doesn’t mean to me that they were necessarily in possession of all the facts needed to state it correctly. Still they remain wonderful examples of being a believer in the teachings of one Jesus Christ, risen Lord. We can learn much. As we try to apply them to today, we can do that best BY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THEY RELATED TO AND MEANT THEN. (I’m not shouting, but making a strong point.!)

no worries … I’m never shouting when I use all caps either At any rate, again this is a radical departure from historical Christianity (and Paul, Peter, and the gospel writers all in their own way say that it is the word of God they are conveying … so you have to understand yours is a hard pill for most Christians to swallow).

BTW, I am thoroughly enjoying your posts on other threads. Some have grown weary of me, and have stopped responding, but I’m still reading them! LOL.

I guess I’m a real tolerant guy, but with plenty of faults (though none that I feel the need to think of myself as some worthless perpetual and hopeless sinner ).

 

[SpiritMeadow]

First let me say I fully agree, this is in fact what happened, but I’m not Christian so I can agree with you. I do think each gospel writer recorded a collection of what they heard and came to believe. None of it was inspired by any invisible god, but rather it is simply a collection of myths. The synoptic gospels all have a certain degree of continuum (since most scholars these days agree Mark probably wrote the gospel that Luke & Matthew used to write theirs).

I fully agree that Mark was written first and was used by both Luke and Matthew.

However, you also have to realize your view is a radical departure from historical Christianity. The view has always been that scripture is infallible… . . .I would simply say that modern Christianity (whether Catholicism or most other denominations) rails against scripture to the point where it’s almost become meaningless (nothing more than a collection of moral and subjective suggestions). As Nietzsche said … God is dead.

I’m always a bit amused when I’m called radical in my view of scripture. I converted to Roman Catholicism and then went on to a Master’s Program in anticipation of entering the Dominican Order. I was taught by a priest (professor from the local seminary) and a 2 nuns. The first two had doctorates in systematic theology from Brussels, and the third had a doctorate from the US. They are the ones who taught me to do biblical research and exegesis along these lines, and all were among the most faithfully loving people I have known. They love for God and scripture was awe inspiring. They introduced me to Liberation theology, feminist theology, and the work being done to discover the historical Jesus. Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Sobrino, and a plethora of others were required reading as were standards by Rahner and Moltmann and the usual mainline theologians.

If anything my faith is increased by what I have learned. I am more amazed at the talents of the gospel writers, whomever they might be, and more humbled by the deep faith held by the early followers of Jesus. Others I know, have fallen away via this exercise in truth searching, but for me, it has given me a should I say mature faith.

very nice explanation & I guess if I were to be a Christian I would agree with you. It’s funny the two groups that seem to dislike each other the most (the real conservative Presbyterian types & the Catholics) have more in common than they would ever admit. They both would find your view utterly heretical. That is, from what you say here, you do not think everything was divinely inspired, you think in some cases Paul was just writing what Paul believed. Both Catholics and conservative reformed protestants would say the Holy Spirit ensured that what was divinely inspired was preserved, and everything else was either lost or not canonized.

Paul actually said that at one point. He prefaced what he said, saying “this was not from God, but is my own…” I suspect Paul might have been down right appalled to learn that his letters were held as scripture years later. I’m sure he would want to rewrite and edit all of them! As I said, I believe the HS within Paul made him write as he truly believed with no ulterior motive of any kind. Beyond that, I will not go. There is too much contradition across books and authors for me to believe that somehow all this can be reconciled into one coherent picture. Those who attempt to conflate gospels for a “complete” picture are I think barking up the wrong tree. Similarly, there are contradictions between Luke’s take on Paul than Pauls words of himself in the various letters.

Paul does state that Jesus told him many things, and in fact Peter affirms that the writings of Paul carry the divine weight of scripture. Like I said before I agree with you, but not for the reasons that would affirm your view among Christians.

Is that from the letters of Peter?

no worries … I’m never shouting when I use all caps either At any rate, again this is a radical departure from historical Christianity (and Paul, Peter, and the gospel writers all in their own way say that it is the word of God they are conveying … so you have to understand yours is a hard pill for most Christians to swallow).

Again, it’s not unusual where I come from. lol. It wasn’t unusual as a student and not now as a parishoner in an Episcopal setting. We have bible study almost every week, and nobody has fallen off their chair in horror yet, actually I’ve been asked to help teach classes…lol…(actually we "facilitate, rather than “teach” ) but I agree to the fundamentalist, I am heretical, but then they are fundamentalists, and even the Vatican claims that to be error, though most here are pretty darn close to that model. An issue I suspect has more to do with the fact that a good many are converts from fundamentalist Christian churches, and bring it with them.

I guess I’m a real tolerant guy, but with plenty of faults (though none that I feel the need to think of myself as some worthless perpetual and hopeless sinner ).

We all sin, but God I believe chooses to see our goodness, uphold that, and draw us ever more to that way of behaving. He seems to do well with a lot of “atheists” even without their knowledge, since most of those I know are highly moral beings.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Humble in doubt, I asked you 3 times why you think Calvin had the best translation of Scripture, yet you refuse to answer me. Do you know the answer? It is your own signature. i will not ask again, for I will know the answer when you don’t respond…waiting…:coffeeread:

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Humble in doubt, I asked you 3 times why you think Calvin had the best translation of Scripture, yet you refuse to answer me. Do you know the answer? It is your own signature. i will not ask again, for I will know the answer when you don’t respond…waiting…:coffeeread:

sorry about that … I honestly didn’t catch the question. At any rate, in my years of studying theology, growing up Catholic, and studying Arminian, Catholic (from Martyr to Aquinas), Luther, and Calvinist theology … I do think Calvin provided the most accurate depiction of scripture.

For instance, scripture tells us that nothing about us, no particular character trait, no amount of works, nothing whatsoever … influenced God’s decision (i.e. election or predestination). Yet every other theological system (save Calvin and Luther) insists on the idea of foreseen faith (which is impossible given the very clear language indicating monergistic salvation).

It seems very clear to me that the ideas expressed regarding works (such as in the book of James) must be understood as a witness to salvation (and God’s work in His elect) rather than any sort of merit and reward system that the CC imagines it to mean (which is utterly inconsistent with almost everything both Paul and John said). This doesn’t mean we lack free will or there isn’t intellectual assent or work on the part of the Christian once he or she realizes they are saved. What it does mean, according to scripture, is that God is behind it all (he shapes or forms His elect i.e. potter clay analogy used by both Paul and Isaiah).

No one can tell me CC theology is consistent with scripture. Since I’m no longer Catholic (but have a serious background in theology) I no longer feel the need to apologize for the CC (which frankly I did mostly because it was the church I grew up in & probably also because all the hostility between Protestants and Catholics tends to harden people in their respective positions … regardless of how right or wrong they are).

At any rate there’s my explanation. Not something I really wish to debate (since it doesn’t really concern me anymore … frankly as far as I’m concerned you guys can fight it out among yourselves & best of luck to yah).

On a side note I do know the CC has entered into some sort of agreement on justification with the Lutherans, yet they still quibble about what that agreement stands for. Gee wiz, you guys (but the CC & Lutherans) can’t even agree on your agreement (like a bunch of school yard kids)? Moreover, in all my posts and challenges to Christians I’ve yet to have anyone tell me the one best thing about Christianity … FORGIVENESS.

Man … if I were to be Christian why would I possibly want to be Catholic again; when you guys can’t even intuitively come up with the one saving grace of your religion? Forgiveness should be one of the first things the Christian apologist raises when defending his or her religion, yet in the dozens of explanations I’ve heard (telling what’s so great about your religion) the word forgiveness wasn’t mentioned … not even once? Go back and look at every single thread I’ve participated in … and happy searching!

 

[bbarrick8383]

Why do you have so many years and so much knowledge of studying a “fairy tale” about an “invisible friend”?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Paul actually said that at one point. He prefaced what he said, saying “this was not from God, but is my own…” I suspect Paul might have been down right appalled to learn that his letters were held as scripture years later. I’m sure he would want to rewrite and edit all of them! As I said, I believe the HS within Paul made him write as he truly believed with no ulterior motive of any kind. Beyond that, I will not go. There is too much contradition across books and authors for me to believe that somehow all this can be reconciled into one coherent picture. Those who attempt to conflate gospels for a “complete” picture are I think barking up the wrong tree. Similarly, there are contradictions between Luke’s take on Paul than Pauls words of himself in the various letters.

yes … but only in one single instance (and given Paul’s language elsewhere there’s no reason to believe that those words can be broadly applied, or applied to any other passage for that matter).

Is that from the letters of Peter?

yes

We all sin, but God I believe chooses to see our goodness, uphold that, and draw us ever more to that way of behaving. He seems to do well with a lot of “atheists” even without their knowledge, since most of those I know are highly moral beings.

again … this doesn’t sound like the gospel I read in all my years of being Christian (and as a serious student of theology & btw I also have a couple of masters degrees ). However, I also think hating any group of people for who they naturally are is just mean spirited and wrong (but again Paul wasn’t the flaky kumbya guy you seem to be making him out to be … he was in most cases very conservative, dogmatic, and harsh, even kicking some people out of the church).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Why do you have so many years and so much knowledge of studying a “fairy tale” about an “invisible friend”?

the answer to this should be apparent enough? Obviously at one time I was a serious Christian (Roman Catholic). I was an alter boy (no I never had a bad experience with a priest), went to Catholic colleges, the whole bit. Now I think it’s nonsense … pretty much end of story!

 

[bbarrick8383]

the answer to this should be apparent enough? Obviously at one time I was a serious Christian (Roman Catholic). I was an alter boy (no I never had a bad experience with a priest), went to Catholic colleges, the whole bit. Now I think it’s nonsense … pretty much end of story!

Yea, I kind of figured that. You just sound like you have a chip on your shoulder I guess. Must be all that wasted time playing with your invisible friend.

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

the answer to this should be apparent enough? Obviously at one time I was a serious Christian (Roman Catholic). I was an alter boy (no I never had a bad experience with a priest), went to Catholic colleges, the whole bit. Now I think it’s nonsense … pretty much end of story!

Humble in Doubt (it should be Humble in denial), if you truly were a “good” Roman Catholic, you’d still be one if you understood just what the Scriptures say. To claim you have “years” of studying theology, yet the best you can do is say the CC is wrong and Calvin is right, well, I doubt (as in your name), you have any knowledge of the church established from Jesus Himself.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

yes … but only in one single instance (and given Paul’s language elsewhere there’s no reason to believe that those words can be broadly applied, or applied to any other passage for that matter).

probably true.

again … this doesn’t sound like the gospel I read in all my years of being Christian (and as a serious student of theology & btw I also have a couple of masters degrees ). However, I also think hating any group of people for who they naturally are is just mean spirited and wrong (but again Paul wasn’t the flaky kumbya guy you seem to be making him out to be … he was in most cases very conservative, dogmatic, and harsh, even kicking some people out of the church).

It was not what I was taught either frankly in one respect. Paul was always highly criticized, expecially by the nuns. He was put down as frankly a sexist brute. I’m reading some softer analysis of him now, that is giving me a bit of a different perspective. Read as a man of his times, he is a bit lighter I think. And cutting out all the texts that I have come to believe weren’t written by him helps! LOL…

I must say its very refreshing to have a calm, friendly conversation with someone here without all the rancor. I’d be very sad to conclude that it can’t happen between ardent believers. I’ve had a couple but not many. Defense has turned to attack in all too many instances. Such serves of course no church at all, but serves to turn people away, hardly anyone’s desire.

 

[madabkr4tx]

I frequently hear Catholics and different Protestant groups quibble about who is more holier than the other. Certainly some Protestant groups (i.e. so called mainline Protestants such as Episcopalians, and other liberal older denominations) have veered so far off track they’ve now began to redefine sin. However, the bickering usually goes on between Evangelical Protestants, Baptists, conservative older denominations (such as Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.), and Catholics.

The contest revolves around holiness. Catholics usually charge Protestants with straying from a focus on avoiding sin, while conservative Protestant groups (who are arguably just as if not more holy than Catholics) counter with similar charges. However, it seems to me if this is the basis for who has the better church … then wouldn’t Muslims, Mormons, or JW’s win the day? Perhaps the Amish might be the real McCoy (while Catholics and regular conservative protestants are sliding into the abyss).

Or is it pharisaic to base our validity on such shaky & “humanistic” grounds?

Only Jesus Christ was HOLY. The rest of us are only poor sinners in HIS loving care.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Only Jesus Christ was HOLY. The rest of us are only poor sinners in HIS loving care.

speak for yourself … I’m perfect, when I say perfect I mean I like me as I am & any improvements over the course of time simply balances out the aging process (you guys can be poor, depraved, worthless, and spiritually discerned saps if you want to, just leave those of use with common sense out of it)

I know … I’m such a troll?

 

[ufamtobie]

I frequently hear Catholics and different Protestant groups quibble about who is more holier than the other. Certainly some Protestant groups (i.e. so called mainline Protestants such as Episcopalians, and other liberal older denominations) have veered so far off track they’ve now began to redefine sin. However, the bickering usually goes on between Evangelical Protestants, Baptists, conservative older denominations (such as Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.), and Catholics.

The contest revolves around holiness. Catholics usually charge Protestants with straying from a focus on avoiding sin, while conservative Protestant groups (who are arguably just as if not more holy than Catholics) counter with similar charges. However, it seems to me if this is the basis for who has the better church … then wouldn’t Muslims, Mormons, or JW’s win the day? Perhaps the Amish might be the real McCoy (while Catholics and regular conservative protestants are sliding into the abyss).

Orange man,

Even God, finds a person more Holy than another or more Graced by HIM than another, in this world.

As it is in heaven, there are diferent levels for the holier, just like there are diferent levels in hell, for the sinners and the worse of Sinners.

Surely you and I won’t have the seat of St. Peter judging one of the 12 tribes of Isreal. Just as long as we do the will of God that he has given us through his grace to do wether it is to be the Greatest saint in Heaven or Just made it to heaven, by the skin of our teeth. Amen:thumbsup:

Mark 10:35-40 And James and John the sons of Zebedee, come to him, saying: Master, we desire that whatsoever we shall ask, thou wouldst do it for us: 36 But he said to them: What would you that I should do for you? 37 And they said: Grant to us, that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. 38 And Jesus said to them: You know not what you ask. Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of: or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized? 39 But they said to him: We can. And Jesus saith to them: You shall indeed drink of the chalice that I drink of: and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized, you shall be baptized. 40 But to sit on my right hand, or on my left, is not mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared.

Orage man,“BUT TO THEM FOR WHOM IT IS PREPARED.” The Above Bible verse should tell you there are diferent levels of holyness in heaven just like there is on earth. And as you know it is God who makes a man or woman holy by His Graces given to them for we are selves can’t do nothing Good! And how can Martin Luther do any better/good than the Church that existed before the Protestant reformation. Amen for no man can do good

Orangman, As for the Better Church, Put it this way, if you were very ill/sin and did not no where to turn and wanted to get well, which would you prefer the Original Name Brand Church that has over 2000 years of history that has all the fulness Ingedients of Grace or would you prefer the Generic brand that started 500 years ago/reformation without the fulness of HISTORY without the fullness of Grace?

The Protestant Reformation tells Jesus Christ that he was wrong, and tells Jesus Christ that the Gates of Hell prevailed over his Church and that mere human such as Luther wanted to do his own Church a man made church/generic. The Truth is that the "Gates of Hell never prevailed over the Church, for the Original Brand STILL STANDS! But the Protestants are good people however without the Fullnes of Grace like the Name Brand Church/Catholic, However God still uses these Protestants churches and they are saved. The Protestant Church, Jesus Did not want to happen, but it did, like a pregnant woman, who has concieved without being married, is wrong/sin, but yet, God makes something, come out good of that sin, and a BABY IS BORN.

Ufamtoie

 

[josie_L]

I frequently hear Catholics and different Protestant groups quibble about who is more holier than the other. Certainly some Protestant groups (i.e. so called mainline Protestants such as Episcopalians, and other liberal older denominations) have veered so far off track they’ve now began to redefine sin. However, the bickering usually goes on between Evangelical Protestants, Baptists, conservative older denominations (such as Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.), and Catholics.

The contest revolves around holiness. Catholics usually charge Protestants with straying from a focus on avoiding sin, while conservative Protestant groups (who are arguably just as if not more holy than Catholics) counter with similar charges. However, it seems to me if this is the basis for who has the better church … then wouldn’t Muslims, Mormons, or JW’s win the day? Perhaps the Amish might be the real McCoy (while Catholics and regular conservative protestants are sliding into the abyss).

Or is it pharisaic to base our validity on such shaky & “humanistic” grounds?

Actually, the quibble should not be about who is holier, but rather who is holy, one, catholic, apostolic, so has to know who or what Church was being refered to in the Nicene Creed? Is your Church or denomination literally the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” Church that the writers of the Nicene Creed were a part of?

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

Actually, the quibble should not be about who is holier, but rather who is holy, one, catholic, apostolic, so has to know who or what Church was being refered to in the Nicene Creed? Is your Church or denomination literally the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” Church that the writers of the Nicene Creed were a part of?

Yes, just how do non-Catholics feel when they MUST recite this prayer taken from the earliest of churches.